Do "L" lenses make that much difference?

[Jody]

I find my Canon 28-200 zoom on the D60 is sharp and color pops out at me. I have 16-35L and 100-400L and don't notice that much improvement. Can someone post aprime L vs Prime or zoom Non L ?

 

[Jason Hutchinson]

Well, I'm not expert, but the two L lenses you mentioned are probably the 2 least sharp L lenses (zooms at least) currently made. Partially because of their focal range.

If you spend 3x as much on an L lens, you won't get 3x sharper image to be sure. You usually get a slightly sharper image and lots better build. Usually you also get wider or constant aperatures.

Do this test, put the 100-400L at 180mm and compare it to the 28-200 at 180mm. That's approximately as drastic as a change as you can expect to see going to L lenses.

Jason

I find my Canon 28-200 zoom on the D60 is sharp and color pops out
at me. I have 16-35L and 100-400L and don't notice that much
improvement. Can someone post aprime L vs Prime or zoom Non L ?

 

[Jody]

Thanks Jason. I will try both lenses 28-200 and 100-400L at 180mm and see if I can see a difference and I'll post the results. The images are just so sharp from my 28-200 I can hardly believe it.
Jody

 

[DavidP #28649]

Don't do the test at a small aperture like f/8. Do them at a "wide" aperture like f/5.6 (I think both lenses will go that wide at 180mm).

Thanks Jason. I will try both lenses 28-200 and 100-400L at 180mm
and see if I can see a difference and I'll post the results. The
images are just so sharp from my 28-200 I can hardly believe it.
Jody

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

 

[Greg M]

I've got two L lenses. Not because of the build quality but because of the features that they have. I've got the 100-400L IS and the 70-200L IS because of the IS and range for the 100-400L IS and the 2.8 and IS on the 70-200L IS. Both produce wonderful pics but I got them because they are the only lenses that have those features.

I've sold 3 other L lenses because I didn't think that their features were worth the price. Now if you need the build quality then they are worth the price but I don't need that quality. I base my purchases mostly on features, then quality of pictures and then price.

I find my Canon 28-200 zoom on the D60 is sharp and color pops out
at me. I have 16-35L and 100-400L and don't notice that much
improvement. Can someone post aprime L vs Prime or zoom Non L ?

 

[John Logins]

I agree with Jason L's are excellent lens. However they're heavy, ugly, and extremely expensive when compared with other makes. They have been designed with the field professional in mind. They need high quality durable lens that are easy to see low light. If that is what you are it's what you should buy.

I personally sold off my canon lenses, non- L's for better quality 3rd party lenses. For the D60 the Sigma's 15-30, in terms of image quality is superior to the older 16-35L from canon. Yikes I said it in this forum, prepare for an onslaught of L owners to chime in... The test reviews are out there one source would be popular photography website.

Which ever lens you chose, just make sure you do the research and I'm sure that you'll be happy.

If you spend 3x as much on an L lens, you won't get 3x sharper
image to be sure. You usually get a slightly sharper image and
lots better build. Usually you also get wider or constant
aperatures.

Do this test, put the 100-400L at 180mm and compare it to the
28-200 at 180mm. That's approximately as drastic as a change as
you can expect to see going to L lenses.

Jason

I find my Canon 28-200 zoom on the D60 is sharp and color pops out
at me. I have 16-35L and 100-400L and don't notice that much
improvement. Can someone post aprime L vs Prime or zoom Non L ?

 

[Jody]

I got the 28-200 as a "take with me everywhere lens". The 16-35L because I needed as wide an angle as I could get in a zoom, I got the 100-400L because of the IS. The Sigma 50-500 looks sharper but, I couldn't hold the 50-500 and get sharp photos like some people that post here. I needed the IS for the times I don't have the tripod that extra versatilty made it worth it even though is wasn't as sharp as the 50-500 on a tripod. With these 3 lenses I have most situations covered. What I want to find out is am I missing alot by not having the L Primes or the 28-70L. I'm sure canon would say I am. I'd like to see more people with these lens post direct compares at the same focal length.

 

[Jason Hutchinson]

The 100-400 can go to f/5. What I would do is run them both at the widest equal f/stop. So, I assume this will be f/5.6 because of the 28-200.

jason

Thanks Jason. I will try both lenses 28-200 and 100-400L at 180mm
and see if I can see a difference and I'll post the results. The
images are just so sharp from my 28-200 I can hardly believe it.
Jody

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

 

[David Martin]

I got the 28-200 as a "take with me everywhere lens".

During a recent discussion on this forum I was enquiring about non-L zooms.The 28-135IS seemed to crop up fairly ofen and I was thinking this was a good option. Checjking on the photography review page for lenses I couldn't find any trace of the 28-200. Is it discontinued or something as it sounds an exciting option.
Regards,
DaveMart

 

[DavidP #28649]

I don't Canon makes one. I believe that Sigma and Tamron both make one, though.

I got the 28-200 as a "take with me everywhere lens".

During a recent discussion on this forum I was enquiring about
non-L zooms.The 28-135IS seemed to crop up fairly ofen and I was
thinking this was a good option. Checjking on the photography
review page for lenses I couldn't find any trace of the 28-200. Is
it discontinued or something as it sounds an exciting option.

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

 

[Jason Hutchinson]

I don't know why you couldn't find this lens there, I hope this link works:

http://www.photographyreview.com/pscLenses/35mm,Zoom/Canon,EF,28-200mm,f-3.5-5.6,USM/PRD_84946_3128crx.aspx

I got the 28-200 as a "take with me everywhere lens".

During a recent discussion on this forum I was enquiring about
non-L zooms.The 28-135IS seemed to crop up fairly ofen and I was
thinking this was a good option. Checjking on the photography
review page for lenses I couldn't find any trace of the 28-200. Is
it discontinued or something as it sounds an exciting option.
Regards,
DaveMart

 

[Jody]

28-200 is new from Canon not an L and no IS. I really wish it had IS.
It's 3.5 to 5.6

http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/lineup/index.html

Canon lens link above.

I got the 28-200 as a "take with me everywhere lens".

During a recent discussion on this forum I was enquiring about
non-L zooms.The 28-135IS seemed to crop up fairly ofen and I was
thinking this was a good option. Checjking on the photography
review page for lenses I couldn't find any trace of the 28-200. Is
it discontinued or something as it sounds an exciting option.
Regards,
DaveMart

 

[Peter Gregg]

Recently I had to shoot with a Sigma 2.8 lens wide open the whole time. Until then I never saw the difference. The pictures from that night were disgraceful. The lens has gone back and a 28-70 L is on it's way here.

The stength of the L lens is the sharpeness they give you across the entire apeture spectrum. I used to think some lenses were fine because I was shooting at F8 and F11 most of the time. The 2.8 opening gave the D60 enough light to focus well, but I never shot down there. But if you need to use it wide open and the shots are not sellable it is time to rethink that thought.

On a side note, I was told there is a 24-70 2.8 L in the works. I never heard that rumor before, so I was a little surprised. I heard of the 28-105 L rumor, but not a 28-70 L replacement with a 24-70 L. That would actually be rather nice.

Pete

 

[DavidP #28649]

I see that Canon now has a 28-200 lens, too.

I don't Canon makes one. I believe that Sigma and Tamron both
make one, though.

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

 

[Greg M]

On a side note, I was told there is a 24-70 2.8 L in the works. I
never heard that rumor before, so I was a little surprised. I heard
of the 28-105 L rumor, but not a 28-70 L replacement with a 24-70
L. That would actually be rather nice.

This range really needs the extra 4mm on the wide side. That is until everything doesn't have a crop anymore. I'd still like to see some more mm on the long end but the 24 is more important. The 24-105 2.8 would allow me to replace 2 lenses with it but anything shorter and I'll have to hold onto my 28-135 IS as a walk around lens.

 

[Tom Boucher]

During a recent discussion on this forum I was enquiring about
non-L zooms.The 28-135IS seemed to crop up fairly ofen and I was
thinking this was a good option. Checjking on the photography
review page for lenses I couldn't find any trace of the 28-200. Is
it discontinued or something as it sounds an exciting option.

I did a lot of searching when I originally ordered my D60 and went with the 28-135 for the IS features, and it had better comments from people.

The 28-200 seemed to get into that 'too much zoom, not enough quality' section from several people that commented on it.

 

[Woody W.]

Jody,

It sounds like you have a good combo of lenses. I can't wait to see your 180mm comparison!

I got the 28-200 as a "take with me everywhere lens". The 16-35L
because I needed as wide an angle as I could get in a zoom, I got
the 100-400L because of the IS. The Sigma 50-500 looks sharper
but, I couldn't hold the 50-500 and get sharp photos like some
people that post here. I needed the IS for the times I don't have
the tripod that extra versatilty made it worth it even though is
wasn't as sharp as the 50-500 on a tripod. With these 3 lenses I
have most situations covered. What I want to find out is am I
missing alot by not having the L Primes or the 28-70L. I'm sure
canon would say I am. I'd like to see more people with these lens
post direct compares at the same focal length.

--

• Woody -

Eqiupment: Lots.

Favorite Quote: 'Never let the quest for the Perfect become the enemy of the Excellent'

 

[Lee Rothman]

With the L lenses, since they incorporate not only superior construction quality, but UD and and extra Aspherical elements, they will have less distortion, better edge to edge performance and are made to take the bumps and grinds of everyday professional use more so. In some cases you won't find any apparent differences (such as with the 85mm 1.8 for example) between the L vs. NON L's, but overall there IS a difference in larger or more highly examined images. The film folks know this as they examine them with a magnification loupe. It may not pan out for you but for many of us it's that next level of performance we crave. Still there are bargains in the Canon line that simply perform beyond their cost......

I find my Canon 28-200 zoom on the D60 is sharp and color pops out
at me. I have 16-35L and 100-400L and don't notice that much
improvement. Can someone post aprime L vs Prime or zoom Non L ?