What is the Difference between these 2?

RobinChen · May 17, 2007

I've been searching through the whole canon website and I just cannot seem to find anything that describes the difference between the lenses that don't have an L after the F and the lenses that have an L after the F
ex. EF50mm f/1.2L USM vs EF50mm f/1.4 USM

Thanks for taking the time to help.

Garbz · May 17, 2007

L series describe the Canon's Professional range (they have a red ring on them). Just like the Nikon's Gold ring.

The differences in the lenses if nothing else is build quality, but often they also include some advanced features not in cheaper lenses, such as moulded aspherical elements rather than ground ones, internal focusing rather than having the entire body move as you rotate, and often they are environmentally sealed.

Also aside from that the L lens has an aperture of 1.2 which is half a stop faster than the 1.4 lens. This translates to shorter depth of field and faster shutter speeds (lower ISO) when used at that aperture rating. I believe that L lens is also the fastest production SLR lens available.

All in all, I am on a budget, and often the IF-ED Nikon lenses do not justify their high price compared to some of the better consumer lenses. I'm not sure if canon is the same.

Don Simon · May 17, 2007

Garbz said:
I believe that L lens is also the fastest production SLR lens available.

Actually I believe there's one or two f/1.0 lenses around.

Robin, generally when people buy a 50mm prime now they'll get an f/1.8 - for some it is worth getting an f/1.4 (for example I considered it worthwhile) but the actual benefits in practice are debatable. To make the greater leap to buying an f/1.2 lens I imagine you would first expect to shoot it wide-open (at f/1.2) or very near to wide-open most of the time. If not, you have a very heavy and very expensive lens attached to your camera having spent money that could otherwise have paid for two lenses. In other words don't worry about the f/1.2 unless A) You know you want the largest maximum aperture possible and you know f/1.8 or f/1.4 won't cut it, or B) you have an obscene amount of disposable income

DSLR noob · May 17, 2007

The L basically means a lot nicer in both build and performance. For canon users, it is MOST likely the top of the line for that focal length if you are looking tobuy. L primes are the creme de le creme for a Canon.

RobinChen · May 17, 2007

Thank you very much for all the info! Now I have a much clearer understanding between the two types of lenses. I guess its like Nissan vs Infiniti in a way, they both work just what do you really need the extra 200hp for

DSLR noob · May 17, 2007

RobinChen said:
Thank you very much for all the info! Now I have a much clearer understanding between the two types of lenses. I guess its like Nissan vs Infiniti in a way, they both work just what do you really need the extra 200hp for

I can think of so many reasons you'd want an Infiniti over a Nissan and so many reasons to want an L over a non L.

I can think of even MORE reasons to want 200 horsepower more.

RobinChen · May 17, 2007

ZaphodB said:
B) you have an obscene amount of disposable income

If that was the case I wouldve gotten the MARK and not even know what to do with it lol.

RobinChen · May 17, 2007

DSLR noob said:
I can think of even MORE reasons to want 200 horsepower more.

O Trust me I can too :mrgreen:

Garbz · May 18, 2007

ZaphodB said:
Actually I believe there's one or two f/1.0 lenses around.

Oh really? I know that Canon used to make a f/1.0 but it's not longer a production lens. The only other I've heard of is the Lecia lens for their range finders. Do you happen to know which company makes them (current production for SLR body), and or for which camera? And if it's for nikon I am even more interested

Don Simon · May 18, 2007

Ah yes, sorry I was mistaken... I was thinking of the Canon f/1.0 but as you say it's no longer in production. And like you pointed out the Leica lenses are only for their M system and not the SLRs.
I don't think Nikon, Pentax or Minolta made an f/1.0 lens in the recent past. Nikon and Pentax both sell f/1.2s but they're old designs in manual focus whereas Canon designed theirs for the EF mount more recently and are definitely in production, so you were right all along...

... there wasn't a smiley for 'sheepish'... :lol:

Alex_B · May 18, 2007

the new 50mm f/1.2 L is certainly a superb lens, but it is also a special purpose lens ... if you would need it, you would know it, believe me. Yes, you can get extremely shallow DOF with it, but that makes it also not that easy to handle in that respect.

fmw · May 18, 2007

The f1 and f.95 lenses were pretty horrible optically and never sold well despite their amazing speed. The 1.2's are a cut below the 1.4's as well. I've had a f1.2 Nikkor - not one of the company's optical wonders, I'm afraid but certainly better than the super fast Canon and Leica.

I think one should buy a 1.2 only if they really need that 1/2 stop extra. Otherwise, the f1.4's will always provide better image quality. Sorry to add on to the hijack.

RobinChen · May 18, 2007

Another question, does the f1.4 and f1.8 have Image stablizer?

Don Simon · May 18, 2007

FWIW I don't think it was a hijack at all, you actually gave probably the best answer to the original question there... i.e. the f/1.2 is faster, not better... it's easy to think that faster or more expensive automatically equals 'better', but sometimes it isn't the case. If we were using the car analogy to compare f/1.2 and f/4; someone mentioned an Infiniti and a Nissan... well I would say that is only really accurate if the Infiniti actually handles quite poorly for most normal driving...

Robin: No, no IS.