Differences in Canon's L and standard series lenses?

[TexasAggie07]

Howdy guys,

I have read all of the differences in the two lenses on b&h and just am curious how much better the L series lenses really are? I have gone from a $50 pair of binocs to a $300, now to a $2000 pair of swarovskis and was blown away by the difference each step of the way, I am guessing the lens difference will be similar? I tried to search the threads to see if anyone has uploaded a picture with both lenses but I couldn't find one.

Thanks,

Brian

 

[Overread36]

Which specific two lenses are you referring to? There are some shifts in the line which are massive advances in the quality of the optical and mechanical performance - whilst others where the only difference is in the build quality, with optics and mechanics being very similar.

Without specific examples we can't really draw a line

 

[TexasAggie07]

Well I have the EF 70-300 4-5.6 IS USM so I guess how much better is its L companion in optical quality? I was really just asking in general which you have answered for me thanks! I was just wondering if I took two pictures one with the L and one with the lens I own would it be a night and day difference or very slight? There is probably not a cut and dry answer to my question and I probably just need to get my buddy to snap one with his lens then one with mine and compare for myself....

 

[Overread36]

Comparing yourself is the best way and gives you a real world answer. By real world I mean an answer that fits your shooting style, method, editing and end product. If you've tried to find pictoral differences on the net that is very hard when just looking at photos alone, since resizing and web-display is very forgiving. Editing (just basic sharpening and such) can reduce the different yet again for webdisplay.

As for the lens you are referring to, along with your comments on binos, can I guess that sports/wildlife is a keen interest of yours? If so then this is one area where the differences between lower and higher tier options on the market does show up very fast (sadly it also shows with big jumps in the prices of the tiers as well). Moving from the lens you have to something like a 100-400mm L might not be a massive difference (I don't know honestly between these two lenses) but shifting up to say a 300mm Is f5.6 L (a modest L in this range) or to one of the super expensive ones like a 300mm f2.8 IS L then you would see big jumps in the optical quality as well as build, weight, size, af speed (all bigger/better/faster).

You also have the apertures to consider. Upper quality glass offers wider max apertures for creative and lowerlight working; but will also typically give you better optical performance wide open (ie at the max aperture).

 

[Derrel]

The L series lenses have a pretty red ring around the lens barrel, which looks REALLY COOL, and instantly tells people that those lenses are L-ust Worthy. However, on the two Canon DO (no, not Doah! Homer, but D-O, as in Dee-Oh, for Diffractive Optics), the two DO lenses have a green ring around the barrel, which tells people you spent a lot of "green" on those. Those I would consider to be "L-series" lenses.

The difference between $300 binoculars and Swarovski optics, is staggering and profound. The difference between Canon's regular lenses and their L-series lenses is not nearly so profound. Modern consumer and intermediate-grade lenses are quite,quite good optically--better than the "pro-grade" lenses of the 1980's, in many cases. Canon's L-glass lenses are built, usually, to a higher standard of construction: less wobble in zoom mechanisms, beefier construction, sealed against the elements when a filter is threaded onto the front ring (the back, or mount side of the L-lenses is gasketed, and thus sealed against water seeping in, which is NOT the case with their consumer lenses). The L-series lenses are the ones most Canon shooters L-ust after.
L stands for Luxury, as I understand it.

 

[WesternGuy]

...

The L-series lenses are the ones most Canon shooters L-ust after.
L stands for Luxury, as I understand it.

And I thought "L" stood for "Lots of money"

WesterGuy

 

[TexasAggie07]

Thanks for the info!

 

[nickzou]

This was very good info, thanks.

 

[Deo]

dont miss that L lenses is weather seal which might be useful some day.

 

[Overread36]

dont miss that L lenses is weather seal which might be useful some day.

Not all L lenses are weather sealed to the same degree and some are not (or are only very marginally) weather sealed at all - it varies from lens to lens.

 

[nickzou]

So what I'm sensing from this thread is that L series lenses are more fashion accessories than anything else.

 

[WesternGuy]

So what I'm sensing from this thread is that L series lenses are more fashion accessories than anything else.

No by a long shot - anything but. Once you have used one, you will never go back, at least I won't.


WesternGuy

 

[Derrel]

So what I'm sensing from this thread is that L series lenses are more fashion accessories than anything else.

No, but that red ring is awfully, awfully stylin', man! The L-series lenses are the ones Canon has determined are their Luxury lenses. As such, they usually have the highest specifications in their "class", or "type". LIke the 35mmm f/1.4-L...that is the widest aperture 35mm Canon makes. They also have a pretty low-cost 35mm f/2 of 'modest' optical design and quality. Same with their 135mm f/2 L, which is a solidly-made, wide-aperture 135mm lens with excellent lens quality; Canon also makes a much lighter, smaller 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus lens. They make 50mm f/1.2-L and 85mm f/1.2-L lenses which cost $1,7000 + last time I checked (been a long,long time actually), and they also have pretty normal, "standard" 50mm f/1.4 $389 or something, and 85mm f/1.8 for $389 or so, last time I checked...

The way I look at it, the L-series lenses are the ones MOST Canon enthusiasts would L-ike to own...it's not just a fashion statement, that red ring...

 

[usayit]

Ignore the "L" designation. The L lenses are for the most part worth their price of admission (at least for the lenses I've owned) but they should be evaluated at per lens rather as a generality. There are non-L Canon branded lenses that may better suited for certain needs with optics that are close enough to L quality... some would argue better. Some that come to mind, 85mmL versus 85mm f/1.8 and the 50mmL versus 50mm f/1.4. I personally like: 24L, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, 135L, 300L. For full frame/non-EFS ZOOMs, I'd say most of the L line will surpass most of the regular consumer level Canon zooms... especially at the telephoto end.

 

[Overread36]

L (or ell ) lenses are indeed more than just a showy accessory. The key is to understand that whilst L lenses are ranked as the best of Canon's line, they are not the only high quality options on the market. Some 3rd party options can be just as good and sometimes better than Canon L whilst canon themselves have some lower tier lenses which are very much in line with L image quality (eg 100mm f2.8 macro and several of the EFS mount lenses).