Do all L lenses really deserve the red ring ?

mermaidkiller · May 4, 2020

The L series is, al we all know. a premium optical and build quality range of Canon lenses.

But with some lenses, I have my doubts. The 17-40L does not have a very good reputation (no personal experence) and the superzoom 28-300L does show so-so results according to the Digital Picture.

Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.

www.the-digital-picture.com

The combo of 24-105L and 100-400Lii performs better. Even with the 100-400 replaced by the 70-300L.

And, according to tests, even the 24-240 non-L superzoom performs better.

So that is the condition that a lens get its red ring ?

Aoi Usagi · May 4, 2020

Please be aware that EF L lenses have been around since 1987, which is way before the Canon's Digital SLR line. The 17-40L is from 2003 and probably wasn't made with consideration of todays high megapixel sensors. The same could probably be said about other L lenses as well.

Sittatunga · May 4, 2020

mermaidkiller said:
The L series is, al we all know. a premium optical and build quality range of Canon lenses.

But with some lenses, I have my doubts. The 17-40L does not have a very good reputation (no personal experence) and the superzoom 28-300L does show so-so results according to the Digital Picture.

The 17-40mm came out in 2003 and was half the price and speed of its 17-35mm and 16-35mm predecessors. The 28-300mm came out a year later and (as Dr Johnson said), the wonder is not that it was done badly, the wonder is that it was done at all.

The original L lenses were New FD mount and Canon said that the L stood for Luxury. (Previously there were FD-F (and FL-F) fluorite lenses and FD AL aspherical lenses.) With the L lenses you are basically paying for quality construction and cutting-edge design. The 17-40mm is, however, 17-year-old cutting-edge design and its price and specification reflect that.

mermaidkiller said:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=295

The combo of 24-105L and 100-400Lii performs better. Even with the 100-400 replaced by the 70-300L.

And, according to tests, even the 24-240 non-L superzoom performs better.

So that is the condition that a lens get its red ring ?

--
Ricoh KR-5 ... Pentax ME Super ... Canon T90 ... ... ... 40d ... 7d ... 6d

Great Bustard · May 4, 2020

Sittatunga said:
mermaidkiller said:

Do all L lenses really deserve the red ring? The L series is, al we all know. a premium optical and build quality range of Canon lenses.

But with some lenses, I have my doubts. The 17-40L does not have a very good reputation (no personal experence) and the superzoom 28-300L does show so-so results according to the Digital Picture.

Click to expand...

The 17-40mm came out in 2003 and was half the price and speed of its 17-35mm and 16-35mm predecessors. The 28-300mm came out a year later and (as Dr Johnson said), the wonder is not that it was done badly, the wonder is that it was done at all.

The original L lenses were New FD mount and Canon said that the L stood for Luxury. (Previously there were FD-F (and FL-F) fluorite lenses and FD AL aspherical lenses.) With the L lenses you are basically paying for quality construction and cutting-edge design. The 17-40mm is, however, 17-year-old cutting-edge design and its price and specification reflect that.

Sittatunga said:

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=295

The combo of 24-105L and 100-400Lii performs better. Even with the 100-400 replaced by the 70-300L.

And, according to tests, even the 24-240 non-L superzoom performs better.

So that is the condition that a lens get its red ring ?

Click to expand...

It's like asking if a 2003 Honda Accord LX "deserves" the "LX" designation.

ed rader · May 4, 2020

during its day the 17-40L was the best UW for canon FF and the best walkaround for the canon crop sensor.

Graham Meale · May 4, 2020

One of the criteria for an "L" lens is superior build quality.

Optically the best non-"L" lenses are without doubt better than the worst "L"s. Most of the least capable "L"s are a bit long in the tooth, as is the case with the 17-40.

Trevor Sowers · May 4, 2020

Great Bustard said:
Sittatunga said:

mermaidkiller said:

Do all L lenses really deserve the red ring? The L series is, al we all know. a premium optical and build quality range of Canon lenses.

But with some lenses, I have my doubts. The 17-40L does not have a very good reputation (no personal experence) and the superzoom 28-300L does show so-so results according to the Digital Picture.

Click to expand...

The 17-40mm came out in 2003 and was half the price and speed of its 17-35mm and 16-35mm predecessors. The 28-300mm came out a year later and (as Dr Johnson said), the wonder is not that it was done badly, the wonder is that it was done at all.

The original L lenses were New FD mount and Canon said that the L stood for Luxury. (Previously there were FD-F (and FL-F) fluorite lenses and FD AL aspherical lenses.) With the L lenses you are basically paying for quality construction and cutting-edge design. The 17-40mm is, however, 17-year-old cutting-edge design and its price and specification reflect that.

Great Bustard said:

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=295

The combo of 24-105L and 100-400Lii performs better. Even with the 100-400 replaced by the 70-300L.

And, according to tests, even the 24-240 non-L superzoom performs better.

So that is the condition that a lens get its red ring ?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

It's like asking if a 2003 Honda Accord LX "deserves" the "LX" designation.

Despite it's age I feel that the 17-40L is still a very good lens! It really depends on your priorities. It's corners are weak but I personally don't give a toss about the corners. It's colours and flare resistance are outstanding and it really is sharp enough ......especially because sharpness is also overplayed.

Andy01 · May 5, 2020

Sittatunga said:
mermaidkiller said:

The L series is, al we all know. a premium optical and build quality range of Canon lenses.

But with some lenses, I have my doubts. The 17-40L does not have a very good reputation (no personal experence) and the superzoom 28-300L does show so-so results according to the Digital Picture.

Click to expand...

The 17-40mm came out in 2003 and was half the price and speed of its 17-35mm and 16-35mm predecessors. The 28-300mm came out a year later and (as Dr Johnson said), the wonder is not that it was done badly, the wonder is that it was done at all.

The 17-40mm is, however, 17-year-old cutting-edge design and its price and specification reflect that.

This is true up to a point. The original 100-400L came out in 1998 (5 years before the 17-40L) and it can still hold it's own with most larger zooms for IQ. The newer 100-400L ii is, of course, an exceptionally good lens and a useful improvement, but the original can still put many other large zooms in their place.

I tried the 17-40L once when I was looking to buy a wider angle lens for my (at the time) 600D, and I went to a large shop with my camera and took test images with many similar lenses, and IMO the 17-40L performed worse than most of them.

I somewhat disagree with the comment above that the corners don't matter - in many cases the very reason for using a WA (or UWA if on FF) lens is to fit in as much as possible, and that often includes the edges and corners. IMO it is not just the corners (at least on FF) but the edges as well that are often soft up to f11. What is the point of buying a UWA lens if 25% of the FoV is soft and often cropped off ?

To OP

While there has been a few "duds" in the L range, the vast majority of them are pretty good in their class. I do agree with the comments above that sharpness is not everything, and other aspects of IQ, handling, reliability, durability, and of course, holding their value are also important.

In general, L lenses tend to hold their value far better than many others - I sold my original 100-400L for about 70% of what I paid for it after 9 years (even though I was still happy with the lens), and bought the 100-400L ii at a 40% discount, so my changeover cost was around US$280, which made the change a no-brainer.

Colin

Emphyrio2 · May 5, 2020

The 17-40 might not be the strongest entry in the L line, but if we forget the red ring for a moment, it remains a good value and it has good capability in the wide range.

Some of the negative comments seem more like fashion judgments than contributions to photography.

One of my favorite photography books is Barnett’s handbook of photography from 1898. It is still relevant because it is a reminder of the incredible advancements in photography that have occurred, and a reminder of the fantastic capability of present equipment. The 17-40 has great capability, only limitation is f4. The vignetting can be addressed with good software.

Igor Sotelo · May 5, 2020

mermaidkiller said:
The L series is, al we all know. a premium optical and build quality range of Canon lenses.

But with some lenses, I have my doubts. The 17-40L does not have a very good reputation (no personal experence) and the superzoom 28-300L does show so-so results according to the Digital Picture.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=295

The combo of 24-105L and 100-400Lii performs better. Even with the 100-400 replaced by the 70-300L.

And, according to tests, even the 24-240 non-L superzoom performs better.

So that is the condition that a lens get its red ring ?

I think it’s more clear when comparing the 70-300mm vs 70-300mm L variant. Slightly better optical formula and professional grade construction.

A super zoom probably isn’t possible to make super sharp, and the 28-300mm 3.5-5.6L is rated better than the Nikon variant at DXO.

If you want to carry just one professional grade lens, that goes from wide to almost ultra telephoto, what are the options?

And the 17-40mm 4.0L has DXO measured sharpness equivalent of the 16-35mm 2.8L II, probably exceeding that of the 16-35mm 2.8L. But it was already replaced by the 16-35mm 4.0L IS model.

BlueRay2 · May 5, 2020

mermaidkiller said:
The L series is, al we all know. a premium optical and build quality range of Canon lenses.

But with some lenses, I have my doubts. The 17-40L does not have a very good reputation (no personal experence) and the superzoom 28-300L does show so-so results according to the Digital Picture.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=295

The combo of 24-105L and 100-400Lii performs better. Even with the 100-400 replaced by the 70-300L.

And, according to tests, even the 24-240 non-L superzoom performs better.

So that is the condition that a lens get its red ring ?

i have 13 "L" lenses and each one deserves the red ring, as far as i am concerned! although, not as good as the 2 zeiss lenses (21mm and 100 macro) i have. even then, i think canon 300 f2.8 II is the sharpest and the best color rendering lens i have ever seen!

as far as tele zoom lenses are concerned, my go to and most used lenses are 24-70 f2.8 II and 100400 II, in fact, i hardly use any of my other lenses (including all of my primes in that range) when i go on a photog. excursion! these 2 noted lenses are incredibly good and versatile.

as far as 17-40 f4.0 is concerned, i know there are many users out there that are not happy with its performance and i do agree with them if it is used on a FF camera, only! however, if 1740 is mounted on a aps-c camera, it is one of the best canon UW tele zoom lenses but, again, NOT to be used on a FF camera. the color rendition, sharpness, contrast are one of the best, in my experience! it is sharp across the frame. please don't take my word, here are a few samples:

--
We are ephemeral dreamers, like surfers on evanescent waves!!!

shawnphoto · May 5, 2020

mermaidkiller said:
The L series is, al we all know. a premium optical and build quality range of Canon lenses.

But with some lenses, I have my doubts. The 17-40L does not have a very good reputation (no personal experence) and the superzoom 28-300L does show so-so results according to the Digital Picture.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=295

The combo of 24-105L and 100-400Lii performs better. Even with the 100-400 replaced by the 70-300L.

And, according to tests, even the 24-240 non-L superzoom performs better.

So that is the condition that a lens get its red ring ?

L stands for luxury. Luxury is kind of an amorphous term that can mean different things to different people. The reputation that L has for optical quality is an earned reputation from decades of quality lenses.

rsn48 · May 5, 2020

Released in May of 1995, this old product - 400 f5.6 lens - was not only an excellent lens, converted more wildlife photographers from Nikon to Canon and still can stand up to megapixel scrutiny. It is still preferred by some like Chelsea Northrup.

Trevor Sowers · May 5, 2020

Andy01 said:
Sittatunga said:

mermaidkiller said:

The L series is, al we all know. a premium optical and build quality range of Canon lenses.

But with some lenses, I have my doubts. The 17-40L does not have a very good reputation (no personal experence) and the superzoom 28-300L does show so-so results according to the Digital Picture.

Click to expand...

The 17-40mm came out in 2003 and was half the price and speed of its 17-35mm and 16-35mm predecessors. The 28-300mm came out a year later and (as Dr Johnson said), the wonder is not that it was done badly, the wonder is that it was done at all.

The 17-40mm is, however, 17-year-old cutting-edge design and its price and specification reflect that.

Click to expand...

This is true up to a point. The original 100-400L came out in 1998 (5 years before the 17-40L) and it can still hold it's own with most larger zooms for IQ. The newer 100-400L ii is, of course, an exceptionally good lens and a useful improvement, but the original can still put many other large zooms in their place.

I tried the 17-40L once when I was looking to buy a wider angle lens for my (at the time) 600D, and I went to a large shop with my camera and took test images with many similar lenses, and IMO the 17-40L performed worse than most of them.

I somewhat disagree with the comment above that the corners don't matter - in many cases the very reason for using a WA (or UWA if on FF) lens is to fit in as much as possible, and that often includes the edges and corners. IMO it is not just the corners (at least on FF) but the edges as well that are often soft up to f11. What is the point of buying a UWA lens if 25% of the FoV is soft and often cropped off ?

To OP

While there has been a few "duds" in the L range, the vast majority of them are pretty good in their class. I do agree with the comments above that sharpness is not everything, and other aspects of IQ, handling, reliability, durability, and of course, holding their value are also important.

In general, L lenses tend to hold their value far better than many others - I sold my original 100-400L for about 70% of what I paid for it after 9 years (even though I was still happy with the lens), and bought the 100-400L ii at a 40% discount, so my changeover cost was around US$280, which made the change a no-brainer.

Colin

If 25% of the frame was bad I would agree with you. I only have experience with my copy of the lens and it looks great other than the very corners, and as I've said that really doesn't matter to me. If someone is studying the corners of your photograph then it must be a very boring photo.

maiaibing · May 6, 2020

mermaidkiller said:
The L series is, al we all know. a premium optical and build quality range of Canon lenses.

But with some lenses, I have my doubts. The 17-40L does not have a very good reputation (no personal experence) and the superzoom 28-300L does show so-so results according to the Digital Picture.

The logic here is either that Canon should stop developing better coatings, AF motors weather sealing etc. or that Canon should retire every lens in their line if something better comes out.

The first is ridiculous and the second presumes that a 28-300mm can be replaced by a 100-400mm (or another, different lens) which clearly has no merit.

People buy these lenses, because they fulfil their specific needs. And L-lenses did not loose their lustre the day the first RF-lenses landed on the market.

Meanwhile Canon does retire L-lenses by replacing them with newer models (i.e. 35mm L II) or by stopping production (50mm f/1.0) when the demand is not there or production does not make sense any longer.

Nick5 · May 6, 2020

I bought the 17-40 f/4 L in January 2014 as a first full frame 5D Mark III was under the tree.
I bought this over the 16-35 f/2.8 L Mark II as it was smaller, lighter, and close to half the cost. Also it’s stopped down most of the time anyway as it was used for wider Land and Cityscapes. And only if they could have made one with IS.....

Used the f/4 L happily until later that Spring.... a new 16-35 f/4 L IS was introduced. Still used the 17-40 for another year until I found a real need to upgrade. A trip to Rome in the Summer of 2015, was the reason to upgrade. Sure the 16-35 f/4 L IS outperforms the 17-40 in every way. It better, why introduce with no improvements like corner to corner sharpness and IS as it allied me to capture Hand Held images at 1/10”. A superb lens.

now that we have more time on our hands, looking back at images from the 17-40, it sure did capture great moments. Glad I bought.
I still have the 17-40 here at home. A great back up if needed for service of the 16-35 f/4 L IS. Plus...... I like it.

RedFox88 · May 9, 2020

ed rader said:
during its day the 17-40L was the best UW for canon FF and the best walkaround for the canon crop sensor.

You mean wide angle lens. It gives a FOV of 28 on Canon aps-c cams at the short end

Sittatunga · May 9, 2020

RedFox88 said:
ed rader said:

during its day the 17-40L was the best UW for canon FF and the best walkaround for the canon crop sensor.

Click to expand...

You mean wide angle lens. It gives a FOV of 28 on Canon aps-c cams at the short end

Ed did specifically say full-frame UW and crop normal lens. Canon didn't settle on their current APS-C sensor size until they introduced the EOS 350D, two years after that lens.

rmexpress22 · May 10, 2020

Graham Meale said:
One of the criteria for an "L" lens is superior build quality.

Optically the best non-"L" lenses are without doubt better than the worst "L"s. Most of the least capable "L"s are a bit long in the tooth, as is the case with the 17-40.

This wasn't mentioned enough, the build quality.

The newer kit lenses are fairly sharp but that's not the only criteria needed for a pro/workhorse lens. There's also the mater of focusing speed and reliability. Then there's environmental sealing. IQ of the lens is only part of the reason of the L designation.

Alexander Rosenwald · May 23, 2020

The 17-40L may be a bit soft in the corners if used on a high resolution FF camera but - as others have said - it has its merits. Build quality is true L-level, color rendering, contrast and brilliance are top of class.

This is an excellent lens on any APS-C camera and it performs very well on analog film cameras. Despite hard use including some dropping incidents mine works for 15 years now without any issues. That's what I call value.

Do all L lenses really deserve the red ring ?

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Graham Meale

Guest

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts