The L-Series Myth

[vineviz]

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.

Two things on this sentence. First, it is not an exclusive statement. In other words, Canon is not asserting that other lenses ARE NOT "designed and built" to meet the needs of demanding photographers. Second, it probaly refers more to mechanical quality than optical quality.

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."

This is true, but is also full of marketing hyperbole. The focal length/aperture combinations of the L-series lenses (especially zooms and super-bright primes) probably is unattainable using traditional technology. That just tells us that a usable 50mm f/1.0 be impossible to build without a ground and polished aspherical element, for example. It doesn't tell us that the 50mm f/1.0 will outperform a 50mm f/1.4 at similar apertures. This may be true, but that isn't what Canon is asserting here.

Also, if I look at this link, it is pretty clear that the L lenses are superior to the consumer lenses.

That chart is showing us that, according to Castleman, at the 135mm focal length, the 135mm f/2L and 70-200 f/2.8L outresolve the Tamrom and Canon consumer zooms.

The chart below shows that the 50mm f/1.4 outresolves the 28-70mm f/2.8L at 50mm. If you look carefully, you'll also note that the 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 outresolves the 28-70mm f/2.8L at f/8



The chart below shows that the 24mm f/2.8 outresolves the 17-35mm f/2.8L almost across the board. So does the 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5



Of course, these are simply resolution tests. There are dozens of other factors that one might consider when evaluating a lens (sharpness, contrast, bokeh, maximum apeture, size, weight, cost, distortion, chromatic aberration, spherical aberration, flare, astigmatism, curvature of field, coma, etc) that might lead a person to prefer the L to the non-L or vice versa.

 

[Charles Carroll]

Talented photographer may make better job shooting with top of line "L" lens than other talented photographer with disposable camera.

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

 

[vineviz]

Actually Canon states the following about what L lenses are:
http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/technology/lseries.html

Yeah, but check out the last sentence on this link

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/room/f_index.html

From reading that it doesn’t look like the aspherical elements are
required to be ground and polished

From the link above: " Large diameter ground and polished aspherical lens elements are used for "L" series lenses to achieve sharp definition."

Plus, I know this to be true from long-ago discussions with Canon technical reps. Trust me

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.

Not entirely. In the written descriptions for the lenses in my copies of Lens Work I and II, Canon sometimes (but not always) identifies the precise type of aspherical element used.

For instance, the 28mm f/1.8 uses a replicated aspherical while the 28mm f/2.8 uses a glass-molded aspherical.

Of course, any L-series lens with an aspherical element must be ground and polished

 

[MLynnL]

I think your link is wrong since I don't see any sentances anywhere when I click on that link.

Greg

 

[Christopher Fritz]

in my tests, the L lenses I own (300 f4L & 17-40 f4L) outperform any other lens I have used including the 75-300IS, 24-85 & the 28-135IS. So come to your own conslusions, but for me, L and primes are best.

I plan on getting the 135 f2L next and the 85 f1.8 non-L.

• Chris

 

[MLynnL]

I guess I got ripped off by purchasing lens work III. It does indicate that the 28mm f/2.8 uses a glass-molded aspherical lens element, but it does not identify the type of aspherical lens element that is used in the 28mm f/1.8.

Greg

 

[jackal]

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.

That's my point. What's "best" in a class begs the question of what the class is. In this case it's tilt-shift, but the applications are typically quite different. (We wouldn't normally compare a 24mm to a 90mm, right?) The 35-350 was another instance of this question -- I don't think it's intended to be compared to a 70-200, even though Canon often lists them in the same category in their literature.

[the 50mm] isn’t the sharpest lens wide open but the pictures have a
look that I just love.

I don't have an opinion about that lens one way or the other, but loving a look isn't the same as being the best in class. This begs the question of what's best. One person might prioritize razor sharpness over shallow DOF dreaminess. "L" doesn't guarantee which the lens offers.

 

[MLynnL]

Lens work III does indicate that all of the L primes with asph elements are ground polished elements, but the asph element in the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L is “ground, replica, glass mold.” It also indicates that the EF 17-40mm f/4L uses two types of asph elements though it doesn’t specify which ones. It also indicates this is the case for the 24-70 f/2.8L. It does not indicate that any of the non-L lenses contain ground-polished ashp elements, though there are several non-L lenses in the book with asph elements where the type is not identified.

Greg

 

[MLynnL]

I happen to own all of the EF 50mm lenses and as far as I have been able to determine the f/1.0L is indeed the best in class.

It does look like the ground-polished aspherical element is one of the qualifying technologies that lets a lens be an L so I guess everything is right with the world again and I even learned something!

Greg

 

[vineviz]

I think your link is wrong since I don't see any sentances anywhere
when I click on that link.

Greg

Yeah, I goofed the link due to that site's use of frames.

Click the tab on the left for "Aspherical Lenses". The sentence I mentioned is the last one on the new page that loads in the main frame.

 

[MLynnL]

I finally found it last night after reading through all the sections on that main page. This has been a good thread IMO. Thanks for the info.

Greg

 

[Turkoman]

I am no expert by any means. This post comes as I placed my order for the 24-70L and the 70-200L/IS yesterday. I was always suspicious of an "L-conspiracy" on this forum. All of the "L-crowd" is part of this conspiracy (As part of their sinister plans, they make others buy these ridicilously expensive lenses that are no better than lenses without the red rings?...Maybe Canon is in on this too!) I guess I should have stuck with my 50/1.4 and 100/2 along with my 28-135 IS. Maybe I should cancel my order and get a few more primes plus a trip with the leftover money

Seriously though, I know what you mean and I saw Fred Miranda's tests comparing the 24-70L with the 50/1.4 where the 50/1.4 was clearly superior in sharpness, and as good in color and contrast. So primes are better than zooms, agreed. End of discussion (at least for me). In fact, I had a hard time justifying to myself why I would need the 24-70L if I had the 50/1.4 already.

However, what sold me on the L-zooms was the fact that after taking a batch of pics with various zoom lenses, I found my 17-40L to be truer to what I believed color and sharpness should be. Maybe it was a placebo effect, maybe my brain was trying to justify my $700 expense. From what I can see though the L-zooms are the closest thing to prime quality you can achieve in zooms. I decided that I wan't the 50/1.4 images but I don't want 3 lenses to cover the 24-70 range. And if you don't want to switch lenses often with primes, then the L-zooms are probably worth every cent. The question is whether that convenience is really worth that many cents to all? It is to some and not to others.

I frequently read posts about Canon L-series lenses in this forum

referring to things like “L-colors”, “L-sharpness”, or just
“L-quality”. Since all of these statements reflect a
misunderstanding of what the L-series lenses are or, at the very
least, a looseness with the truth I want to weigh in.