Do you HAVE to Buy an L Lens?

[jeff49er]

Once you use L lenses, you get hooked. Just like sex

There is no substitution.

 

[oeyvind]

"L" is faster in focusing, of coz that depends on which SLR / DSLR u using. superior lens used in the construction. and the best of all its weather proof.
i have seen the photographers with the "white" and "red line" L lens in the rain. the only rain protection is for themselves only.! muahahah

Wrong and a very dangerous assumption: only these lens are environmentally sealed:

• EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM
• EF 17-40mm f/4 L USM
• EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
• EF 28-300mm f/3.5–5.6L IS USM
• EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM
• EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM
• EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM
• EF 500mm f/4L IS USM
• EF 600mm f/4L IS USM

And only works if you have one of these bodies...

• EOS 1v
• EOS 1D
• EOS 1Ds
• EOS 1D Mark II

P.S. EOS 1, EOS 1n, and EOS 3 has some kind of environmental sealing as well but I think they lack it with the lens mount.

 

[VincentLin]

P.S. EOS 1, EOS 1n, and EOS 3 has some kind of environmental sealing as well but I think they lack it with the lens mount.

EOS 3 takes hard knocks (for a plastic body), not water nor dust. And yes, it's probably the mount.

Another problem is the film back. Not sealing there either.

 

[EiRiK]

not necessary at all....

i just sold my 17-40L... i shoot film, bought it coz i wanted a wide angle for group shots, etc and soooo many owners of this lens here swear by it (perhaps its really very good on a dslr).

but after using it for some time, realised the disadvantage of its great amount of distortion at 17mm overwhelms its "L" status... so i sold it. yes, it may be a great L lens according to many but up till now i still dunno what is it great for?

anyway, it depends on the requirement of the owner... for me, after buying the 17-40L i test shot many many rolls of film/slide using it. developing the film into 4R really cant see any difference, even when i blow it up to 8R majority of the quality difference depends on the film i use.

i believe be it slr or dslr, if you develope/print at 4R (and i believe most do), no one can tell if you used eg. the 70-200L or the much scorned EF 75-300 III.

 

[GitS]

parts of it are magnesium alloy while other parts are polycarbonate (tough enough for me and bullet proof vests)

 

[GitS]

not necessary at all....

i just sold my 17-40L... i shoot film, bought it coz i wanted a wide angle for group shots, etc and soooo many owners of this lens here swear by it (perhaps its really very good on a dslr).

but after using it for some time, realised the disadvantage of its great amount of distortion at 17mm overwhelms its "L" status... so i sold it. yes, it may be a great L lens according to many but up till now i still dunno what is it great for?

anyway, it depends on the requirement of the owner... for me, after buying the 17-40L i test shot many many rolls of film/slide using it. developing the film into 4R really cant see any difference, even when i blow it up to 8R majority of the quality difference depends on the film i use.

i believe be it slr or dslr, if you develope/print at 4R (and i believe most do), no one can tell if you used eg. the 70-200L or the much scorned EF 75-300 III.

distortion at 17mm is a function of the user's expertise, not the lens itself. however, would agree that if 4R prints are all you are going to make, you use flash instead of available light, and you do not require spilt second focusing response, then you dun need an L.

 

[EiRiK]

distortion at 17mm is a function of the user's expertise, not the lens itself. however, would agree that if 4R prints are all you are going to make, you use flash instead of available light, and you do not require spilt second focusing response, then you dun need an L.

maybe true... i am just a leisure shooter but do u mean an expert professional photographer will not get any distortion using WA lens?

 

[GitS]

maybe true... i am just a leisure shooter but do u mean an expert professional photographer will not get any distortion using WA lens?

WA users out there, care to enlighten our friend?

 

[EiRiK]

WA users out there, care to enlighten our friend?

why not u enlighten me with your expert knowledge, friend?

 

[Kit]

It is the nature of wide angle lenses to distort. This is especially visible for objects closer to the lens, towards the edges. If you are talking about barrel or pin cushion distortion, then that can be controlled.

 

[CupNoodle]

Wrong and a very dangerous assumption: only these lens are environmentally sealed:

• EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM
• EF 17-40mm f/4 L USM
• EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
• EF 28-300mm f/3.5–5.6L IS USM
• EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM
• EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM
• EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM
• EF 500mm f/4L IS USM
• EF 600mm f/4L IS USM

And only works if you have one of these bodies...

• EOS 1v
• EOS 1D
• EOS 1Ds
• EOS 1D Mark II

P.S. EOS 1, EOS 1n, and EOS 3 has some kind of environmental sealing as well but I think they lack it with the lens mount.

or maybe i should put it as splash proof.. haha = )

 

[dkw]

I've read that the newer Canon WA lenses have been 'optimised' for for digital SLR with crop factors, such that if you use on FF or film, the edges are soft and distortion is bad. One such opinion below.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=7208694

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=7371383

Whaddya think?

Cheers,

 

[ST1100]

Wrong and a very dangerous assumption: only these lens are environmentally sealed:

• EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM
• EF 17-40mm f/4 L USM
• EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
• EF 28-300mm f/3.5–5.6L IS USM
• EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM
• EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM
• EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM
• EF 500mm f/4L IS USM
• EF 600mm f/4L IS USM

And only works if you have one of these bodies...

Oeyvind, you left out one lens - 24-70/2.8L - and since you listed the 1DmkII, the new white IS megazoom should be listed too - it's sealed. Along with the two mkII convertors.

Anyway, shooting in the rain is not for most of us. Even if the camera survives, the tiniest drops of water on the lens surface completely distorts the picture. Seems only the long lenses with very deep hoods are suitable for shooting in the rain.

 

[MatthewSCL]

not necessary at all....

i just sold my 17-40L... i shoot film, bought it coz i wanted a wide angle for group shots, etc and soooo many owners of this lens here swear by it (perhaps its really very good on a dslr).

but after using it for some time, realised the disadvantage of its great amount of distortion at 17mm overwhelms its "L" status... so i sold it. yes, it may be a great L lens according to many but up till now i still dunno what is it great for?

anyway, it depends on the requirement of the owner... for me, after buying the 17-40L i test shot many many rolls of film/slide using it. developing the film into 4R really cant see any difference, even when i blow it up to 8R majority of the quality difference depends on the film i use.

i believe be it slr or dslr, if you develope/print at 4R (and i believe most do), no one can tell if you used eg. the 70-200L or the much scorned EF 75-300 III.

agree with you man....i dont see any dif when i print them in 4Rs too..my friend also cant tell..hahhaha...

but at that moment you use it, you will find the dif....i can any how throw the L and not afraid it might spoil cos its made of metal (but of cos dont throw so hard lahh..hahaha)...but i feel so filmsy (<- got this word or not..what i meant was easily can spoil) when i am using the 75-300 instead... :sweat:

 

[oeyvind]

Oeyvind, you left out one lens - 24-70/2.8L - and since you listed the 1DmkII, the new white IS megazoom should be listed too - it's sealed. Along with the two mkII convertors.

Anyway, shooting in the rain is not for most of us. Even if the camera survives, the tiniest drops of water on the lens surface completely distorts the picture. Seems only the long lenses with very deep hoods are suitable for shooting in the rain.

Oh yeah forgot abt the 24-70 and those 2 TCs... :embrass: In sports, those PJ does shoot in the rain, and snow as well.

 

[joe]

not necessary at all....

i just sold my 17-40L... i shoot film, bought it coz i wanted a wide angle for group shots, etc and soooo many owners of this lens here swear by it (perhaps its really very good on a dslr).

but after using it for some time, realised the disadvantage of its great amount of distortion at 17mm overwhelms its "L" status... so i sold it. yes, it may be a great L lens according to many but up till now i still dunno what is it great for?

anyway, it depends on the requirement of the owner... for me, after buying the 17-40L i test shot many many rolls of film/slide using it. developing the film into 4R really cant see any difference, even when i blow it up to 8R majority of the quality difference depends on the film i use.

i believe be it slr or dslr, if you develope/print at 4R (and i believe most do), no one can tell if you used eg. the 70-200L or the much scorned EF 75-300 III.

Hi there,
I do agee with EiRiK.It not necessary to have a 'L' len.you can get something cheaper then L lens
:nono:

 

[xmen1977]

well, there are winning shots taken with consumer lens such as EF28-90, EF100-300, EF75-300, EF25-105 etc in some mags.


Also thumbsup for EF28-135, EF20f2.8 and EF85f1.8 :thumbsup:

 

[offspring]

Forget the Canon L, buy the other L. The Leica.

Regards
CK

:thumbsup:

 

[EiRiK]

WA users out there, care to enlighten our friend?

still waiting for my enlightenment....

 

[GitS]

It is the nature of wide angle lenses to distort. This is especially visible for objects closer to the lens, towards the edges. If you are talking about barrel or pin cushion distortion, then that can be controlled.

Kit has already provided the answer. objects nearer the lens distort unless you contorl your perspective. anytime the lens is not parallel to the ground you will get distortion i.e. buildings leaning 'back' or people looking stunted. also, object near the edge at extreme wide angles will distort if the lens is not parallel to the ground.

barrel or pincushion distortion (to a greter or lesser degree), as Kit pointed out, are a function of the physics of the lens design.