The Canon L lens Series

STINKY PICTURES · May 7, 2008

I have questions, i know you have the answers. I want to own a nice piece of good glass, just one.
I THINK i read on the forum that one of the L lens are known for their SOFTNESS... yikes.. if thats true, i don`t want that. I don`t know enough to make a purchase, thats why i come here and read and hope you L glass owners can point me in the right direction. is there really an L lens thats soft?

I want to get a great Canon lens with L glass. I know it will be about $1,100 -$1,500 and i`m ok with that. i`m only going to make this investment one time.

I want to get a lens that will be so sharp it will knock my socks off. I don`t need something that will be 300mm telephoto.. but up to 200 max is ok.

i currently shoot with a
Canon 28-135mm (3.5-5.6)
50mm 1.8

i shoot indoors all the time and my studio is 24' long so backing up for a shot is not a problem. But i do most of my work within a small set up area. anyway the lens i have works and i just move my tripod around if it doesn`t. but i would love to get super glass. i shoot in NATURAL LIGHT ONLY. my studio is full of glass windows so its very bright.

any info you have about your L lens would be very helpful. i`ve heard so much good about good glass and i would really love to experience the joy of good glass. but i don`t want to get one thats soft, if one in the series is known for being soft.

Does anyone have the same lens i have? and have an L lens and see a difference? i`m just wondering, because my lens does seem to do a nice job, but then again i do like the shots with my 50mm a little better, i mean i can count on that little lens to produce for me.

well if you read all of this i thank you. i just wanted to give you all the info i could. thanks for any info you have about the L lens.

BoblyBill · May 7, 2008

I shoot with a 17-40mm f/4... It way out proforms my kit lens in sharpness. It gets a little soft on the outside edges but even at 100% that is hard to tell. I have in fact had to change the way I shoot because of how sharp mine is. I didn't know it but I used to compose shots subconsiously knowing the shot would be as sharp as I wanted and adjust the shot. When I first got this lens, things were so sharp I had to blur areas that I usually would find unsharp to get the same shot I saw in my mind. I paid 777.55 for it. I love it. It might be a little short for some things but I love it. I have heard that 16-35mm is even sharper but I was not willing to pay the extra $700 for it.

Overread · May 7, 2008

hmm the only L series I know for softness is the 100-400mm - that is a 1st rate lens and has a very large and useful range of focal lengths. However it does seem to have problems in manufacture and some (its not so bad now) can come up softer than optimal.
Its also not as good as the other L class lenses - but that is mostly as its a 100-400mm telezoom whilst the others are either primes or shorter range telezooms - so less glass needed in construction.
Don't get me wrong the 100-400 is a very good lens and is very popular.

However you say that 200mm would do you - I don't know pricings outside of the UK - but the canon 70-200mm USM L might be for you. Its a very good lens and will also work well with the (canon) teleconverters if you find you want a little more reach out of it.

I am personally looking to get the f 2.8 IS version (the most expensive) but are also etions of:

f4
f4 IS
f2.8 (no IS)

in that order of pricing. All of them are good lenses with the f2.8 having a speed advantage over the 4.

randerson07 · May 7, 2008

Well if your working inside alot I would think you should get a shorter zoom or a prime.

16-35L
24-70L (would probably be my choice)
135L (2nd choice)

Never heard anything bad about any of them. Im sure you could find issues with all lens if your pixel peeping, but I bet if you printed them they would look fantastic.

Village Idiot · May 7, 2008

The 24-70 is generally soft

randerson07 · May 7, 2008

I have never read that but Soft or not, Its the range I like, its 2.8, its built like a tank, and the images i see from it look fantastic

Mystwalker · May 7, 2008

24-70 f/2.8L
or
24-105 f/4.0L IS

Both close to $1K. From what I've read and seen, both excellent IQ.

Personally, I lean towards 24-105 for the IS, but not leaning enough to pull trigger

table1349 · May 7, 2008

Village Idiot said:
The 24-70 is generally soft

Really??? I better send mine into Canon then, because above 2.8 it is sharp enough to shave with. At 2.8 it tuggs the wiskers a bit, but is certainly useable. But then I have yet to find a lens that doesn't soften at least a tad wide open.

Big Mike · May 7, 2008

The issues with the 24-70mm F2.8 L...are not necessarily with softness...it's a focus issue. Many of them do not focus as accurately as they should...which results in slightly out of focus images (especially at larger apertures).

OOF is different from softness...in theory anyway.

table1349 · May 7, 2008

I have questions, i know you have the answers. I want to own a nice piece of good glass, just one.

Wanna bet??? L glass is like a bowl of Lays Patato Chips. You can't have just one. It becomes an addiction.

I THINK i read on the forum that one of the L lens are known for their SOFTNESS... yikes.. if thats true, i don`t want that. I don`t know enough to make a purchase, thats why i come here and read and hope you L glass owners can point me in the right direction. is there really an L lens thats soft?

All lenses, whether they are consumer grade or L glass have certain apertures where they perfom better than others. L glass tends to have less degradation than consumer glass.

I want to get a great Canon lens with L glass. I know it will be about $1,100 -$1,500 and i`m ok with that. i`m only going to make this investment one time.

Oh Yeah Refer to my above comments. L glass is the crack cocaine of photography. At least for Canon shooters.

I want to get a lens that will be so sharp it will knock my socks off. I don`t need something that will be 300mm telephoto.. but up to 200 max is ok.

i currently shoot with a
Canon 28-135mm (3.5-5.6)
50mm 1.8

i shoot indoors all the time and my studio is 24' long so backing up for a shot is not a problem. But i do most of my work within a small set up area. anyway the lens i have works and i just move my tripod around if it doesn`t. but i would love to get super glass. i shoot in NATURAL LIGHT ONLY. my studio is full of glass windows so its very bright.

any info you have about your L lens would be very helpful. i`ve heard so much good about good glass and i would really love to experience the joy of good glass. but i don`t want to get one thats soft, if one in the series is known for being soft.

L glass may well be what you want, and it may not. I am an admitted Lcoholic, however not all my glass is L glass. You indicate that you shoot mostly in the studio. The 24-70L is very nice and a popular piece of studio glass as well as a wedding standard. The 35L, 50L and 85L are all very good portrait lenses. The 50L and 85L infact are better suited to the studio type applications. The focus speed of each is far to slow for sports. I am more than satisfied in the studio with the 50 f1.4 and 85 f1.8. Both are very sharp, produce nice bokeh when desired and are more versatile than the L versions. the 70-200 f2.8 is also a sharp zoom that can be used in the studio as well as for other applications.

Does anyone have the same lens i have? and have an L lens and see a difference? i`m just wondering, because my lens does seem to do a nice job, but then again i do like the shots with my 50mm a little better, i mean i can count on that little lens to produce for me.

well if you read all of this i thank you. i just wanted to give you all the info i could. thanks for any info you have about the L lens.

One of the biggest differences besides size and construction between your 50 f1.8, the 50 f1.4 and the 50 f1.2L will be in the bokeh that they produce. The 1.8 is a bit structured. The 1.4 is much softer and the 1.2 is creamy smooth.

The best suggestion I can give you is to go to a good photography shop if you have one available and try the lense you are interested in. Or possibly rent them for a weekend an shoot them before you decide. Good luck trying to avoid L-fever.

table1349 · May 7, 2008

Big Mike said:
The issues with the 24-70mm F2.8 L...are not necessarily with softness...it's a focus issue. Many of them do not focus as accurately as they should...which results in slightly out of focus images (especially at larger apertures).

OOF is different from softness...in theory anyway.

Exactly!!! Also fixable.

randerson07 · May 7, 2008

gryphonslair99 said:
Good luck trying to avoide L-fever.

Its easy to avoid, you run out of money after just one.

table1349 · May 7, 2008

randerson07 said:
Its easy to avoid, you run out of money after just one.

It may be easier, but certainly not easy. Especially when the very first L lens you ever get the chance to shoot is the :heart:400 f2.8.:heart: That is the reason I ended up with a part time job. :lol:

randerson07 · May 7, 2008

I have often thought of getting another job to support my multitude of hobbies. But I dont have enough time as it is to partake in all of them.

Something I never had to worry about before I had a mortgage.

BoblyBill · May 7, 2008

I agree with gryphonslair99... I have shot through many different types of glass all the way from 10-300mm and all different brands Sigma, Tamron, Pentax, and Canon. When I first saw the sharpness being produced from my L... I'm going to have a hard time investing in anything but L glass... It will just take me longer to get my collection.