Do you HAVE to Buy an L Lens?

[miniUltraman]

Not only the image quality... the build itself is addictive... try holding an L vs a EF-S lens.. it is hell lot of difference to me... (At least I own a 10-22 and have used a 17-55 for a day :lovegrin: comparing that to a 16-35, 17-40 and 24-105... :sweatsm 10-22 and 17-55 have equally excellent IQ too though
I won't say it is an investment... it is more like fulfilling one's desire of L ownership and the RED ring... BBB!!!!!

 

[fWord]

Yes.

What is a Lens without the L?

 

[iRaphael]

the EF-S series does feel cheap.

but it can suffice.

i guess most people (with deep pockets) just buy the Ls cos they look damn good with the red band.

i'm sure the professionals use the Ls because they really need it..

but if you're just starting out in photography, is an L really necessary?

 

[gremlin]

of course you need a L lens.. how else to take decent pics??

 

[weekh]

I want these instead of L lens:

Nikon 14-24mm

Contax 21mm f2.8

Contax 28mm f2.8

Leica 70-180mm

Leica 35-70mm f2.8

Leica 100mm f2.8 macro

 

[coolsigg]

the EF-S series does feel cheap.

but it can suffice.

i guess most people (with deep pockets) just buy the Ls cos they look damn good with the red band.

i'm sure the professionals use the Ls because they really need it..

but if you're just starting out in photography, is an L really necessary?

EF-S 17-55 can cost more than some L lenses...however, some had feedback that the build cant be compared to the L lens...

whether a L lens is necessary for a beginner is a point of contention. as long as one is happy with what he shot and bought, who are we to say otherwise?

 

[coolsigg]

of course you need a L lens.. how else to take decent pics??

BBB virus spreader spotted! hahaha!

 

[unseenshadows]

of course you need a L lens.. how else to take decent pics??

You use your camera, compose the image you want in the viewfinder, and press the shutter.

 

[artyboy]

i have L lenses but if i showed my friends pics taken with both L and standard lenses, they won't be able to differentiate which is which, in other words which is better (6R size and below). what you do get is better control over distortion (pincushion/barrel etc) and CA but these are not discernable unless u pixel-peep (there's an article on PopPhoto.com which i agree with). but what is clearly discernable is its superior build, handling, AF speed/quietness etc - just like a precison hand-built high quality timepiece. you're paying for that more than anything else. yes you do get better engineered optics, but this is not discernable unless you do critical high-detail work or huge enlargements. i would say lenses with F/2.8 and/or IS is a more relevant (useful) consideration becos you'll clearly see the difference. nevertheless, the 70-200 L series and 100 F/2.8 Macro remains the sharpest in Canon's L arsenal (among others of course).

 

[Kit]

.....what you do get is better control over distortion (pincushion/barrel etc).....

That's not necessarily true in some instances.

 

[artyboy]

of course not for all instances (tho we're led to believe). but it is one of Canon's production goals when building L lenses. this is covered in the Eyes of EOS - Lenswork book.

 

[terryansimon]

do I want a L lens? of course.
do I need a L lens? not necessarily.

I believe the skills I possess at the moment do not do any justification to me spending on a L lens. in fact, I'd be mocking both myself and the "prestige" that goes with the L lens if I were to produce shots, via a L lens, that can be surpassed by a point and shoot.

I'll ask myself the same question again when I reach that juncture in life.

 

[benny]

the 70-200 L series and 100 F/2.8 Macro remains the sharpest in Canon's L arsenal (among others of course).

100 f/2.8 macro is L lens? :dunno:

Cheers,

 

[lightning]

100 f/2.8 macro is L lens? :dunno:

Cheers,

Oh, just add a red rubber band in front then "L" class already!:bsmilie:

 

[cherkel]

i have L lenses but if i showed my friends pics taken with both L and standard lenses, they won't be able to differentiate which is which, in other words which is better (6R size and below). what you do get is better control over distortion (pincushion/barrel etc) and CA but these are not discernable unless u pixel-peep (there's an article on PopPhoto.com which i agree with). but what is clearly discernable is its superior build, handling, AF speed/quietness etc - just like a precison hand-built high quality timepiece. you're paying for that more than anything else. yes you do get better engineered optics, but this is not discernable unless you do critical high-detail work or huge enlargements. i would say lenses with F/2.8 and/or IS is a more relevant (useful) consideration becos you'll clearly see the difference. nevertheless, the 70-200 L series and 100 F/2.8 Macro remains the sharpest in Canon's L arsenal (among others of course).

hmmm...sound funny when there is no different of photo taken with L and non L lens..
there is always an obvious in contrast and sharpness...
and with the F-stop of L lens, the feel of the picture is different...
and also the sharpest lens that canon has is not 70-200 or 100, is 200f1.8
but since is out of production, 300f2.8 is the sharpest follow by 180 marco..
but the good new is canon has 200f2 soon...hehehe

 

[artyboy]

yup 100 F/2.8 is not an L, but its razor-sharp (being a macro).
back in the slide (film) days, thats where your lens' prowess really come into play.
if you want maximum discernable difference, nothing beats MF. but thats a whole new different ballgame altogether of course...

 

[Hacker]

Some great "L" lenses are the "L"eica ASPH lenses :bsmilie:.

 

[iRaphael]

i still don't think one has to buy an L lens to take good photos.

photography isnt about equipment, though the L lenses make better bokeh.

but if one has the money, then go for it. lol

if not, the poorer folk have been surviving on non Ls, even third party.

and they can still take good pictures. and i'm sure Ls dont make you win competitions all the time.

but in the right hands, the Ls can make a picture perfect.

 

[unseen]

EF-S 17-55 can cost more than some L lenses...however, some had feedback that the build cant be compared to the L lens...
....

Personally, I've always this strong conviction that I'm not talking to a photographer but a equipment collector who ran out of reasons to give when they start talking about build.

Other than working photojournalists (they throw their lenses around, drop the lenses, don't cap lenses, etc), I've yet to meet a single photog who talks about build and are actually in situations to make use of it.

 

[artyboy]

interesting point, well you're half right. 'lens collectors' definitely have more than 3 lenses, and when they fumble to change lens mid-shoot, the chances of lens tumbling over, rolling onto a longkang or slipping from hands are rather high. if you can afford to buy 6 or 7 lenses, you're definitely able to afford L glass. but "build" are not just for photojournalists (altho as rightly said they are the ones who trully need hardy equipment). most of us laymen value build as much as optics/specs. its the same reason people buy TagHeuer/Breitling watches, Apple ipods & Caterpillar boots. cheaper "just as good" alternatives are available but people are willing to pay a premium to get higher quality stuff.