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. Advertisements

  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.
     
    TAFKAB, Apr 29, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Russell

    Bill Hilton Guest

    I understand that the Canon 'L' lenses are optically very good.
    However,
    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


    Could it be that maybe it is just your sepecific lenses?
     
    measekite, Apr 30, 2005
    #4
  5. Russell

    TAFKAB Guest

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

    Matt Ion Guest

    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. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.