Is L lens over-rated?


Status
Not open for further replies.
i just hope 3rd party lenses get better so that canon will lower their price...

to see if L lenses are overrated, u must compare it against something similar... if a 3rd party can do close, then that L is overrated...

Yes, but it is a rare 3rd party lens that can surpass an L.
 

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).

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.

It takes more than just great optics to qualify as an L. There's the build and the weather sealing as well (plus the weight and size that goes with it). I'm actually very glad that the 17-55 is an EF-S lens, and therefore not an L. As such, Canon did not put a magnesium alloy body on it. So, the EF17-55mm is lighter (especially when compared to its Nikon counterpart), cheaper and has wonderful optics. The 17-55 is the single most important reason why I'm in the Canon camp.
 

Yes, but it is a rare 3rd party lens that can surpass an L.

what about the sigma 24-70 against canon 24-70 L? they are close...

i am a canon user also.. but i must say i am disappointed with canon on some of their equipments.. but overall i still prefer Canon, so i stay... but i hope they will wake up their idea...
 

If an L gives the combination of sharpness, colour, compatibility and feel that you cannot get from any other lens, then price is not an issue, even if it costs 5 or even 10 times the price of the next best lens. You don't pay the money, you don't get the quality.

If there is a lens that gives as good overall performance, build etc as the L but costs much less, the the L is overpriced.
 

Last edited:
Other than CZ, i think there isn't much competition between 3rd party and L series lens, although I must say, in certain areas, the Sigma camp does better, but on the overall, I would say Canon's L lens perform consistently well. I have laid my hands on various L lens and must say, as of now, none has disappoint me. If I were to pull in the L primes in here, I think it's going to tip the scale very very much to L lens are worth the money.
 

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.

Well what i meant was that the percentage of keepers are definitely more than what i expected and definitely more than what he has thats for sure. There are alot of factors, like how fast the AF is and also how is it able to track the cars at high speed, small things like that, and by weighing all these and using it and using his also, you get to see why the L lens cost more and the result turned out the way they turned out to be.

Overall, L lens is what you pay is what you get, though i have to say, its a little steep for what you get, but the overall quality and best of all the resale value, is just as high as the premium you pay originally.
 

Yes, is really over rated and terrible....please do not buy it. Not worth at all. I know because I only have L lenses....they are really bad!
 

i just hope 3rd party lenses get better so that canon will lower their price...

to see if L lenses are overrated, u must compare it against something similar... if a 3rd party can do close, then that L is overrated...

Zeiss? Voigtlander? They are 3rd party too. ;)
 

Well what i meant was that the percentage of keepers are definitely more than what i expected and definitely more than what he has thats for sure. There are alot of factors, like how fast the AF is and also how is it able to track the cars at high speed, small things like that, and by weighing all these and using it and using his also, you get to see why the L lens cost more and the result turned out the way they turned out to be.

Overall, L lens is what you pay is what you get, though i have to say, its a little steep for what you get, but the overall quality and best of all the resale value, is just as high as the premium you pay originally.

Yes I agree with all that you said. But Nikon 70-200 is just as expensive. You just can't say a 70-200L is much better than a Nikon 70-200 just because you have more keepers and your buddy do not. There are many many other factors.
 

I think if the lens image quality is good enough for me... I will buy it... regardless if it wear a L or not..... my ancient primes like 24 F2.8 and 35 F2.... and I am happy with it... so L or not, there's no issue.....Though I would prefer if they have ring USM and in a newer body like 85mm F1.8.... ;)

Just get what you need..... within your budget......
 

Yes, is really over rated and terrible....please do not buy it. Not worth at all. I know because I only have L lenses....they are really bad!

Really? Since so terrible and over-rated... let me do you a favour.... I pay S$10/- for all of them... okie? ;)
 

Really? Since so terrible and over-rated... let me do you a favour.... I pay S$10/- for all of them... okie? ;)

i'll pay $100 for each L lens you have.. plus $50 if they come with filter.. so thats $150 for each...
 

Yes I agree with all that you said. But Nikon 70-200 is just as expensive. You just can't say a 70-200L is much better than a Nikon 70-200 just because you have more keepers and your buddy do not. There are many many other factors.

yea whether is it much better or slightly better, after trying it and seeing the results, overall, the lens is in fact better. I dont know much about photography to be quite honest with you and everyday is a learning curve and getting to use different equipments from different brands just make most ppl realise where are there premiums for certain products and no doubt the nikon 70-200mm cost as much as the 70-200mm L, but is just isnt as good, or you call it, not as good as the canons and its the overall package that comes with it.
 

They're only over-rated if your skills are over-rated as well...

Good equipment only gets out of your way in making good images but doesn't help at all in the actual making of a good photo. Go figure.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.