The L-Series Myth

[MLynnL]

Here's what Canon says L means:

http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/technology/lseries.html

Greg

 

[MLynnL]

The 135 f/2 is quite a nice lens as are most of the telephoto lenses. I like the look of the pictures I get from the mid to tele lenses better as well. I still very much like a lot of the shots that I get from my 24 and 35mm f/1.4’s, especially when they are used wide open and near their minimum focus distance.

Greg

 

[Adam-T]

None of those 3 L’s has a UD, SLD or fluorite element.

Don't they have a GROUND aspherical element like the 28-70L ? - this counts for the "L" tag also ..

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

-- Canon EF35-80 F4-5.6 Owners Club Member #3580 -- ;-)

 

[tasty donuts]

i agree the 35/1.4L looks great close up as well as wide open. not quite as stunning on mid to long range shots, but that's probably just the nature of a wideangle. i certainly have no regrets with my current setup (35L, 50/1.8, 135L), i shot only with my 35 and 135 yesterday and loved it. need to sell that damn 24-85...

The 135 f/2 is quite a nice lens as are most of the telephoto
lenses. I like the look of the pictures I get from the mid to tele
lenses better as well. I still very much like a lot of the shots
that I get from my 24 and 35mm f/1.4’s, especially when they
are used wide open and near their minimum focus distance.

Greg

 

[jackal]

The point I am making is that there are a lot of inconsistencies as to
what must be present for a lens to be “L”. The one
thing that does seem to be consistent is that the L lenses are the
best of their class.

I agree with you, but I'll just add the note that the "best of their class" is very subjective. (I'm not sniping; I suspect that we agree on this, too.)

For example, some people argue that the 50/1.4L is better than the now discontinued 50/1.0L showpiece, except that the latter is obviously capable of a larger aperture. Then, there's usage -- the TS-E 90 might be better suited for product photography than the TS-E 24. Also, the class distinctions blur for lenses like the 35-350mm. Best 10x response to Tamron and Sigma?

 

[vineviz]

None of those 3 L’s has a UD, SLD or fluorite element. The
point I am making is that there are a lot of inconsistencies as to
what must be present for a lens to be “L”.

Canon lenses must have at least one of the following to be an L-series lens.

1. Fluorite element
2. UD element
3. Super UD element
4. Ground and polished aspherical lens element

All L-series lenses have at least one of the above technologies. With two exceptions, noted earlier (MP-E and DO lenses), all Canon lenses with at least one of the above technologies is L-series.

As others point out, there are ways to make aspherical elements that don't involve grinding and polishing. These molded glass, molded plastic, and replica aspherical elements are less expensive and optically inferior to a G&A aspherical and don't count one way or the other towards L-status.

 

[Charles Carroll]

I think Canon plans to differentiate the DO category and that is the reason they didn't designate the 400 f/4 DO as an "L". Its construction is up to the "L" standard.

The "luxury" designation isn't even that straightforward. Consider
the MP-E 65/2.8: it has a UD element, but it lacks the "L"
designation. Maybe Canon wanted the 180mm macro to stand out.

The other exception is the 400mm f/4 DO IS USM. It has a fluorite
lens element, in addition to the diffractive optics element, and
has the dust and weather seals of the L-series IS lenses.

I am a bit puzzled by these two exceptions, but I assume that Canon
considers the MP-E and DO lenses de facto ineligible for L-status
for some reason. Can't guess what that might be.

The label is principly for marketing.

Perhaps, in that many early sales of EOS cameras and EF lenses
(especially to pros) depended heavily on Canon's technological
superiority to the competition.

Still, I am happy to have a lens called "24-70mm f/2.8L USM" than
one called "24-70mm f/2.8 ASP UD USM".

 

[bimmerman]

Been having loads of fun with my Sigma 15-30 and Canon 24-85USM. These non L lenses have been capturing some pretty decent shots. These two are now my favourite walkarounds.

......On a lens by lens basis, I don't care if it's an L, a non-L,
a Sigma, Tokina, whatever - I buy what I NEED to get the job done
and suggest everyone do the same..

Usually an L ZOOM will offer faster aperture for a given focal
range than a non-L and with less aberrations or distortions in
comparison to it's non-L counterpart but that doesn't mean that a
non-L should be ruled out - for instance, there is no L equivalent
to a 28-135IS, if you NEED IS below 70mm and I do on a lot of
occasions, only a consumer lens will pull the job off - same with
the Macro Primes, there aren't any L Macros below 180mm just as
there aren't any non-L Primes over 135mm .

Comparing a 35mm prime to the long end of an ultra wide angle zoom
is ridiculous in the extreme (as ridiculous as comparing a 135F2L
Prime to the 135mm setting on a 75-300-III in fact) , there are
just too many compromises made in an UWA zoom to even think of such
a comparison - compare the 35F2 to the 35mm F1.4L prime to be fair,
even to a 24/28-70L, likewise compare a 70-200L F4 to an old 70-210
F4 Pump zoom or the 100-300L F5.6 non-L to the L version to see the
difference fancy elements make.

This of course doesn't mean that the non-L "Versions" aren't valid
lenses, in fact a 35F2 is in a lot of ways more practical than the
1.4L and the 85F1.8 is a HELL of a lot more practical than the 1.2L
but if you need the aperture then you need to spend the cash..

People DO buy Ls blind when they may not need them, I've had
sterling shots from the lowly 35-80 and stunners from the 28-135IS
and 24-85, but none of them are anywhere near as sharp at their
slow wide open apertures as my 28-70L is at F2.8 BUT they ALL have
better range, carryability and in a lot of cases are more than
good enough for leisure work.

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

-- Canon EF35-80 F4-5.6 Owners Club Member #3580 -- ;-)

 

[Chris Dodkin]

Looking at your typical subjects in your online gallery, I can see why you're happy with Canon USM EF lenses.

They give you what you need and the price is right.

However, in my case, L lenses are worth the investment.

They give me the speed I want, the build quality to stand thousands of hours use at race tracks, and consistant quality and reliability.

Standard USM lenses simply cannot deliver this in my case.

So whilst you may convince yourself that you don't need L glass, that's a very personal view of the photographic world that doesn't apply to everyone.

Chris.

--
http://www.1D-images.com
[email protected]
Mac G4/iMac/iBook/iPod

 

[Lek187919]

Canon puts the “L” designation on lenses that include certain
optical technologies (e.g. UD glass, fluorite, or a ground &
polished aspherical element). Period. Canon has never claimed
that L lenses have superior optical quality to non-L lenses as a
rule. The “L” designation is not a mark, per se, of optical
quality.. If a lens has one of the aforementioned technologies, it
is an L lens. If the lens does not have that technology then it is
not an L lens.

Practically speaking, however, Canon won't release lenses wtih "L" mark that does exhibit 'poor' optical quality than the non-L ones in the same focal-length/aperture. With "L" techonology, the lens will get to be expensive, and who would pay for that if the better result can be achieved with cheaper lens.

That doesn't mean the 28-70 2.8L will perform better than 50/1.4 at focal length of 50mm at any aperture. At 50mm F11, very few lens would beat 50/1.4. But no other 28-70 2.8 lens will deliver the same 'optical' quality as 28-70 2.8L.

So, saying L-quality does have some truth in it.

Lek

 

[vineviz]

Looking at your typical subjects in your online gallery, I can see
why you're happy with Canon USM EF lenses.

They give you what you need and the price is right.

However, in my case, L lenses are worth the investment.

They give me the speed I want, the build quality to stand thousands
of hours use at race tracks, and consistant quality and reliability.

Standard USM lenses simply cannot deliver this in my case.
So whilst you may convince yourself that you don't need L glass,
that's a very personal view of the photographic world that doesn't
apply to everyone.

By and large, the same lenses I use now on my Digital Rebel to take pictures of my family are the same lenses I used in the mid-90s as a professional photojournalist. I did have a 300mm f/4L and 1.4x extender then (which I don't now) but otherwise my kit is basically intact.

For example, the 24mm f/2.8 I used yesterday morning to photograph my daughter reading on the floor in her room was the same lens I used in Mogadishu, Somalia to photograph the withdrawal of U.N. troops. Ditto on my 50mm f/1.8 and 100mm f/2.

Now my subject matter is fairly domestic, but doesn't mean that my standards are any lower. I often shoot inside my house without flash, meaning that the f/1.8 or f/2 apertures on my lenses get a lot of use. For me, the L-series zooms would often be inferior or even unusable. So, yes, my lens choice DOES reflect my personal needs.

If I needed to photograph NFL games or horse races again, I'd probably add an L-series telephoto or two to my kit. Heck, I might do it anyway.

But don't put words in my mouth. I never (okay, rarely) presume to tell people what lens to buy unless they ask. My point here was much more broad and objective than that: L-series lenses are not always better than non-L lenses. By and large, most people don't need L lenses to make good images if they are thoughtful about the lens choices they make.

And, frankly, I get a little sick of people asking for advice on a budget ($300-$500) lens kit only to be told that they need a 24-70 f/2.8L to be happy. I'm just trying to add another perspective to the debate.

 

[MLynnL]

I don’t think that product photography was the intended use for the 24mm f/3.5L as I use it more for landscapes and architecture. Maybe I am wrong. I mostly use the 90mm TS-E for macro type work and the 45 TS-E for product photography. I guess here, the asph element in the 24 is what sets it apart from the other TS-E lenses.

I happen to like the 50mm f/1.0L MUCH better than I like the 50mm f/1.4. To me there is absolutely no comparison between them. Yes it isn’t the sharpest lens wide open but the pictures have a look that I just love. This one has two asph elements so it still qualifies in that respect as well.

The 35-350 is actually a pretty decent lens also. Since Canon doesn’t make Tamron or Sigma lenses so though they may be better they don’t really count. The other lens that Canon makes that is in the class of the 35-350 is the 28-200. I haven’t ever used the 28-200 but my guess is that the 35-350 is overall a “better” lens.

Anyway, I don’t know what kind of asph elements are in the different lenses, but apparently Canon has 4 different manufacturing techniques for making them. Even if they have a ground aspherical element in a consumer lens like the 28-200 I don’t think they would call it an L lens because of other properties of that lens that don’t live up to L image that Canon wants to create.

Greg

 

[Christopher Fritz]

The last paragraph from: http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/technology/lseries.html

"Canon L-series EF lenses are designed and built to meet the needs of the most demanding professional photographers. Their superb optics enable pros and advanced amateurs to have lenses that are the absolute pinnacle of optical performance, and enable lens/speed combinations with professional performance simply not attainable using traditional optical technology."

If I read this paragraph correctly, they state that the L level of lenses are the pinnacle of performance not attainable in their traditional lens line.

Also, if I look at this link, "



"

it is pretty clear that the L lenses are superior to the consumer lenses.

• Chris

Canon puts the “L” designation on lenses that include certain
optical technologies (e.g. UD glass, fluorite, or a ground &
polished aspherical element). Period. Canon has never claimed
that L lenses have superior optical quality to non-L lenses as a
rule.

 

[MLynnL]

Actually Canon states the following about what L lenses are:

http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/technology/lseries.html

From reading that it doesn’t look like the aspherical elements are required to be ground and polished but that the L lens comes from a combination of many factors such as the coatings used… Do you know of a place where I can find out what type of aspherical elements are in each of the EF lenses. I would genuinely like to know which lens has which technology. Overall it looks like the L lenses are the ones that Canon goes all out to make the best they can. The other lenses have compromises to keep costs down (of course many of them are still excellent).

Greg

 

[Christopher Fritz]

I did not mean to embed this MTF image in my post. It came from this web site. I only wanted to post it as a link.

http://www.wlcastleman.com

How do you link to an image instead of display it?

Thanks,
Chris

 

[Mr Majestyk]

Pointless debate. It's like comparing a Ferrari to a Corolla. It would be easy to argue that for many applications the Corolla is the better choice. There is no need for the Ferrari, but if you want to do some track work or go down that favourite twisty road, the Ferrari is so far beyond the capabilities of the Corolla you wouldn't even give it a second thought.

Same with L glass. You don't really need L glass, but in specialized situations eg shooting wide open at big apertures the L glass is not only the correct tool but some times the only tool. There are no fast non L zooms for example. The difference between L and non L is not as extreme as Ferrari and Corolla in general, and Canon complicates matters buy having Lexuses (non L fast primes that are superb) but generally you use the best tool available for the job. But unlike the Ferrari which really isn't designed for doing the shopping say, L glass works brilliantly (mostly - Hmm I wouldn't want to carry around a 400 f/2.8 all day though) in all situations, so you don't just use it for low light. You know you will be getting great colour, contrast, sharpness and bokeh and good to great build quality.

My minds slipping, I need food.

 

[Novice161734]

how do you display instead of liking?

I did not mean to embed this MTF image in my post. It came from
this web site. I only wanted to post it as a link.

http://www.wlcastleman.com

How do you link to an image instead of display it?

Thanks,
Chris

 

[MLynnL]

I completely agree with you that you don’t need L lenses to make great photographs. You need talent to do that. In all reality I don’t NEED a camera or any lenses, but I do get a lot of enjoyment from using them. Anyway, I think your post has a lot of merit because I see a lot of people being told that they need a lot more expensive lens than what will really be required to get their job done.

Greg

 

[Gleb Esman]

Talented photographer will make better job shooting with disposable camera then the other guy with top of line "L" lens.
No charts needed.
Make sense?

Gleb

 

[Gary Coombs]

I did not mean to embed this MTF image in my post. It came from
this web site. I only wanted to post it as a link.

http://www.wlcastleman.com

How do you link to an image instead of display it?

By putting a semicolon at the end of the URL you creat a link instead of an embedded image.

--
Gary Coombs
My Profile contains my Equipment List
http://GaryCoombs.com/10D/New
http://GaryCoombs.com/10D/Test

A good photograph is knowing where to stand. -Ansel Adams