Canon L vs regular lenses

K

koffiejunkie

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
9,757
Reaction score
1,002
Location
Australia
Hi guys,

For those who have experience with this, especially if you have two lenses of similar focal length, one regular and one L, can you describe the difference in quality? What is different?

After reading the review of the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (kit lens on the 40D) I'm convinced that getting a body and choosing other lenses are better.

But the kit lens comes quite a bit cheaper in the kit, so this makes choosing a suitable replacement that much harder.
 
Last edited:
I only have the one L lens and the nearest lens in terms of focal length is my Sigma so I'm not going to be of much help :o

Personally, if I was spending money on glass I wouldnt get a EF-S but that's because I'm looking to upgrade to a 5D (or similar) one day.
 
For 'L' lenses your are paying for fluorite glass.
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=CanonAdvantageTopicDtlAct&id=2641
The is a marked improvement in detail, colour and sharpness with L lenses over standard stuff.

They always say spend less on the camera and as much as possible on the glass.
My std zoom at 300mm does not compare at all to my L lens, it's a 300mm prime. Image quality on the prime is far superior.
 
Last edited:
Sneeky said:
For 'L' lenses your are paying for fluorite glass.
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=CanonAdvantageTopicDtlAct&id=2641
The is a marked improvement in detail, colour and sharpness with L lenses over standard stuff.

They always say spend less on the camera and as much as possible on the glass.
My std zoom at 300mm does not compare at all to my L lens, it's a 300mm prime. Image quality on the prime is far superior.
Click to expand...
Yeah - I plan on kipping my glass a lot longer than I will be keeping my current bodies.
 
bwana said:
Personally, if I was spending money on glass I wouldnt get a EF-S but that's because I'm looking to upgrade to a 5D (or similar) one day.
Click to expand...

That's why I was looking at the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM to compliment the 18-55 or 17-85 kit. Buying just the body hardly makes sense here since the price difference is negligable. The 24-105L is not the fastest but it should be sufficient for most of the types of shots I take, with the kit only coming in on the odd occasion that I need something wider. But the barrel distortion I saw in that review has me worried - that's worse than I'm getting on my CyberShot! :eek: So I'm looking for something to replace it, but that's a bit more expensive without being subsidesed in terms of the kit.

Sneeky said:
For 'L' lenses your are paying for fluorite glass. http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=CanonAdvantageTopicDtlAct&id=2641
Click to expand...

Aah, that says a lot - thanks!

My std zoom at 300mm does not compare at all to my L lens, it's a 300mm prime. Image quality on the prime is far superior.
Click to expand...

That's exactly the comparison I've been looking for (although zoom against fixed focal - I assume that's what you mean by "Prime" - might be seen as somewhat unfair) but many hours of googling has not yielded anything useful. If I can ask you a huge favour, do you have any pictures that are the same content taken with both lenses to make a direct comparison?
 
I think you should consider adding the nifty-fifty to your shopping list. It might be cheap but its nice and fast. :)
 
Hehe, that's more or less how it works for many things. Same number, just a different currency symbol.

That's btw just the first price I saw from the site I happened to be browsing at the time. Can get it for around £55.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X