Canon 'L' Lenses V non 'L' Lenses

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Russell - 29 Apr 2005 18:26 GMT

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?

Reply to this Message

TAFKAB - 29 Apr 2005 19:14 GMT

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.

>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?

Reply to this Message

measekite - 30 Apr 2005 01:27 GMT

>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,
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>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.
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
>

Reply to this Message

TAFKAB - 30 Apr 2005 01:57 GMT

>>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
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> 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.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>>>apparent
>>>when the photo's are blown up to large sizes?

Reply to this Message

Bill Hilton - 29 Apr 2005 19:33 GMT

>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

Reply to this Message

Matt Ion - 30 Apr 2005 10:56 GMT

> 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

Reply to this Message