Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 61 to 64 of 64

Thread: Canon L Lens ... what's the good?

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jun 2008

    Default Re: Canon L Lens ... what's the good?

    First up, looks like a lot of people are getting impatient in this forum... Let me just summarize some points and add a few of my own.

    1) L lenses are premium grade Canon lenses: does not mean they are amazing, their specifications such as f spot number are usually small (i.e. aperture is large). Also, they use UD lense elements which creates less distortion

    2) L lenses tend to have weather sealing: do note that not all L lenses are weather sealed

    More information can be found at:
    <a href="">Digital picture </a>

    There are some good L lenses and other bad ones. From my own experience and from reviews on the net, Canon L lenses tend to excel in the medium to long telephoto, short lenses tend to have quite a few people complaining about CA and sharpness.

    Each person would have his own idea of what is good or bad, but there are 3 things photographers tend to look at:

    1) Sharpness: Most lenses are sharp in the centre but may lack sharpness in the corners.

    2) Color: More accurate colors tend to be preferred. Chromatic abberation (fringing or pronounced colors at the edge of objects) are a big nono.

    3) Distortion: Sometimes, you may notice that the photo 'bulges' up in the middle etc. This can be corrected using photoshop but a good lens tends not to have any such distortion.

    Hope all these helps.

    Stay fun and happy

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    River Valley

    Default Re: Canon L Lens ... what's the good?

    wow.. this thread can be the official "Newbie guide to L Lens" now... haha.. thks for the additional input !

  3. #63

    Default Re: Canon L Lens ... what's the good?

    Quote Originally Posted by Anson View Post
    Personally I have used the Canon 24-70mm F2.8L & the 50mm F1.8. Frankly speaking judging strictly on lens's IQ on sharpness & color, the L lens is no match for the cheapo 50mm F1.8 lens (at similar F2.8).

    Of coz if you are comparing the bokeh, focusing speed the result would diff...
    hi Anson

    You mean the 50mm f1.8 is better in terms of IQ and sharpness than the 24-70 f2.8 L at f2.8? I am happy to hear that really..

    would u mind sharing some photos showing the difference?


  4. #64
    Senior Member ZerocoolAstra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    rainy Singapore

    Default Re: Canon L Lens ... what's the good?

    I like to use car analogies, since I'm a car nut

    An L lens vs a normal Canon lens, in a sense, is like a BMW M3 vs its stablemates.
    The most powerful 'non-M' 3 series at the moment is the 335i.
    If, for some reason, you decide that the 335's power is not enough, your next option up would be the M3, which is a fair bit more powerful, and much more expensive.
    So you might ask, why is the M3 so much more expensive? Surely the extra horsepower doesn't justify $xxxK more in the pricetag?
    To quantify all the differences would be mind-boggling.
    Every little bolt, gear, screw, shaft, spring, bushing, panel, etc that is different from the lesser brethren does contribute to the overall difference, and such things are really tough to quantify.

    To expect an L lens to be leaps and bounds better than the non-L lenses might be asking too much. TS, judging from your questions you seem to be wondering "so it's faster, has better IQ..... AND?" But there might not be much more to the 'AND'...

    Someone has also observed that L lenses don't overlap with non-L lenses, so if you really need a 50mm f/1.2 (just like you might really need a 400+ bhp V8 engine), your only option is to buy L.
    Exploring! :)

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts