Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: L lenses vs. not L  (Read 3444 times)

jasonl

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4
L lenses vs. not L
« on: May 22, 2007, 01:52:21 pm »

Hi,

I am looking to buy a new lense for my digital camera.  I have a Rebel XT and want to upgrade and am going to start with the lense.  

I was looking at the lenses on the canon website and have it narrowed down to

the 24-70 F2.8L

the 24-105 F4L

the 28-90 F4-5.6

The last one is not an "L" series lense but the MTF chart is just as good, even better, than some of the "L" lenses for the reduced sensor size of the Rebel.  And of course the cost is way less.

Any thoughts?  Are the "L" lenses a waste of money?  

Thanks.

Jason
Logged

francois

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13792
L lenses vs. not L
« Reply #1 on: May 22, 2007, 02:52:19 pm »

Jason,
There's more than MTF curves that separate L's  from other Canon lenses. Build construction is much better and the L lenses you mentioned are weather sealed.

In your case, I would go for the 24-105. On a full-frame camera, it presents a non-negligible distortion at wide angles but on a Rebel this would not be a problem at all. IS is also a plus, even for a 24-105 lens.
The 24-70 is very large and very heavy (about 1kg vs 0.6kg) and although I never tried one on a Rebel I believe that the camera balance would be less than ideal. The only advantage over the 24-105 is its f/2.8 maximum aperture, usefull if you shoot in low-light.

Finally, I don't think that L lenses are a waste of money.
Logged
Francois

jasonl

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4
L lenses vs. not L
« Reply #2 on: May 22, 2007, 09:20:44 pm »

Quote
Jason,
There's more than MTF curves that separate L's  from other Canon lenses. Build construction is much better and the L lenses you mentioned are weather sealed.

In your case, I would go for the 24-105. On a full-frame camera, it presents a non-negligible distortion at wide angles but on a Rebel this would not be a problem at all. IS is also a plus, even for a 24-105 lens.
The 24-70 is very large and very heavy (about 1kg vs 0.6kg) and although I never tried one on a Rebel I believe that the camera balance would be less than ideal. The only advantage over the 24-105 is its f/2.8 maximum aperture, usefull if you shoot in low-light.

Finally, I don't think that L lenses are a waste of money.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=119040\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Thanks for the reply.  I have been reading around and it seems that most people agree with you--the quality of the build is much better in the "L" series, even if the actual image quality is not always better.

My only question (for myself) now is, does the better build justify the price increase?  I could easy just replace the lower priced lens 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 times and still get equally good images without a big price tag...
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
L lenses vs. not L
« Reply #3 on: May 22, 2007, 09:55:47 pm »

The first thing you should do is sort out in your mind what kind of photographs you will be making, and therefore which range of focal length in a zoom lens would best suit your purposes. Once you know that, you know which lenses are available. If there is an L and a non-L having roughly the same focal length range that suits you, the next decision is how badly you need the build quality of an L lens. Putting it on a Digital Rebel, I'd wonder whether it is over-kill. The next question to ask yourself is about the extent you will actually see and need the quality difference between an L and non-L lens. To do this, buy it from a dealer who will let you test it and exchange it if you want something else instead. Under these conditions, I would start non-L if there is one in the focal range you want, and see whether the images are satisfactory for the biggest enlargements you will make. If so, your done. If not, try an L. Bottom line: you need to go through your own process of elimination to select what is best for you. The foregoing is a guide for doing that.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

stever

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1250
L lenses vs. not L
« Reply #4 on: May 22, 2007, 10:55:21 pm »

i have uses the 17-85IS with a 20D for some time before buying a 5D and 24-105

my tests indicate that the 20D doesn't have the resolution to benefit much from the 24-105

after using the 5D and 24-105 on a trip, i also realized how light and well-balanced the the 20d and 17-85 is (the images from the 5D and 24-105 are worth the weight penalty to me for serious subjects, but i just wouldn't bother putting the 24-105 on the 20D)

unless you're planning to go to a full-frame camera in the future, i'd recommend the 17-85 as an all purpose lens (with wide-angle capability that the 24-105 doesn't have on the crop-frame camera) and supplementing that with a second lens such as the 70-300 IS (depending of course on what you're shooting)
Logged

jasonl

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4
L lenses vs. not L
« Reply #5 on: May 23, 2007, 12:23:33 pm »

Thanks for all the replies.  I think i will rent a couple lenses and see which one works the best for me.  Since I'm not a pro, i don't really need a lens that can take a beating.  the if the image quality is equal, then the "L" series may be overkill for me.  But I'll try a few and see what happens.  I'll let you know.

Thanks again for the good input.

Jason
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
L lenses vs. not L
« Reply #6 on: May 23, 2007, 01:32:23 pm »

Quote
I have a Rebel XT and want to upgrade and am going to start with the lense. 

I was looking at the lenses on the canon website and have it narrowed down to

the 24-70 F2.8L

the 24-105 F4L

the 28-90 F4-5.6
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=119024\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Since you are not necessarily limiting yourself to L lenses, may I ask why you have not considered any of the Canon EF-S standard zoom lenses, which would give far less limited wide angle coverage than any of the three lenses above? In particular, the 17-55/2.8 IS EF-S, which is somewhat less expensive than the two L lenses you mention, one stop faster than the 24-105 and as fast as the 24-70 but with IS, which the 24-70 lacks. So it is definitely the best low light option.

The 17-55/2.8 EF-S seems to have MTF as good as or better than any of the three lenses you mention. Overall, it seems to have the quality of an L lens, and I suspect that it lacks the L designation only because Canon is reserving that for 35mm format EF lenses so far, as part of its effort to promote the idea of 35mm format as the only choice for serious photographers.
Logged

LPJay

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10
    • lumen-perfectus.com
L lenses vs. not L
« Reply #7 on: May 23, 2007, 09:30:17 pm »

"L" trivia:

As I understand it, Canon's "L" isn't directly a quality designation, although it's often used as such. The L designation means the lens has at least one of the following:

1. A flourite element
2. UD glass (ultra-low dispersion)
3. A ground-glass aspheric element

Not real obvious, and perhaps a little off-topic, but interesting, yes?

  --Jay
  www.lumen-perfectus.com
Logged

Khun_K

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 349
    • http://
L lenses vs. not L
« Reply #8 on: May 24, 2007, 02:20:20 am »

Quote
Hi,

I am looking to buy a new lense for my digital camera.  I have a Rebel XT and want to upgrade and am going to start with the lense. 

I was looking at the lenses on the canon website and have it narrowed down to

the 24-70 F2.8L

the 24-105 F4L

the 28-90 F4-5.6

The last one is not an "L" series lense but the MTF chart is just as good, even better, than some of the "L" lenses for the reduced sensor size of the Rebel.  And of course the cost is way less.

Any thoughts?  Are the "L" lenses a waste of money? 

Thanks.

Jason
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=119024\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It is hard to debate whether a more expensive lens a waste of money. I use mostly L lenses, that way at least I can forget about an eventual upgrade. Also, I assume L lens is better build so in harsh condition I will not worry too much about the care of the lenses, at least when I am shooting. I have also use some non-L lens with excellent quality so it is really a matter a lens works for its application and learn to use it and get the most out of it.  For MTF chart, it is not my concern when buying a lens, but I will probably take a look so at least I know its overall character, if I can tell at all.
Logged

jasonl

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4
L lenses vs. not L
« Reply #9 on: May 24, 2007, 01:37:21 pm »

Quote
Since you are not necessarily limiting yourself to L lenses, may I ask why you have not considered any of the Canon EF-S standard zoom lenses, which would give far less limited wide angle coverage than any of the three lenses above? In particular, the 17-55/2.8 IS EF-S, which is somewhat less expensive than the two L lenses you mention, one stop faster than the 24-105 and as fast as the 24-70 but with IS, which the 24-70 lacks. So it is definitely the best low light option.

The 17-55/2.8 EF-S seems to have MTF as good as or better than any of the three lenses you mention. Overall, it seems to have the quality of an L lens, and I suspect that it lacks the L designation only because Canon is reserving that for 35mm format EF lenses so far, as part of its effort to promote the idea of 35mm format as the only choice for serious photographers.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The "S" lenses seem good too.  But I don't like the way the edges of the image get less sharp.  Since I don't do any really wide angle shots, the reduced sensor size of the lower end Canons ( Rebel and 20D, etc.) is a bonus.  This way I only use the best part of the lens and get a little extra telephoto out of it. Right now I have a [a href=\"http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=7442]24-105 F3.5-4[/url] lens that I use all the time as my "standard".  The image is sharp corner to corner because of the inherent cropping effect of the smaller sensor.  For me it is worth the trade off of loosing a few mm of wide angle-ness that I wouldn't use anyway.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up