Canon L lense VS non L lense
- Thread starter myloplex
- Start date
- Status
myloplex said:Any body got some pictures taken with L lense VS non L lense ?
Is L lense (besides all the techincal specs) really comparable to non L lense ?
shouldn't it be phrased "are non-L lenses really comparable to L lenses ?" coz after all you're comparing something supposedly lousier to something supposedly superior.
according to what i've read up from various sources, for dSLR the difference between non-L and L are quite minimal in terms of optical quality. or rather, maybe not "quite minimal" but more like "invisible to the naked eye".
i think for film the difference in quality will be pretty obvious.
Wa then the CP told me must use L lense for DSLR ... says image quality better.
Hmm maybe trying to trick me to get them man !!
Anyway L lense with fluorite glass is what makes it good ??
Or isit the number of UD Glass that make it good ?
But I notice not all L lenses have fluorite
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Has NO fluorite but 4 US Glass
whereas the cheaper one
EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Has Flourite but 2 UD Glass
..comment experts
Hmm maybe trying to trick me to get them man !!
Anyway L lense with fluorite glass is what makes it good ??
Or isit the number of UD Glass that make it good ?
But I notice not all L lenses have fluorite
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Has NO fluorite but 4 US Glass
whereas the cheaper one
EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Has Flourite but 2 UD Glass
..comment experts
Because of the flourite coating, 70-200 F4 gives a little warmer colour compared to the 70-200 f2.8 or IS version. To be frank, the F4 and f2.8 version is on par in terms of optics.
Take a 28-135 IS and take a shot at f8 and place it next to an L lenses, I bet u, the difference is very very subtle. It's even harder to tell on digital, seriously.
I prefer the f4 version for studio work anytime, since most of the time I use f11 and smaller f-stop for studio settings.
Take a 28-135 IS and take a shot at f8 and place it next to an L lenses, I bet u, the difference is very very subtle. It's even harder to tell on digital, seriously.
I prefer the f4 version for studio work anytime, since most of the time I use f11 and smaller f-stop for studio settings.
FiveIronFrenzy
New Member
Er, read somewhere in the EF LENS WORK III book that 02 x UD glass = 01 x Fluorite glass. I think in terms of performance. :dunno:
myloplex said:
You wun really see the difference in digital, because the resoluting power of the CCD is not that high. Put a L-lens on a film camera, and you will see the difference in terms of brightness, colour fidelity and sharpness.
The rationale behind a lot of DSLR users is that, since they have already spent so much on the camera, they may as well spent a bit more to get the best lens. Actually I feel it's quite a waste of money because the lens wun gaurantee that your pictures will definitely get better, only practise will.
original poster selling away his 10 day old non L lens despite all the posts here suggesting that theres not much difference.
http://clubsnap.org/forums/showthread.php?t=42480
The "must have L lens or cannot press shutter release" syndrome strikes again. Anyway, as usual, good for the 2nd hand market (though he will soon realise that the depreciation for non L lens is a lot even if brand new).
http://clubsnap.org/forums/showthread.php?t=42480
The "must have L lens or cannot press shutter release" syndrome strikes again. Anyway, as usual, good for the 2nd hand market (though he will soon realise that the depreciation for non L lens is a lot even if brand new).
Prismatic said:
Yah agree. With DSLR, maybe with the exception of the 1Ds, whether you use an L or not makes it very hard to tell. If you don't believe, do this simple "blind" test which is my favourite. Ask someone to take similar pictures using L and non-L lenses, keeping all conditions such as focal length and aperture to be the same. Take say 10 random shots in RAW mode and then you go evaluate them and decide which was taken with L and which are not. You might find it a difficult task to do. For me, it's almost impossible.
Even for films, it can be difficult to tell at small prints like 4R to 8R. Unless you're using the cheapest of lenses like the 35-80mm or 75-300mm.
U wont see any difference in term of sharpness in small prints or maybe on DSLR. Honestly, I can't tell the difference between consumer lens & L lenses... 
Theoretically, L lens is good for its high contrast & high resolving power. Another thing to consider is the use of UD & fluorite elements will minimize chromatic abberation & produce correct colour rendition...
So, u MAY see the difference in contrast & more accurate colour produce by L lens, not sharpness...
Theoretically, L lens is good for its high contrast & high resolving power. Another thing to consider is the use of UD & fluorite elements will minimize chromatic abberation & produce correct colour rendition...
So, u MAY see the difference in contrast & more accurate colour produce by L lens, not sharpness...
Just a comment , this is not related to the picture quality of the L and non L lenses.
I've tried using a L lens and non L lens . In some cases under long telephoto zooms with non L lenses , the subject cannot be accurately focused upon.
I've to use manual focus as such some of the shots turned out to be out of focused
But with the L lenses , the focussing is done quickly and accurately.
I've tried using a L lens and non L lens . In some cases under long telephoto zooms with non L lenses , the subject cannot be accurately focused upon.
I've to use manual focus as such some of the shots turned out to be out of focused
But with the L lenses , the focussing is done quickly and accurately.
- Status
Similar threads
