70-300 L vs non-L

Started Mar 25, 2011 | Discussions thread
Graham Meale
OP Graham Meale Senior Member • Posts: 1,968
Re: Did you have a protective filter on? (nt)

The shots I took yesterday (posted in this thread) are over a much shorter distance so haze has been eliminated. I'm not going to take the filters off. Both lenses have them, and they're the highest quality. Call me stubborn ...

I'd be quite happy for this thread to die now. I've come to the conclusion that, quite apart from the non-optical advantages, the L lens is superior in terms of sharpness, colour and chromatic abberation. The advantages are greater away from the centre. In the centre the non-L still is very good, including at 300 mm, where it had a bit of reputation as being a bit soft.

I started this thread because I'd read so many rave comments about the L, that it was on a par with the 70-200 f/4 L IS, which many would say is Canon's finest zoom. This raised my expectations a lot and I hadn't seen the huge improvement I was expecting over the non-L. This is why I thought perhaps I had a soft copy.

 Graham Meale's gear list:Graham Meale's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM +7 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow