L lens vs non L

I saw a post recently that made me wonder. For cameras on this forum, are L lenses really noticeably better than high quality non L lenses? I'm sure for full frame cameras an L is better. This is after all what they are designed for. But are they really better for our cameras? This includes lenses from Sigma and Tamron?

I know that emotion is going to have some effect on opinions, but I would like to (try) to put emotion aside so that we can understand the facts.

Thanks,
--
Randy

Nope. Canon only makes 'L' lenses in EF not EF-S. An EF-S lens can have just as good glass and precision as an EF 'L' lens but Canon won't designate it an 'L' lens. It is their rules that a 'L' lens must work on a full frame body.

Some 3rd party lenses can be as good as Canon IQ wise. It really depends upon the specific lens. They just won't hold their resale value as well as a Canon 'L' lens.

The 3rd party lens can have issues with supporting newer camera bodies. They may not work properly. Quality control has been an issue with some 3rd party lenses and as usual, it can be a bit of luck to get a really sweet lens.

RandyB2 said:

I saw a post recently that made me wonder. For cameras on this forum, are L lenses really noticeably better than high quality non L lenses? I'm sure for full frame cameras an L is better. This is after all what they are designed for. But are they really better for our cameras? This includes lenses from Sigma and Tamron?

I know that emotion is going to have some effect on opinions, but I would like to (try) to put emotion aside so that we can understand the facts.

Thanks,
--
Randy

Click to expand...

No, the L designation doesn’t guarantee better optical performance than non-L (whether Canon or third-party) lenses. It does, however, indicate that the lens is built to high standards both optically and mechanically.

Yes, there are some lenses specifically designed for APS-C that tend to outperform FF lenses optically.

Many on this forum have commented on seeing superior results with L lenses on crop bodies. However, it all really does depend on what you're doing with the photos. If you're posting images to the Web or if you only print 5x7 images, you probably won't see much difference with expensive glass. If you're printing large uncropped images, that's where you'll start to see differences.

Canon has several well-regarded EF-S lenses that aren't "L" lenses, by Canon's own definition as noted earlier. The 60mm macro EF-S lens, for example, is noted for its extreme sharpness. That's a $400 lens. There are a lot of fans of the Canon 50mm EF lens, (not EF-S or L but known as the Thrifty Fifty). That's a $100 lens.

It's when you get into the $100 to $300 EF-S zooms that you're clearly skirting with image quality. To get the low cost, lens designers make compromises that show up as edge blurring, chromatic aberration, and other image quality issues. The $500 to $600 EF-S zooms seem to be much better regarded.

Some 3rd-party lenses are also highly regarded for sharpness. I've owned a few 3rd-party lenses. I kept one, sent one back due to compatibility problems. I'm not much of a fan of 3rd-party glass because I like Canon glass a lot, but 3rd-party lenses can deliver good images (lots of examples in this forum) and they are relatively inexpensive.

I don't print large images. I don't own L Lenses. I'm usually pretty happy with my images, but I can see where the image quality could be improved in my shots. Not enough to matter in my work. If I became a fine art photographer instead of the workaday shooter I am, I'd spend more on lenses than I do. They'd probably be L lenses.

--
Steve Leibson

Shooting with Canons for 35+ years

There are EF-S lenses that are arguably sharper than equivalent EF lenses on the designed for sensor (17-55 versus 24-70)

There are no EF-S lenses that are built like a tank, while there are EF L lenses that are built like a tank.

The L designation seems to have two tiers: Great optics, and Great optics with great build quality. Two of the 70-200 zooms (the F/4s) are in one catagory, the other two (the F/2.8s) are in the other.

One can basically consider the build quality of the 17-55 on par with the 70-200 F/4s, but no par wth the F/2.8s.

Many of the EF-S lenses are targeted towards the mid-range buyer (15-85, 17-85, ...) while others are targeted towards the pure consumer (18-55), and a ouple of EF-S lenses are targeted above the mid-range (17-55).

So lumping all EF-S lenses in to one bag and comparing them to one catagorization of EF lenses is not a sensible thing to do.
--
Mitch

whoops...

Everyone thus far has seemed to focus on the sharpness of the lenses, and I completely agree with most of what's been said.

I've been fortunate enough to be able to pick up some used L zoom lenses (24-70 F/2.8 and 70-200 IS F/2.8) and they clearly have a lot smoother movement and "heft" - the non-L lenses feel like toys by comparison. But the one thing I've noticed more than anything else is the color seems to be so much better (richer?) - I'm at a loss for words what exactly it is about them, but they just look better. The background blur seems a lot "creamier" and it seems the photos take a lot less PP to get saturated, vibrant colors. With the cheaper non-L lenses, the pictures seem a bit flatter and take more effort to make them pop. The difference is fairly subtle, the casual observer probably won't notice, but working with a lot of photos, some taken with cheap glass and some taken with better glass (on the same camera with similar settings in a similar situation), I can see a difference.

The experience I'd share can be summed up in 2 points:

1.) My results with the L-glass have been better.

2.) (may seem slightly contradictory to my first point, but it's not entirely so) It pays to do some homework on what you want to buy, even borrow/rent it first if it has a sizeable enough price tag. You can get some good bargains with inexpensive lenses, and you can buy some turkey expensive ones. You just can't tell by price or the vendor's marking it "L" or not. Fortunately, there's loads of posts on the subject of which lens is better/worse/sharper, etc on this forum and other places on the net. Do that homework and you'll probably be happy with your purchase.

--
-Kevin

I only use L lenses , both on full frame and a crop body with outstanding results.

I disagree that other lenes are just as good , Canon L lenses are simply the best hands down. This is why they are so expensive and why they are used by the majority of professional photographers around the world.

Just look at any major news or sporting event world wide what do you see L lenses in the hands of most photographers.

I used to shoot with regular lens , sold them all and now exclusively use only L lenses. They are worth every penny , I have taken over 20,000 photos world wide with an EF 24-105mm F/4 L IS Canon lens and its still works like it just came out of the box. The pictures from this lense are super sharp and can be cropped to 100 % without any IQ issues.
Save your money and get L lenses from Canon , they are simply the best.

Vino Vino 06

It means great build quality and water tight along with godd glass.

Sigma and Tamron don't have the sealing of the "L" lens but do have very good glass in their high end stuff. I don't beleive anyone can see better imge quality in an un-croped 5X7, "L" or Sigma or Tamron. If you need the "very" best, for whatever reason, you would buy the "L", otherwise the Sigma and Tamron high end will serve you well.

One thing I have found is my Tamron doesn't focus as well in low light. My Canon 28-135 does.
--
Taking pictures is easy, making them art is hard. (al nunley)
Try not, Do, or Do Not. (yoda)

riknash said:

but Canon won't designate it an 'L' lens. It is their rules that a 'L' lens must work on a full frame body.

Click to expand...

What? More likely that an "L" designates a lens built to high standards: image quality, optical quality (better across the full width of the lens), weather sealing, built (solid, robust and usually much heavier). And it's more likely that these are usually marketed with higher end cameras, which are not always FF: 1D series is not full frame.

And on the other side of the coin, why create an L lens for "crops" when the EF lenses work on them? Be a waste of time wouldn't it. plus the up-market pricing required would put off most of the people buying "crops" (lens costs 4 times the camera?)

Some of the Ls are getting pretty old (design wise) and newer technology built into the EF-S lenses surpasses theirs so image quality can be as good (or possibly better) an "L".

--
Hagen
http://www.flickr.com/hagenhohn
2hphotography.ca
----------------------

50D / Canon lenses 24-105 F4 L IS / 70-200 F2.8 L IS / TS-E 24 / 50 1.8 / 100 Macro / Sigma
10-22 / 2x converter / Raynox 250 / 580 EX II / Elinchrome Skyport / RFN3 SM610
Trigger /

Thanks for the great post everybody. I appreciate it.

I defiantly was not talking about a lens for 4x5 prints and email. Most cheap lenses will do that as well as a lot of point and shoot cameras.

All your ideas helped point me in the right direction.
--
Randy

It is impossible to give an answer that is etched in stone. In order for the L series lens to really shine, it must be used under the conditions for which it was truly designed. For example, if you and I are shooting a model side by side with the same camera model, you with a 50L and me with a 50/1.4 and we decide to shoot at f/7.1, you are at no advantage. The 50L will give you a little better color and contrast which can probably be madeup for in post. I venture to say that I will have the sharpness advantage. If we do a shoot in very low light, there is simply no substitue for speed and you will be at a huge advantage. The 50L screams in low light and even if it were stopped down to f/1.4 it would still be sharper, have better color, contrast, and bokeh than the 50/1.4. You would handily best me because the 50L in being shot under the conditions for which it was designed. I shoot with a mix of L and non L series lenses and find they shine under different circumstances. For my shooting, if I could have only 2 lenses it would be an easy decision: 50/1.4 and 85/1.8. These are my all time favorites and because I don't shoot my L series lenses under the conditions for which they were designed they provide little benefit. Just my 2 cents in a tough economy.
Best regards.

Not all L glass is as good as other L glass.. and for sure some EF-S lenses have IQ that is on par with some of the L glass... Mostly it's a marketing thing in my opinion. Supposedly L is for 'luxury'

Generally speaking, you get what you pay for. Regardless of if it has the L designation or not.

RandyB2 said:

I saw a post recently that made me wonder. For cameras on this forum, are L lenses really noticeably better than high quality non L lenses? I'm sure for full frame cameras an L is better. This is after all what they are designed for. But are they really better for our cameras? This includes lenses from Sigma and Tamron?

I know that emotion is going to have some effect on opinions, but I would like to (try) to put emotion aside so that we can understand the facts.

Thanks,
--
Randy

Click to expand...

L lenses are uniformly sharp, in my experience, but what impresses me most about them is the finesse with which they render color. It is truly opulent compared to their non-L sibs.

--
http://www.chezjeaux.blogspot.com

vinovino06 said:

vinovino06 said:

vinovino06 - 2 hours ago

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

vinovino06 said:

vinovino06 said:

I disagree that other lenes are just as good

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Quite true - some of the efs lenses are much better when shooting on a crop. What "L" lens can equal the results of the 17-55 f2.8?

I have mostly "L" lenses but none gives results better than the above lens and the 10-22 is not far behind.

Desifinado said:

L lenses are uniformly sharp, in my experience, but what impresses me most about them is the finesse with which they render color. It is truly opulent compared to their non-L sibs.

Click to expand...

Not always. The 10-22 and the 17-55 have "L colors" whatever that means. The 60 macro is quite close as well.

Alvin Nunley said:

It means great build quality and water tight along with godd glass.

Click to expand...

NOT ALL L-SERIES GLASS IS WEATHER SEALED!

Unless otherwise specified, assume a lens is not weather sealed and that you will need a rain sock and clear or UV filter on the front of the lens. Even with weather sealed L-series glass, unless otherwise indicated in the included literature, to complete weather sealing you need a filter on the front of the lens (use either a clear "lens protector" or a "UV filter").

That a lens is white and/or carries a red (or green in the case of the DO series) do not assume it is weather sealed. Always read the "fine" manual, and call canon support if in doubt. Their tech support for pro gear is very good.

Alvin Nunley said:

Sigma and Tamron don't have the sealing of the "L" lens but do have very good glass in their high end stuff. I don't beleive anyone can see better imge quality in an un-croped 5X7, "L" or Sigma or Tamron. If you need the "very" best, for whatever reason, you would buy the "L", otherwise the Sigma and Tamron high end will serve you well.

One thing I have found is my Tamron doesn't focus as well in low light. My Canon 28-135 does.
--
Taking pictures is easy, making them art is hard. (al nunley)
Try not, Do, or Do Not. (yoda)

Click to expand...

--
Caution: Do not stare into laser with remaining eye.

The Canon 17-55 2.8 is one of the best zooms Canon makes. Why it didn't get "L" status is anyone's guess (and the question comes up in almost every review of this lens). It is clearly L-grade optics and L-grade performance.

As detailed here, http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx it is visibly and measurably sharper than either the 17-40L or the 16-35 2.8L.

The EF-S 15-85 is another "sleeper" L-grade lens, as is the 10-22.
--
Canon since 1969

vinovino06 said:

I only use L lenses , both on full frame and a crop body with outstanding results.

I disagree that other lenes are just as good , Canon L lenses are simply the best hands down. This is why they are so expensive and why they are used by the majority of professional photographers around the world.

Click to expand...

Interesting that you make this sweeping statement, right after admitting you've never used a non-L lens...

Since many, many professional lens reviewers disagree with your statement, I have to assume you're pulling "facts" out of your derriere.

--
Canon since 1969

Glenn W. said:

Generally speaking, you get what you pay for. Regardless of if it has the L designation or not.

Click to expand...

An excellent point! I've said for some time, you can tell how good any Canon lens is by the price. The best EF-S lenses -- the 17-55, 15-85 and 10-22 -- are all significantly more expensive than similar-range EF lenses, and are comparably priced to L lenses (L-grade optics don't come cheap).

--
Canon since 1969