eFish
New member
It has IS (image stabiliation) and L lens.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Difference between L glass and plain ole glass
- Thread starter Bram Stoker
- Start date
Perhaps, but that Zebra shot was roughly 250mm so I wouldn't call that 'close'.
ChrisKrueger
Veteran Member
Could you misread my statement ANY more?
Did I say there's no difference between a 70-200/2.8L and a 80-200/4-5.6? NO. What I said was that "L" is a marketing term. Canon tacks the letter "L" onto the end of many of their highest quality (or at least most expensive, cough*28-300*cough ) so well-heeled amateurs will know what lenses to buy to "shoot like a pro". Look at all the "I'm only buying L" zombies and then look at images taken with a mere 50/1.8 and you'll see that "L" is just something to make photographers wet themselves with envy.
I guarantee you that if Canon revised the 70-200/2.8L IS and simply removed the "L" and dropped the price $200, no professional would give a rat's @ss.
Equipment in profile
Did I say there's no difference between a 70-200/2.8L and a 80-200/4-5.6? NO. What I said was that "L" is a marketing term. Canon tacks the letter "L" onto the end of many of their highest quality (or at least most expensive, cough*28-300*cough ) so well-heeled amateurs will know what lenses to buy to "shoot like a pro". Look at all the "I'm only buying L" zombies and then look at images taken with a mere 50/1.8 and you'll see that "L" is just something to make photographers wet themselves with envy.
I guarantee you that if Canon revised the 70-200/2.8L IS and simply removed the "L" and dropped the price $200, no professional would give a rat's @ss.
--
Equipment in profile
ChrisKrueger
Veteran Member
Do you need weather sealing? Do you need a bomb-proof lens body? Or do you need a tool that will make you FEEL like a professional?
--
Equipment in profile
ChrisKrueger
Veteran Member
Sure, the 70-200/4L is a great lens. But did you shoot it against a Sigma 70-200/2.8? The Tamron 70-300 is really not a fair comparison. The two lenses are built for a totally different purpose, and at a totally different price point.
You could just as easily praise EX lenses by comparing a 70-200/2.8 EX or 50-500 to a Canon 75-300. Which would be equally silly.
--
Equipment in profile
You could just as easily praise EX lenses by comparing a 70-200/2.8 EX or 50-500 to a Canon 75-300. Which would be equally silly.
--
Equipment in profile
Bram Stoker
Forum Enthusiast
I don't think the comparison is silly at all. My main point is that the L lens is great. Also, I am new to photography and thought initially that there could not be a substantial difference in lenses. I was way wrong. The lenses you mentioned are good as well. Comparing a 2.8 to a 4 is silly though.
Bram Stoker
Forum Enthusiast
So, I guess the reviewers are mostly wrong then. Looking through reviews of the L lenses by canon, there aren't many negative comments from the reviewers. There must be something to the L besides just being a marketing term.
ChrisKrueger
Veteran Member
The shots you posted would not have looked any different at f/2.8 than f/4.
--
Equipment in profile
--
Equipment in profile
ChrisKrueger
Veteran Member
So what is it, then? Magic glass? Hampster-powered AF motors?
And what about lenses like the 10-22, 50/1.4, 60/2.8, 85/1.8, and 100/2.8? These lenses are as good as any L lens out there, but they don't wear the tag.
This is Canon marketing is doing its job. They have found an ingenous way to position lenses at different strata, and with halo lenses like the 70-200/2.8IS and 300/2.8, they have created a brand people WANT, regardless of need. (I won't debate need... I sure don't NEED any of my equipment!)
This is the same thing companies like Honda have done. Create a premium brand (Acura) and rebrand your base vehicles (ie: Accord-> TSX). Tack a couple extra features on, and jack the price way up. You retain your mainstream customer base, but add a more "discriminating" buyer.
My point is, an "L" or an "Acura" is not inherently better than an "EX" or a "Honda". It's all positioning.
--
Equipment in profile
And what about lenses like the 10-22, 50/1.4, 60/2.8, 85/1.8, and 100/2.8? These lenses are as good as any L lens out there, but they don't wear the tag.
This is Canon marketing is doing its job. They have found an ingenous way to position lenses at different strata, and with halo lenses like the 70-200/2.8IS and 300/2.8, they have created a brand people WANT, regardless of need. (I won't debate need... I sure don't NEED any of my equipment!)
This is the same thing companies like Honda have done. Create a premium brand (Acura) and rebrand your base vehicles (ie: Accord-> TSX). Tack a couple extra features on, and jack the price way up. You retain your mainstream customer base, but add a more "discriminating" buyer.
My point is, an "L" or an "Acura" is not inherently better than an "EX" or a "Honda". It's all positioning.
--
Equipment in profile
Bram Stoker
Forum Enthusiast
Whatever you think is fine. I am going to enjoy my new L lens and look forward to purchasing another L lens soon. Agrue your point with someone else.
Tony McArthur
Well-known member
well that would explain the weight, those damn hampsters but i dont imagine that their beedy little eyes are really that good for fucusing, little slow i would say.
i do have to aggree that the term "L" is just put onto the top range lenses but you do after all need something to identify the difference between prosumer and consumer lenses dont you? Ultimatly in the end, people are going to buy what they can afford, like this gentleman, he bought a 70 - 200 F/4 L lens which is an exceptional lens for the price you pay for it. if its inside the budget, why not??
why do people buy ferrari's? why do people buy the 1Ds MkII over the 350D??? its all because they can afford it for one, and two its what they want!! who really cares about the nitty gritty when its all about what YOU as the user has? i have a kit lens and a 50mm 1.4 USM and i think they are really good lenses. quality is awesome and soon enough i will be investing into the 70 - 200mm F/4 L just because thats what I want.
to the original poster, congrats on your new lens, your definatly going to get some nice results from that baby..
Regards,
Tony
-----------------------------------
three fifty D + seventeen-fifty five mm kit lens + fiftymm F/1.4 USM
Happy Shooting.
You are absolutely wrong! The L lenses have to be not only the top performer in the image quality department but also from a build quality standpoint as well. Canon makes many lenses that approach "L" image quality but they won't have the build quality or AF speed to be designated "L".
If by "marketing" you mean a way to designate the best possible product available then you are correct, but it isn't hype. I could care less what label a lens carries or what color it is. The lens just has to perform to the standards that I have come to expect from superior glass.
For the record my first real experience with "L" quality came not from a Canon at all, but from purchasing a Sigma 70-200 2.8EX. The first time I saw the images when compared to my Canon 75-300 I was hooked. The images are SO sharp and have such excellent color and contrast I was amazed.
It was like waking up for the first time! You suddenly see how pros get such great results and why so many amateurs constantly struggle. From that point on I will only buy lenses that meet those specific quality levels and in the Canon lineup it comes in the form of "L" lenses.
Until you experience them for yourself you won't understand. But in the mean time you're just lying to yourself if you think you won't get consistantly better result by using "L" lenses.
Jovo
Veteran Member
I do own the 50mm F1.8 and for your information it is not even close to the image quality, contrast and colour produced by an L lens. More importantly I can heavily crop photos taken with an L and still have beautiful sharp shots.
BTW your 'L zombies' would soon get tired of lugging around a heavy L lens! Perhaps you have never noticed the jungle of white lenses at sporting events. Do you really think these guys are prepared to lug that extra weight around if a consumer lens could do the same?
Recently I used my 70-200mm F2.8L at a fashion show and the quality of the shots taken at F2.8 blew me away.
Instead of suffering from L envy, perhaps you should try comparing some L shots to your bargain basement 50mm.
BTW your 'L zombies' would soon get tired of lugging around a heavy L lens! Perhaps you have never noticed the jungle of white lenses at sporting events. Do you really think these guys are prepared to lug that extra weight around if a consumer lens could do the same?
Recently I used my 70-200mm F2.8L at a fashion show and the quality of the shots taken at F2.8 blew me away.
Instead of suffering from L envy, perhaps you should try comparing some L shots to your bargain basement 50mm.
--
ChrisKrueger
Veteran Member
Many other makers (ie: Nikon) don't bother with the distinction. It seems that's not the best move marketing-wise, because Canon has created a legion of customers who want a lens if it says "L" on it. It's a good situation for them, but it leads to a lot of ignorance and elitism in the Canon community. Remember Peru_Photog in this forum?
I'm not saying the lenses are bad, or that they aren't necessary for some. I've been pondering the purchase of a 100-400 versus 70-300IS versus 70-200/4 for the past few months, because my 70-300APO doesn't track focus well enough for my taste. And I have a 17-40L due to be delivered tomorrow, which I'm going to test side-by-side with a Tamron 17-35 on my new 5D body. The 17-40 might fill a void where my 12-24/4 used to be wonderful, and the 100-400 is my ultimate telephoto (or would be if it weren't white... I like to be inconspicuous). But having used these lenses before, I know the red stripe doesn't improve their performance; they're just good solid lenses.
Indeed! I didn't mean to demean the OP's choice in lenses! The 70-200/4 is a fine lens, and might be the telephoto I end up with too.
--
Equipment in profile
Heinz25
Active member
It would me more meaningful to compare the top-line lenses from other manufacturers with the Canon L lenses. I own a Tamron 28-75 SP Di... as well as a Sigma 80-400 Ex lens. I am quite happy with them and according to several reviews they are (nearly) as good (image wise) as Canon L lenses.
--
HeinzJ
--
HeinzJ
ChrisKrueger
Veteran Member
The biggest difference between the Tamron 28-75/2.8 and 80-400OS and their Canon counterparts is that the Canon lenses have USM.
How much of an issue that is depends on your use. I'd rebuy my Sigma 70-300APO for double the price if they added HSM, but I couldn't care less when it comes to UWA lenses like the 10-22 and Tokina 12-24/4.
Equipment in profile
How much of an issue that is depends on your use. I'd rebuy my Sigma 70-300APO for double the price if they added HSM, but I couldn't care less when it comes to UWA lenses like the 10-22 and Tokina 12-24/4.
--
Equipment in profile
ChrisKrueger
Veteran Member
Then why is the 180/3.5 an L lens, but not 100/2.8 or 60/2.8?
It seems we agree here... I couldn't care less what the label says. But it seems many people (read the title of this thread) thinks anything with an "L" on it is intrinsically superior.
My 100/2.8 was a similar experience. I took it to the zoo one day and was startled at just how much detail I saw compared to my 28-135 and 70-300APO.
I agree that most of Canon's best are L lenses. The disctinction I'm trying to make is that many people worship at the altar of "L", while "L" is nothing more than a stamp that Canon puts on their most expensive (and usually best) lenses.
I have used L lenses briefly, but there aren't many that appeal to me. Mainly due to weight, and color for the telephotos. I like to carry lightweight equipment, and be as inconspicuous as possible. While I love the performance of the 70-200/2.8IS, it's big, heavy, and draws a LOT of attention. Same with the 100-400.
I do have a 17-40 on order at the moment, which I'll put in a shootout with the Tamron 17-35. My expectation is that the Canon will have better handling, but the Tamron will have slightly better optics, from what I've read on various forums.
--
Equipment in profile
Are you kidding? Have you handled the 180 next to the 100 or 60?
The 180 is an absolute beast, all metal as opposed to plastic. Plus while the 100 and 60 are good primes and decent macros the 180 is definately superior as a macro lens which is what all these lenses were designed for.
I also prefer black lenses but have found no suitable replacement for the high end Telephoto Ls. For super telephoto, IS is a necessity and nobody else offers this option but Canon.
Retina_user
Well-known member
- Messages
- 150
- Reaction score
- 0
I agree most of us deserve what we buy.
Dave
Dave
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum