Canon 'L' Lenses V non 'L' Lenses

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Russell, Apr 29, 2005.

  1. Russell

    Russell Guest

    I understand that the Canon 'L' lenses are optically very good. However, I
    can not see anything wrong with the non 'L' lenses (Normal USM).

    Is it that I don't have a trained eye? Or, is the difference more apparent
    when the photo's are blown up to large sizes?
     
    Russell, Apr 29, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Russell

    TAFKAB Guest

    L lenses are usually better optically, but the differences go far beyond
    optics. I have the 28-135IS lens, and while it's a nice performer optically,
    it is not sealed well enough against dust, and I already have dust on the
    inner elements. This simply isn't good enough. I've shot the L lenses and
    this one under essentially the same conditions, and the L elements are clean
    and this (the 28-135) isn't, and that's too bad.

    Optically, they're close; mechanically, they're on different planets.

    "Russell" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I understand that the Canon 'L' lenses are optically very good. However, I
    > can not see anything wrong with the non 'L' lenses (Normal USM).
    >
    > Is it that I don't have a trained eye? Or, is the difference more
    > apparent
    > when the photo's are blown up to large sizes?
    >
    >
     
    TAFKAB, Apr 29, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Russell

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >I understand that the Canon 'L' lenses are optically very good.
    However,
    >I can not see anything wrong with the non 'L' lenses (Normal USM).
    >Is it that I don't have a trained eye?


    I have several really good "L" lenses (500 f/4 L IS is my favorite) but
    also have some non-L lenses that are very good optically, especially
    the 35 f/2, 85 f/1.8 and 100 f/2.8 macro. The two non-L zoom lenses
    I've owned were not as good optically as the "L" zoom lenses I replaced
    them with later, but then they cost about 1/3 as much as the L-zooms
    and were much lighter so they were good bargains.

    Nothing wrong with your eye.

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Apr 29, 2005
    #3
  4. Russell

    measekite Guest

    TAFKAB wrote:

    >L lenses are usually better optically, but the differences go far beyond
    >optics. I have the 28-135IS lens, and while it's a nice performer optically,
    >it is not sealed well enough against dust, and I already have dust on the
    >inner elements. This simply isn't good enough. I've shot the L lenses and
    >this one under essentially the same conditions, and the L elements are clean
    >and this (the 28-135) isn't, and that's too bad.
    >
    >



    Could it be that maybe it is just your sepecific lenses?

    >Optically, they're close; mechanically, they're on different planets.
    >
    >"Russell" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >
    >
    >>I understand that the Canon 'L' lenses are optically very good. However, I
    >>can not see anything wrong with the non 'L' lenses (Normal USM).
    >>
    >>Is it that I don't have a trained eye? Or, is the difference more
    >>apparent
    >>when the photo's are blown up to large sizes?
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    >
    >
     
    measekite, Apr 30, 2005
    #4
  5. Russell

    TAFKAB Guest

    "measekite" <> wrote in message
    news:RhAce.11044$...
    >
    >
    > TAFKAB wrote:
    >
    >>L lenses are usually better optically, but the differences go far beyond
    >>optics. I have the 28-135IS lens, and while it's a nice performer
    >>optically, it is not sealed well enough against dust, and I already have
    >>dust on the inner elements. This simply isn't good enough. I've shot the L
    >>lenses and this one under essentially the same conditions, and the L
    >>elements are clean and this (the 28-135) isn't, and that's too bad.
    >>

    >
    >
    > Could it be that maybe it is just your sepecific lenses?


    Maybe, but I can't see how. They're all built the same, and the weather
    proofing, or lack of it is the same from lens to lens.

    >
    >>Optically, they're close; mechanically, they're on different planets.
    >>
    >>"Russell" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>
    >>>I understand that the Canon 'L' lenses are optically very good. However,
    >>>I
    >>>can not see anything wrong with the non 'L' lenses (Normal USM).
    >>>
    >>>Is it that I don't have a trained eye? Or, is the difference more
    >>>apparent
    >>>when the photo's are blown up to large sizes?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >>
     
    TAFKAB, Apr 30, 2005
    #5
  6. Russell

    Matt Ion Guest

    Russell wrote:

    > I understand that the Canon 'L' lenses are optically very good. However, I
    > can not see anything wrong with the non 'L' lenses (Normal USM).
    >
    > Is it that I don't have a trained eye? Or, is the difference more apparent
    > when the photo's are blown up to large sizes?


    There have been some links to reviews posted here before in response to
    this question... you don't have to look very close in a lot of instances
    to start seeing how much better the L glass is.

    Here's some more info...
    http://www.kjsl.com/~dave/lenstest/lenstest.html

    This one's got a great comparison of a 100-400mm L-series vs. the
    standard 75-300mm (same lens I've got):
    http://www.impactsites2000.com/tekreview/400L_003.htm

    And this one compares the 17-40mm 'L' vs the 18-55mm "kit" lens included
    with the Digital Rebel:
    http://www.fountainphoto.com/archives/000020.html




    ---
    avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
    Virus Database (VPS): 0517-5, 04/29/2005
    Tested on: 4/30/2005 2:56:18 AM
    avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
    http://www.avast.com
     
    Matt Ion, Apr 30, 2005
    #6
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. frans

    non-canon flash with canon g5?

    frans, Mar 2, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    419
    frans
    Mar 4, 2004
  2. Matt Ashbrook

    Nikon non - D AF lenses

    Matt Ashbrook, Apr 11, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    990
    Howard McCollister
    Apr 12, 2004
  3. Luis ORTEGA

    are non digital lenses better for digital slrs?

    Luis ORTEGA, May 23, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    569
    Old Nick
    May 25, 2004
  4. Tom H.

    Nikon D70 and non-CPU lenses

    Tom H., Feb 20, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    491
  5. Guest
    Replies:
    61
    Views:
    1,446
    Patrick Boch
    Mar 18, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page