Why go "L" glass???

GearCollector · Sep 17, 2007

Cause with the L... glass is just gass.

But seriously... there is alot of good quality non-L glass out there. Although L provides a bit of a guarantee as to a lens' makeup.

Doug J · Sep 17, 2007

There are some very decent lenses that compete with Canon's 70-200 2.8 and the 24-70. Sigma has been mentioned here many times over the years.

When I bought the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS a few years ago there were no IS alternatives, as there are still none today. Concerning prices, the OP is in the US so I'll post the current US prices from Adorama.

70-200 f/2.8
Canon (non-IS) $1,140
Sigma $889

The Aus Canon price is nothing less than obscene, even considering the 20% currency difference. Sharpness wide open is more a lens to lens issue.

There is more difference in the 24-70
Canon $1,139
Sigma 24-70 $429

From an IQ perspective, the comments and comparisons posted on DPR seem to put these just about equal. The build quality, ruggedness, weather proofing and a few other parameters vary and explain some of the cost differences, these may not be important to everyone.

There are probably a few other 3rd party lenses that offer comparable IQ at lower cost. I doubt that we could find better IQ at 1/3rd of the price across the board.

JM Tran said:
then there the tamron 28-75 - around $550 here in Aus, compared to
over $1600 for the 28-70 L, IQ is identical - although one is for
cropped format and the other is full frame in all respect.

Im not a measurebator or pixel peeper, so i dont give a cr@p about
tests and numerical comparisons, real world usage and experience is
more important.

but hey, in defence of the L legion, u dont pay for IQ alone, u pay
for the extra features and build quality it offers.

I only have my experience and opinion to go by, so would love to hear
from others who can compare 3rd party to Canon more

Doug J said:

I just haven’t seen lenses that will surpass all of the L glass in IQ
at 1/3 of the price.

JM Tran said:

Some 3rd party lens that comes to my mind that can rival L lenses of
simlar focal lengths are the Tamron 28-75, Sigma 18-50 macro, sigma
17-70, sigma 70-200 f2.8

Click to expand...

--
Best regards,
Doug
http://pbase.com/dougj

http://thescambaiter.com
Fighting scammers WW for fun & justice

Click to expand...

--
http://jackietran.myphotoalbum.com/albums.php - my temporary website

--
Best regards,
Doug
http://pbase.com/dougj

http://thescambaiter.com
Fighting scammers WW for fun & justice

Eric Haglund · Sep 17, 2007

This is a good, objective post.

--
Eric
http://www2.blogger.com/profile/00535987629594874175
http://www.pbase.com/haglunde

Elan Remford · Sep 17, 2007

Shifter said:
I rented a Canon 17-40L from Vistek Toronto recently and the
lens was a big yawn. It was not what I expected and I was seriously
disappointed. There was no visual increase in performance from my
'lowly' 18-55 EFS and there was so much dandruff-crud inside the
lens it was scary. Granted, its a rental lens but holy cow I thot
L glass was weather sealed???????? How could so much garbage enter
a lens when its supposed to be sealed from the elements???

I expected the 17-40L images to POP over my old EFS lens images.
They did not.

After using it and comparing it to my "cheapo lens", I was shocked!
There was no great increase in image quality image to image. I
prefered my kit lens! I shoot only Raw in AV or Manual. CS2raw.
Sans Jpeg.

Whats going on? Are your 17-40L lenses full of internal dust?
Other L glass full of dust?
Whats with Canon "L" weather-sealing on lenses over the long term usage?

I'm looking at the other alternatives seriously like Sigma and Tamron.
My Bigma keeps on getting it done well. As my old APO 70-300 Macro.
Very little internal dust in those lenses I own.

Is Canon L glass really worth it or are other manufacturers of
alternative
3rd party glass getting it?

======================

Daniel Browning · Sep 18, 2007

It's no surprise that a normal can beat a superwide. The money would be much better spent on the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, unless you've got a full-frame camera, in which case the kit lens wont perform very well.

At 24mm and f/4.0, the kit compares well to the L. Try 35mm and f/4.5 and you'll start to see a difference, especially in contrast but also resolution in the corners. At f/8.0 they're close enough at all focal lengths.

http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=410&Camera=396&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=100&CameraComp=396&FLIComp=2&APIComp=1

--
Daniel

iohoh · Sep 25, 2007

If you're not going to bother providing evidence then your entire argument has no basis whatsoever. Because of that, I'm quite surprised you haven't been 'flamed' for this thread......

niplater · Sep 26, 2007

hi topcool
brilliant post

phil

Ominous · Sep 26, 2007

JM Tran said:
Well for example, my 70-200 f2.8 USM L cost me nearly 3k when i
bought it here in Aus, then i had a play around with a Sigma 70-200
f2.8 which was retailing for just over 1k, and the IQ of the latter
matched the Canon, dare i say its slightly even sharper wide open!

then there the tamron 28-75 - around $550 here in Aus, compared to
over $1600 for the 28-70 L, IQ is identical - although one is for
cropped format and the other is full frame in all respect.

The 28-75 works fine on a FF camera.

--
http://www.pbase.com/ewhalen

Shifter · Sep 26, 2007

Frustrating when things are illuminated, huh?

There are very good alternatives to "L" glass if you look, try and
aren't brainwashed.

Doh?
~~~~

iohoh said:
If you're not going to bother providing evidence then your entire
argument has no basis whatsoever. Because of that, I'm quite
surprised you haven't been 'flamed' for this thread......

Shifter · Sep 26, 2007

Build quality is on par with great glass. Metal. Silent focus. No CA I've
seen yet in my raws. Distortion??? Faster focusing?... how fast do you need
it??? Weather seals???.. you take your cam and lenses out in snow and
sand storms regularly too???... Bokeh??????? ...please.
Better colour???????? omg. Shoot raw dude.

================

Ron Parr said:
Things you might find in more expensive lenses:

Greater sharpness across the board and particularly at wide apertures

Wider fastest f/stop

Less chromatic aberration

Less distortion

Higher build quality

Weather seals

Faster focusing

Quieter focusing

Internal focusing

A parfocal optical system

More aperture blades for better bokeh

Better color

Of course, not all expensive lenses will have all of these
properties. They're products and you need to be a smart consumer.

--
Ron Parr
Digital Photography FAQ:
http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

Ominous · Sep 26, 2007

24 MM F1.8
70-200 F2.8
10-20 MM

None compare to the L lenses I've used and own. ( 16-35, 70-200 L, etc)

Shifter said:
================

Ron Parr said:

Things you might find in more expensive lenses:

Greater sharpness across the board and particularly at wide apertures

Wider fastest f/stop

Less chromatic aberration

Less distortion

Higher build quality

Weather seals

Faster focusing

Quieter focusing

Internal focusing

A parfocal optical system

More aperture blades for better bokeh

Better color

Of course, not all expensive lenses will have all of these
properties. They're products and you need to be a smart consumer.

--
Ron Parr
Digital Photography FAQ:
http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/ewhalen

Ron Parr · Sep 26, 2007

What's your point?

--
Ron Parr
Digital Photography FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

muxis · Sep 26, 2007

Try working for a newspaper or do sports photography.

David Banner · Sep 26, 2007

Shifter said:
I rented a Canon 17-40L from Vistek Toronto recently and the
lens was a big yawn. It was not what I expected and I was seriously
disappointed. There was no visual increase in performance from my
'lowly' 18-55 EFS and there was so much dandruff-crud inside the
lens it was scary. Granted, its a rental lens but holy cow I thot
L glass was weather sealed???????? How could so much garbage enter
a lens when its supposed to be sealed from the elements???

I expected the 17-40L images to POP over my old EFS lens images.
They did not.

After using it and comparing it to my "cheapo lens", I was shocked!
There was no great increase in image quality image to image. I
prefered my kit lens! I shoot only Raw in AV or Manual. CS2raw.
Sans Jpeg.

Whats going on? Are your 17-40L lenses full of internal dust?
Other L glass full of dust?
Whats with Canon "L" weather-sealing on lenses over the long term usage?

I'm looking at the other alternatives seriously like Sigma and Tamron.
My Bigma keeps on getting it done well. As my old APO 70-300 Macro.
Very little internal dust in those lenses I own.

Is Canon L glass really worth it or are other manufacturers of
alternative
3rd party glass getting it?

======================

iohoh · Sep 27, 2007

No need for the sarcasm or the attitude.

I was simply stating that it seems pretty pointless to say 'My images demonstrate L glass is overrated, but I'm refusing to post up those images so you'll just have to take my word for it'.

Seems like the work of a troll to me - or somebody who doesn't understand the concept of evidence.

As there is currently no L glass in the price range that I'm currently shopping in for my next lens purchase, the issue of comparitive L glass performance is moot. Regardless, I am not 'brainwashed', as you eloquently put it - although there are undeniable advantages to L glass beyond an alleged or actual increase in image quality - as others have stated, some non L glass lenses are comparable to, or sharper than, comparable L glass lenses - difference in quality of indivual copies aside. It would be a fallacy to have a religious faith in a single letter.

Rather ironic how you're preaching to us not to accept the concept of L glass equalling superior image quality based on blind faith on the presence of a single letter and a few words in a product description but without examining the evidence, when you're expecting us to do the exact same thing with your post, don't you think?

tko · Sep 27, 2007

the only thing that makes pictures pop is you. Expecting equipment to make a huge difference is bound to lead to somewhat of a letdown.

When you buy a non-premium lens you are buying something that deliveries 80% of the quality for 80% of the time for half the price. It's just like buying a Lexus or a Toyota. The Toyota is at the optimum price point and is a great car. Probably gets better fuel economy than the Lexus, might even be more reliable (less gadgets.) It's just a perceived benefit/cost ratio thing.

Remember, you pay a LOT of extra money for a increase in speed, IS, sealing, etc. Not all improvements are optical, and some of the optical improvements aren't visible except under the right circumstances. Bokeh, flare, fringing, edge sharpness - you have to look at the complete package.

Everyone knows that a decent inexpensive lenses, stopped down to optimum, and used in good conditions, will beat most L's wide open under difficult conditions. But, you may be shooting at F5.6 or smaller with that inexpensive lens, negating a lot of the advantage of a dSLR.

I know I'm unhappy with a lot of L lenses. I also am getting rid of a lot of my non-L lenses and moving up. Not a contradiction, I'm probably paying more money than I should, but as my skills get better and better I just notice flaws more and more.

But remember, in the end, a great lens can't make a great picture, but a poor lens can spoil a great picture.

KayceOnline · Oct 2, 2007

while the quality of a lens definitely does vary a bit from copy to copy, the odds of a 18-55 kit lens (which is terrible) being better than a 17-40L are slim to none.. sounds like you either borrowed a really poor copy or are extremely bitter/biased about not having a better lens..

for the record, i've used a bunch of the "L" lenses on a 30d and still prefer the ef-s 17-55is over all of them so i'm definitely not one to quantify quality with "status" .. shame the 17-55 costs about as much as comparable L lenses that have better build quality though..

wkay · Oct 2, 2007

L or not. I went Zeiss and cant be happier.

Hairulfr · Oct 2, 2007

Both images shot at 2.8

Canon 16-35 2.8L cropped at 120%

Sigma 17-35 2.8-4 EX HSM cropped at 120%

Canon 16-35 2.8L focus distance

Sigma 17-35 2.8-4 EX HSM focus distance

The sigma is: Noisy, slow, poorly built, moving external focus, moving external zoom, not weather sealed, will be stuck at 20mm when you take the camera from your bag or the camera has been slung (because of external zoom), the DOF blur looks like bad glass and really sad, you block the auto focus with your finger if not careful.

Yes, a fine lens, but not better or as good as the L, in no way. AND YES, some of us do need it to work in the wet and outside.

The L has internal focus and zoom, no moving rings, fulltime manual focus, is weather sealed, noiseless, fast focus, very well built, nice DOF blur, good image quality. Way beyond the sigma. And no, no problems with stuff "inside" the lens.

16-35 2.8Lmm's where I work has been there since they came out, used EVERY day, sun, rain, snow, mud, whatever, THEY WORK, never a problem.

So please, if you don't need L, don't buy it, but don't be a fool about it, like some joker was.

Hairulfr · Oct 2, 2007

Yeah, that guy...

I own both the Sigma 17-35 2.8 EX HSM and the Canon 16-35 2.8L and you are sooo of track mate.

I'll post more examples if anyone would like, seems noone else walks the walk.

Shifter said:
================

Ron Parr said:

Things you might find in more expensive lenses:

Greater sharpness across the board and particularly at wide apertures

Wider fastest f/stop

Less chromatic aberration

Less distortion

Higher build quality

Weather seals

Faster focusing

Quieter focusing

Internal focusing

A parfocal optical system

More aperture blades for better bokeh

Better color

Of course, not all expensive lenses will have all of these
properties. They're products and you need to be a smart consumer.

--
Ron Parr
Digital Photography FAQ:
http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

Click to expand...

Why go "L" glass???

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Active member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Ron Parr

Guest

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Active member

Forum Pro

New member

Senior Member

Active member

Active member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts