Canon L Lens ... what's the good?
- Thread starter TsQ
- Start date
- Status
Taking the body out of the equation by using a L lens and non L lens on a same setup, (Say using a Semi-pro body like a 40D/50D)
I would say the focusing lock/tracking in AI servo differs by fractions of a second. (like what others have mentioned.)
Another underlying trait i noticed (moving from kit lens, EF-S lens or non-L glass to L lenses), is that the colour reproduction and contrast is much better when using L lenses. (assuming its the same Picture Style settings especially on the Neutral/Faithful profiles).
I like the natural contrast and colours that spins off from optics compared to using a normal lens and pumping up the in-camera settings like contrast and saturation plus sharpness. After comparing countless of shots even with similar lenses from 3rd party, I found that Canon L still give me spot-on colours (if your WB is calibrated correctly using a 18% grey card) and focus lock all the time. Even if you are using a 450D/500D.
Not up to qualification? Do you mean Picture Quality? If so, there is a huge demography of different yard sticks that people use to assess PQ. Of course if a lens performs well in almost any photographic tests you can think of, then the usual conclusion to make would be this XYZ lens is good. Getting to the point of if i have seen any L lens that is not up to mark in this context, I would say don't worry about it. Because there is very rare occurences of very bad PQ. Usually its a manufact fault which is no issue under warranty.
In the end, it really matters that you make the camera work for your style of shooting and you also harnesss the feature set available in your camera body along with the lens setup.
Just wanna share with you the experience i have gotten moving from normal Canon lens to 3rd party Sigma and then on to Canon L lense.
I would say the focusing lock/tracking in AI servo differs by fractions of a second. (like what others have mentioned.)
Another underlying trait i noticed (moving from kit lens, EF-S lens or non-L glass to L lenses), is that the colour reproduction and contrast is much better when using L lenses. (assuming its the same Picture Style settings especially on the Neutral/Faithful profiles).
I like the natural contrast and colours that spins off from optics compared to using a normal lens and pumping up the in-camera settings like contrast and saturation plus sharpness. After comparing countless of shots even with similar lenses from 3rd party, I found that Canon L still give me spot-on colours (if your WB is calibrated correctly using a 18% grey card) and focus lock all the time. Even if you are using a 450D/500D.
Not up to qualification? Do you mean Picture Quality? If so, there is a huge demography of different yard sticks that people use to assess PQ. Of course if a lens performs well in almost any photographic tests you can think of, then the usual conclusion to make would be this XYZ lens is good. Getting to the point of if i have seen any L lens that is not up to mark in this context, I would say don't worry about it. Because there is very rare occurences of very bad PQ. Usually its a manufact fault which is no issue under warranty.
In the end, it really matters that you make the camera work for your style of shooting and you also harnesss the feature set available in your camera body along with the lens setup.
Just wanna share with you the experience i have gotten moving from normal Canon lens to 3rd party Sigma and then on to Canon L lense.
thks for the insight...
ok this might be a silly question:
say a L lens compared to a 3rd party lens.. where both hv very similar focal range and aperture.. will the L lens do wonders , say it can take low light scene at much acceptable level... or take fast speed object at much better capabilities? (remember that spec wise both lens same/similar)
Edwin Francis
Senior Member
I don't mean to be rude, but that IS a silly question. Do you understand the basics of metering and exposure? If not, it's time to brush up.
2 different lenses in the same situation, at the same focal length and aperture, will require the same shutter speed at the same ISO setting (minor transmittance differences, but no biggie), so what difference do you expect? L or not, it's not a magic lens.
And the terms you use -- "much acceptable level" and "much better capabilities" are vague and hardly objective. Please clarify.
that's why i am posting in the newbie forum la.. i am rather new which is why i mention it is silly question before i ask..
i ask this also because in this forum and many others make L lens sounds like some sort of super lens.. as if it will come rescue u in any difficult environment to take photos..
that term i use , well.. duuno la, maybe i mean if the photo will be a keeper or trash.. thats what i tryin to say
buy thks for ur answer.. at least now i wont make myself like a fool asking it again elsewhere ..haha
nottipiglet
New Member
The answer is very simple. L lens will give you better looking pictures if you know what you are doing. If you don't know what you are doing, then it makes very little difference if you have an L or not. :bsmilie:
In short, an L is wasted on a newbie.
In short, an L is wasted on a newbie.
Last edited:
Edwin Francis
Senior Member
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to discourage you from asking questions, just to get you to be clear about what you want. If you aren't, you won't get a good answer.
The truth is that whether the photo ends up being a keeper or goes straight into the trash is far, far, FAR, FAR (I really cannot emphasise this enough!) less to do with whether you used a L lens than with your abilities (and sometimes, Luck). L lenses can be used to take utter garbage. And the most despised kit lens (e.g. Canon 18-55 -- the 1st one) have been used to take stunning photos. Heck, even compact and camera phones users can get great keepers!
limwhow
Senior Member
Hang on, TsQ. Don't worry about asking, and don't be too fast on being self-deprecating. I understand where you are coming from. Maybe I can share a little bit here. I used to use kit lenses, non-L EF 70-300 IS lens etc.. They're not bad, really.
However, recently after I've invested in some L lenses, I really find that:
1. the colours are much more vivid
2. the pictures are sharper
3. I can focus faster
4. i can take pictures in low light now (due to the f2.8) & won't lose opportunities under such situation where previously I had to turn around and just leave.
5. ... and these L lenses are hell lot of a heavier!
Jokes aside. They are good lenses to use if one is dead serious about photography, either as a hobbyist or a pro. It gives my passion a new breath of life.
There you go. My humble opinion.
night86mare
Deregistered
er, doesn't matter if lens weather sealed..
if body is not weather sealed :bsmilie:
if body is not weather sealed :bsmilie:
Thks limwhow , Edwin Francis & everyone ... this clears my view of L lens...
just that everytime i read online, everyone talki like L lens seems to be like so super..
then i go read and chk ard, yes it is a faster lens and with the advantanges that we all now know of very well, but i just wonder if there's anything more then that or not (when comparing a non-L lens with same spec)... and i got the answer that clearifies things well.. and thks to u all and i wish this thread will help any newbie having the same (silly) question as me..
just that everytime i read online, everyone talki like L lens seems to be like so super..
then i go read and chk ard, yes it is a faster lens and with the advantanges that we all now know of very well, but i just wonder if there's anything more then that or not (when comparing a non-L lens with same spec)... and i got the answer that clearifies things well.. and thks to u all and i wish this thread will help any newbie having the same (silly) question as me..
It's not bout the L thingy, but more of... you need that focal length, aperture, aperture blades or even the USM, IS ... blah blah blah and somehow these requirements are only met by the L series.
As what you have mentioned, IF there's a Canon 'normal' similar spec-ed lens like the L, which suits my requirements, i do not see myself paying more for the L.
Probably the L can offer more features like weather sealing over the 'normal' but that is if i need such feature, else i would still prefer to pay for what i need.
As what you have mentioned, IF there's a Canon 'normal' similar spec-ed lens like the L, which suits my requirements, i do not see myself paying more for the L.
Probably the L can offer more features like weather sealing over the 'normal' but that is if i need such feature, else i would still prefer to pay for what i need.
Lomographer
Senior Member
i feel it means that these lens can be mounted on to a single digit d series cam when the non-L cant?
Erm. Really really really wrong.
Lomographer
Senior Member
not a canon person. don't really care anyway....
but for sure the EF lens cant be mounted on the single digit d series
it's unlike nikon
but for sure the EF lens cant be mounted on the single digit d series
it's unlike nikon
Lomographer
Senior Member
technically L lenses are more expensive and also better in terms of weather sealing,
comes with hood, pouch and more. the EF lenses do not come with those
comes with hood, pouch and more. the EF lenses do not come with those
Cartman2000
Senior Member
Why then can a 50mm 1.8 be mounted on a 1Ds?
Ls are EF lenses too you know
limwhow
Senior Member
Sorry, allow me to see if I uderstood you correctly...
You must have meant EF-S (for APS-C) lenses can't be mounted on xD (FF) series, correct?
Because certainly all the other EF (Not EF-S) lenses can be made use of without problem on Canon's xD bodies.
- Status
Similar threads
