I wouldn't say that the L lenses are over-rated. Over-priced, maybe. But just because a lens has an L in its name, it doens't mean that it's the best lens out there. There are some non-L lenses which are also amazing (17-55, for example).
Is L lens over-rated?
- Thread starter apiwales
- Start date
- Status
Sorry for being vagued.
1. No, I'm not from Canon and trying to get a market survey. It is just for my own thoughts.
2. The reason for starting this post:
I'm new to photography, using Canon DSLR. I saw ads at the "For Sale" forum here, and looked at the L lenses and the non-L lenses, and obviously, the prices are many many times more for the L lenses (for the same/almost same XXXmm range).
So, I was thinking whether it is worth the thought/dream of getting a L lens, when an equivalent non-L lens is much more affordable - I do not have a big budget (otherwise I will stock up the L lens in my bag)!
I want to hear from users - pros, amateurs, serious amateurs - on your take about the L lens, and to be able to understand the mystery of getting the L lens. Then I can continue dreaming of getting one, or just concentrate on getting the non-L lenses and forget about the L lenses!!
A long rambling from a newbie! Thanks to all that had shared your opinions.
1. No, I'm not from Canon and trying to get a market survey. It is just for my own thoughts.
2. The reason for starting this post:
I'm new to photography, using Canon DSLR. I saw ads at the "For Sale" forum here, and looked at the L lenses and the non-L lenses, and obviously, the prices are many many times more for the L lenses (for the same/almost same XXXmm range).
So, I was thinking whether it is worth the thought/dream of getting a L lens, when an equivalent non-L lens is much more affordable - I do not have a big budget (otherwise I will stock up the L lens in my bag)!
I want to hear from users - pros, amateurs, serious amateurs - on your take about the L lens, and to be able to understand the mystery of getting the L lens. Then I can continue dreaming of getting one, or just concentrate on getting the non-L lenses and forget about the L lenses!!
A long rambling from a newbie! Thanks to all that had shared your opinions.
actually this is EF-S 's L lens but cos it is a EF-S lens (cannot be used on FF), it cannot be labelled as a L lens but i think the glass is almost if not the same as those L lens.
L Lens is more expansive mainly due to the build quality as most of them are weather sealed. And will use better optics with one fluorite or ultra-low dispersion glass element, Ultra Sonic Motor and Full Time Manual focus.
For Zoom lens the L range usually comes with a constant aperture, be it 2.8 or 4. As for primes, L lens are those with the largest aperture avaliable. However there are always a few exceptional case.
Last edited:
You know, the answer is very simple.
Use whatever camera gears you have... when you really feel constrained by whatever equipments you have then look for something better than your existing setup.
There is always something better but that does not mean that you need those or you can afford to have that. on the other hand, I can afford two ice creams does not mean I will have two ice creams now.. right?
If you really use your gears, if you know their capabilities, it will really take you few years to feel constraint by your current gear. Honestly, many of us don't really understand our gears and think a L or expensive gear will make wonders for us!!
When you reach there, you probably very clearly know what are the bottlenecks in your current setup... probably you can revisit again and you will say yes, I need a L.... until then....learn your existing gears first.
buying a 70-200 L just for the F1 race... bagus~! :sweat::sweat::sweat:
too much money to spend nowadays...
too much money to spend nowadays...
Kana 4D/Toto one time big big, can buy all the lens Canon have....:bsmilie:
Haha, no la. Its now my weekly bird watching lens at sungei buloh, the single part is right, just not rich...heh.
Hi TS, been there and done that. Regardless if it's ur dream lens (which infact, it will be for almost every other Canon DSLR Users), i think as a new photographer, you should first learn and find out what you wnt to shoot and your area of focus. Then, you will be able to narrow down. If you shoot F1 like twice a year (M'sia and Singapore) then probably it is better off for you to just rent one first? However, as many peers have suggested in this forum, 70-200 is a good portrait lens as well. So if you are in this are of interest, then go for it.
It's just a matter of time you will get it.....and I'm always drooling when I see or hear students having L Lenses, for I worked very hard, but still, $3.3K is a cash commitment. I'm still dreaming......for a "L"
Budget is one thing, functions is another. I have L lenses, because they don't have equivalent non-L that match the specs. But I wouldn't stuff my bag full of L lens just because I can afford it. First of all, most L lens are heavier, and bulkier to achive the optical & robustness. For example, I still have my Tamron 28-75 as my walk around lens as I prefer the size compare to 24-70/2.8 from Canon.
Are L lenses overated? IMHO, no. They are neither overated nor overpriced. They are beautiful lenses that can help you take very nice pictures.
However, I do not own a single L lens, though I can very well afford them. The main reason is weight and size. L lenses are built bigger and heavier, with all the weather sealing and stuff, which I do not need. (I have owned and sold an L lens before.) My current gear is made up of:
Canon 550D
Toki 11-16mm f/2.8
EF 17-55mm f/2.8 IS
EF 70-300mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro
With the above, I feel very empowered and not limited at all. So, I have no desire to pick up an L lens. For each piece of equipment, I consider my needs, the weight of the lens, how it will fit in my bag, and the IQ of the lens... and to a lesser extent, price. If I were to pick up an L, it would probably be because my shooting style has changed.
Oh... an L also gives you bragging rights... which is important to some people, but not to me.
However, I do not own a single L lens, though I can very well afford them. The main reason is weight and size. L lenses are built bigger and heavier, with all the weather sealing and stuff, which I do not need. (I have owned and sold an L lens before.) My current gear is made up of:
Canon 550D
Toki 11-16mm f/2.8
EF 17-55mm f/2.8 IS
EF 70-300mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro
With the above, I feel very empowered and not limited at all. So, I have no desire to pick up an L lens. For each piece of equipment, I consider my needs, the weight of the lens, how it will fit in my bag, and the IQ of the lens... and to a lesser extent, price. If I were to pick up an L, it would probably be because my shooting style has changed.
Oh... an L also gives you bragging rights... which is important to some people, but not to me.
Last edited:
Why not?
If there are lemon copy, there are superb copy
My ex-boss compares his 70-200 f4 L IS lens with one of his mate's beercan (Sony/KM), and surprised that the old lens surpassed his L lens. So he asks CSC for calibration, but the result still poor, but somehow he confirmed that his one is lemon copy (although pass IQ test in CSC). He sold it, reject another copy (buy but return it), before settled on his 3rd copy. And this 3rd copy is mine now (after he change to another camp).
The L lens branding may just be a product of Canon's marketing strategy. It gives consumers a sense of satisfaction that they are getting a premium product, at a premium price
Nikon does not have a specific branding for their premium lenses, but are priced similarly to their Canon L lens counterparts
I think the premium price comes as a result of the better quality materials and optics that are used to produce those lenses, not the L brand. If Canon were to make an exact same lens as the 70-200 2.8 IS II but don't call it an L lens, the price will also be the same. And if it's not, then it makes people wonder if the L brand is just used as an extra revenue generator
On the subject of L lenses, i must say that most of them are very good in terms of IQ, focusing!, build, although i've only used a few of them
Nikon does not have a specific branding for their premium lenses, but are priced similarly to their Canon L lens counterparts
I think the premium price comes as a result of the better quality materials and optics that are used to produce those lenses, not the L brand. If Canon were to make an exact same lens as the 70-200 2.8 IS II but don't call it an L lens, the price will also be the same. And if it's not, then it makes people wonder if the L brand is just used as an extra revenue generator
On the subject of L lenses, i must say that most of them are very good in terms of IQ, focusing!, build, although i've only used a few of them
Nothing to do with the lens. Your buddy is probably worse off than you in skill. Either that, maybe you got lucky?
I find the Nikon 70-200 as good as the canon version.- Status
Similar threads
