Canon L series lenses

[cone]

More out of interest than need , presently I have a canon 450d , kit lens , nifty50 and a 28/135, is there soooo much diferance in a L series lens than mine, ie has anyone got examples of the same shot with an L and a normal lens out of curiosity? Sorry if its a daft question .
Cheers Rich

[dave-therave]

I use the Canon 24-105 F4 L pretty much all the time. It's hard to compare photos really because the image will depend so much on the light but the build quality and optical quality is amazing. I'm not sure I would spend all the cash on an L series lens to use it with the crop sensor on a 450D though, I'm not sure you'd see the benefits.

[SamHH]

Have a look at these two websites for example photos:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/
http://www.photozone.de/

As a rough guide though, I'd expect your 50mm lens to be as good optically as any L series zoom lens.

[looop]

SamHH said:

As a rough guide though, I'd expect your 50mm lens to be as good optically as any L series zoom lens.

Its a good lens for the price but there is a big difference between it and even the cheapest L-series lenses.

[Podie]

SamHH said:

As a rough guide though, I'd expect your 50mm lens to be as good optically as any L series zoom lens.

Sorry chap, but if you think that's the case - get your eyes tested.

There is a world of difference. Once you've had an L, you wont want to use anything else.

[dave-therave]

If the nifty 50 was that good I wouldn't have bothered with the 50mm F1.4 :P

[Stickers]

A mate of mine has a saying for 'L' lenses: "If it's not white - it's stE"

As pointed out, the 'L' lenses are far superior to anything else......for a long time I used the original 28-105 f3.5-5.6 lense that was sold with the first EOS 5's back in 1990 & I regard this lense as probably one of the best all round (non 'L') EF lenses that Canon ever produced.

[jon-]

dave-therave said:

I use the Canon 24-105 F4 L pretty much all the time. It's hard to compare photos really because the image will depend so much on the light but the build quality and optical quality is amazing. I'm not sure I would spend all the cash on an L series lens to use it with the crop sensor on a 450D though, I'm not sure you'd see the benefits.

Comparing the kit lens to the 24-105 F4 IS L on even a cropped sensor camera is night and day. Before I really knew what I was doing I rented the 24-105 on my little old 400d and the step in quality was obvious even to my untrained eye.

We can't all shoot 5d/1ds Remember the cropped sensor just gets the best bit (centre section) of the glass on an EF lens, instead of using the entire of an EF-S lens.

[jon-]

Stickers said:

A mate of mine has a saying for 'L' lenses: "If it's not white - it's stE"

As pointed out, the 'L' lenses are far superior to anything else......

Might be also worth pointing out 2 of the best L lenses (24-70 f2.8 and 24-105 f4) are both black bodies

[Stickers]

jon- said:

Stickers said:

A mate of mine has a saying for 'L' lenses: "If it's not white - it's stE"

As pointed out, the 'L' lenses are far superior to anything else......

Might be also worth pointing out 2 of the best L lenses (24-70 f2.8 and 24-105 f4) are both black bodies

Nope - his quote still applies as he uses a 300mm USM f2.8L & @ £4,500 back in 1994 he said it took over 4 years to pay for itself

[Typhon]

I personally wouldn't use anything else, bar some macro and some primes.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ilyaholt all photos were taken with L lenses

and those lenses are currently in classifieds section

[jon-]

Stickers said:

Nope - his quote still applies as he uses a 300mm USM f2.8L & @ £4,500 back in 1994 he said it took over 4 years to pay for itself

Ah I'm with you. That's just showing off!

[Gemm]

Probably the biggest difference you'll see is the sharpness when wide open.

[SamHH]

looop said:

Its a good lens for the price but there is a big difference between it and even the cheapest L-series lenses.

Podie said:

Sorry chap, but if you think that's the case - get your eyes tested.

There is a world of difference. Once you've had an L, you wont want to use anything else.

Have a look at this:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-122...

Maybe they are very different but I can't see it.

[dave-therave]

jon- said:

Comparing the kit lens to the 24-105 F4 IS L on even a cropped sensor camera is night and day. Before I really knew what I was doing I rented the 24-105 on my little old 400d and the step in quality was obvious even to my untrained eye.

We can't all shoot 5d/1ds Remember the cropped sensor just gets the best bit (centre section) of the glass on an EF lens, instead of using the entire of an EF-S lens.

Yea the quality compared to the kit lens will be amazing but the kit lens is very poor to be fair. What I meant to say is that I don't think I'd put a £950 lens on a £450 body.

[Gemm]

SamHH said:

Have a look at this:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-122...

Maybe they are very different but I can't see it.

Check 50mm at f1.8 and 24-70 at f2.8. This is what I meant by the difference wide open. I think the difference is huge.

[Typhon]

dave-therave said:

jon- said:

Comparing the kit lens to the 24-105 F4 IS L on even a cropped sensor camera is night and day. Before I really knew what I was doing I rented the 24-105 on my little old 400d and the step in quality was obvious even to my untrained eye.

We can't all shoot 5d/1ds Remember the cropped sensor just gets the best bit (centre section) of the glass on an EF lens, instead of using the entire of an EF-S lens.

Yea the quality compared to the kit lens will be amazing but the kit lens is very poor to be fair. What I meant to say is that I don't think I'd put a £950 lens on a £450 body.

I use a 20D, which is a crop sensor and I can certainly tell the difference between an L lens and something cheap.

Either way it goes beyond image quality with L lenses, the overall experience when using them and the fact they are weatherroof makes it all worth it. IMO the body has little bearing on it, although I'm sure the difference is more profound on a better one

Edited by Typhon on Wednesday 8th July 16:42

[SamHH]

Gemm said:

Check 50mm at f1.8 and 24-70 at f2.8. This is what I meant by the difference wide open. I think the difference is huge.

Sure, but then the zoom can't go to f1.8, so it's a moot point. I don't deny that the zoom lens is better in loads of other ways, but when you do a like for like comparison of the optical qualities, they seem very similar to me.

[Kermit power]

Gemm said:

SamHH said:

Have a look at this:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-122...

Maybe they are very different but I can't see it.

Check 50mm at f1.8 and 24-70 at f2.8. This is what I meant by the difference wide open. I think the difference is huge.

All of a sudden, I want nothing but prime lenses!

I just checked the 100mm f2.8 Macro wide open on that site, and it's in my view sharper than the 24-70 at 70mm, even stepped down to f4. The 24-105L at 105mm wide open is even worse! I'd never have expected that much CA.

[SMB]

dave-therave said:

jon- said:

Comparing the kit lens to the 24-105 F4 IS L on even a cropped sensor camera is night and day. Before I really knew what I was doing I rented the 24-105 on my little old 400d and the step in quality was obvious even to my untrained eye.

We can't all shoot 5d/1ds Remember the cropped sensor just gets the best bit (centre section) of the glass on an EF lens, instead of using the entire of an EF-S lens.

Yea the quality compared to the kit lens will be amazing but the kit lens is very poor to be fair. What I meant to say is that I don't think I'd put a £950 lens on a £450 body.

Actually thats the best way to do it, no amount of post processing can really compensate for poor glass, get the image clean and sharp on the sensor then you will get the best possible picture from the 400d. Put cheap glass on and get poor results. L glass adds sharpness, colour/contrast. I use 24-105L and 100-400L on my old 350d, gives some great results.