Reading mode: Light Dark

Difference between L glass and plain ole glass

Go to last post
No argument that the "L" glass lenses will be sharper than the Tamron 70-300. But your example here looks as though you may have purposely made the Tamron to look bad(terrible, even). I'm sure you didn't. Probably one of those "bad samples" that we hear about now and then. I have a Tamron 70-300 (model 572), and it's much sharper than yours.
That said, I'd still like to have your "L" lens.

Bob
 
Bob, that could be the case, but I would say that the tamron is just a cheapo lens. Also, the two shots from my tamron have different settings than the L, so that could be some of the difference too. I took around 400 shots with the tamron over 6 months and most shots were awful, expecially past 250 or so. It is, however a good starter lens. I am just amazed by the quality of the higher priced lenses.

Happy Shooting.
 
Whoa! .... This one certainly got 'hot' didn't it :o)

Just for anyone out there who is starting to believe that 'L' glass makes you a pro .. well, bad news, it doesn't. I love this lens, I've had it a few weeks now and the results are outstanding (well for me anyhow). However, it is still down to the person behind the camera behind the lens to get the final result.

Case in point .. I took my nice new lens out at the weekend .. looking like a 'pro' .. and then totally messed up some shots of wild deer. The camera on my phone would have got better results! lol

I really don't think that the 'L' badge is just marketing .. I come from an engineering background and you can tell as soon as you pick this thing up that it is in a different league to the non-L lenses that I have come across (which granted, isn't that many .. but still). Once you see the images that it then produces it is blatently obvious that Canon have sprinkled some 'magic dust' in there somewhere (actually I guess that's magic crystal ;o)

Just my 2 (english pence) worth :o)

Jon
--
Newbee DSLR user .. go easy on me :o(
http://www.pbase.com/jpsbuk/
 
...Sorry, but you’re way of mark here…“L” glass IS really something. Don’t doubt it for a second.

You seem to be making a slight confusion about the “L” branding. It is not a finished product branding. It is a design spec branding.

What this means is that an “L” lens is speced to be like that from the early stages of design regarding glass quality, lens/groups arrangement, AF drive, build overall quality and optical performance targets.

What it also means is that the final product most of the times hits the marks but, on very few occasions, barely meets “L” standard expectations.

On the other hand, some lesser speced Canon lenses, sometimes hit full marks and come out with a very good working performance.

Because of this, some “L” lenses are lower performing ones (i.e. 24-105 f4.0 IS L) and some consumer grade ones perform much better than expected (i.e. 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM).

But don’t take the tree for the forest…There is no marketing ploy going on here. They do make your jaw drop in awe once you start seeing what you can get out of ANY CAMERA with these babies.

(Let's not even talk about the "L" products that have no counterpart in the general consumer grade lenses offer, like the long tele primes...)

I see you don’t have any "L" lenses in your line-up, for the time being. I’ll bet we’ll be hearing very strongly from you, once you do :)

Meanwhile, tell me if these are not in two completely different leagues:

Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Macro Super II:









Canon 70-200 f4.0 L:









PK

--
“Loose praise may feed my ego but constructive criticism advances my skills”
************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/photokhan
(Pbase Supporter)
 
I think your causeing more confusion then anything else.

You seem to be saying that Canon makes all lenses the same, and if they happen to get a good one, they lable it with a "L" and then market it as such and make alot more money as a result.

It seems to me, that "L" lenses were designed from the begining to be superior to their consumer grade counter parts. "L" surely does mean that the lens has been designed to meet higher standards then other lenses in the Canon line up.

While I will agree with you that just because a lens is of the "L" designation, doesn't mean it's somehow magical... but I disagree with your implications that the "L" somehow is little more then a marketing gimic.
ChrisKrueger said:
SDB1 said:
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".
Click to expand...
Then why is the 180/3.5 an L lens, but not 100/2.8 or 60/2.8?
ChrisKrueger said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
ChrisKrueger said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
ChrisKrueger said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
ChrisKrueger said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
 
Well, first off those aren't good comparison images. All of them were shot before I knew what the heck I was doing with an SLR in general... exposures were off, and corrected poorly. The first shot in particular was shot INTO harsh midday sun, without so much as a polarizer or even a hood. If you want examples of what the Sigma 70-300 can do, there are TONS of pics from Daniella that will be a lot more impressive than that. Or do I have to go looking for lackluster 70-200/4L shots? I'm sure pbase is absolutely full of them.

Second, I look at lenses differently than you, I suppose. I see a lens as a finished product, as a black box. I don't care about anything I can't see, touch, or notice in the final picture. They could put Jello inside the lens for all I care. So whether the design process for an L lens is different than the design for a "regular" lens doesn't concern me. It's the handling and the pictures that matter.

Finally, I have shot on occasion with borrowed L lenses, and while I agree the pictures that come out of them are nice, they are not without their downsides. Specifically, they're big, heavy, expensive, and often painted in steal-me white. For some of us, those downsides outweigh the fractional increase in performance and handling they give over other designs. Especially when you can use a few small lightweight primes to give results equal or better. (And before you question "better", show me an f/2 zoom lens for Canon mount.)

If I were a sports/wildlife shooter, I certainly would have spent my money on a 100-400 or a fast tele prime instead of a 5D. But for my shooting, a a 35/2 or 50/1.8 blows away any f/2.8 zoom.

--
Equipment in profile
 
Glenn W. said:
I think your causeing more confusion then anything else.

You seem to be saying that Canon makes all lenses the same, and if
they happen to get a good one, they lable it with a "L" and then
market it as such and make alot more money as a result.

It seems to me, that "L" lenses were designed from the begining to
be superior to their consumer grade counter parts. "L" surely does
mean that the lens has been designed to meet higher standards then
other lenses in the Canon line up.
Click to expand...
Oh, I definitely agree with you that Canon isn't just slapping components together and sticking an L on the best lenses. What I'm trying to say is that there are plenty of lenses (from Canon and otherwise) that aren't "L" that are just as good in any respect as an "L" lens. My beef is with the original subject, comparing "L glass" to "plain old glass". I'm trying to assert that there is no such thing as "L glass", that these lenses are just Canon's better lenses, just like Sigma calls their better lenses "EX". In that regard, L is a marketing term.
Glenn W. said:
While I will agree with you that just because a lens is of the "L"
designation, doesn't mean it's somehow magical... but I disagree
with your implications that the "L" somehow is little more then a
marketing gimic.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I see "L" as a whole as a marketing gimmick, simply because other manufacturers (ie: Nikon) happily make lenses with no such designation, and nobody questions their quality.

The greatest disservice that L does to Canonites is that it gives people a nice psychological crutch, where they can put L lenses in the "nice lens" bucket, and non-L lenses (Canon or not) into the "junk consumer lens" bucket. "Canon L" becomes a lens type in its own, where individual lenses take on a collective quality. You'll hear "L lenses are sharp" or "L lenses have great AF", when this is an individual lens trait. The real world is nowhere near that simple, as is obvious from all the fine "non-L" lenses made by various makers, and Canon themselves.

--
Equipment in profile
 
ChrisKrueger said:
Oh, I definitely agree with you that Canon isn't just slapping
components together and sticking an L on the best lenses. What I'm
trying to say is that there are plenty of lenses (from Canon and
otherwise) that aren't "L" that are just as good in any respect as
an "L" lens. My beef is with the original subject, comparing "L
glass" to "plain old glass". I'm trying to assert that there is no
such thing as "L glass", that these lenses are just Canon's better
lenses, just like Sigma calls their better lenses "EX". In that
regard, L is a marketing term.
Click to expand...
Here I have to disagree .. L lenses use different coatings and have elements using UD glass and flourite crystals. It is the very fact that they use flourite that requires them to be painted a lighter colour as it reduces any distortions caused by heating of the lens elements. Also, L series lenses are environmentally sealed against dust and mositure ingress .. ok, not much use on a 350 but hany none-the-less.

I guess you are right in a way that L is a marketing term .. but not in the sense that it is mis-leading marketing but more in the sense that it indicates a particular level of product, i.e. their best.
ChrisKrueger said:
The greatest disservice that L does to Canonites is that it gives
people a nice psychological crutch, where they can put L lenses in
the "nice lens" bucket, and non-L lenses (Canon or not) into the
"junk consumer lens" bucket. "Canon L" becomes a lens type in its
own, where individual lenses take on a collective quality. You'll
hear "L lenses are sharp" or "L lenses have great AF", when this is
an individual lens trait. The real world is nowhere near that
simple, as is obvious from all the fine "non-L" lenses made by
various makers, and Canon themselves.
Click to expand...
Agreed there are other 'fine' lenses out there .. but that's like saying there are other fine cars when compared to say a Rolls Royce (or whatever your national favourite is ;o)

Jon

--
Newbee DSLR user .. go easy on me :o(
http://www.pbase.com/jpsbuk/
 
i have the tamron, and my pics aren't as bad as that. looks like camera blur to me...

you can't compare two different shots taken with different settings, of different subjects...

of course the L glass is better, but if you're justifying it through comparison of photos like that then you're clutching at straws !

--
-----
Neil C
 
I know that you can't really compare the two lenses based on my initial post. However, most of my tamron shots looked worse or only marginally better than the shot of the wren, regardless of the settings. My main point, which appears to have been misconstrued, was to show how good the L lens is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top