2. 'L Quality' doesn't have any meaning.
2. Disagree - pick up a 17-55 and a 24-105, or a 50/1.4 and a 50/1.2L, and 'L build quality' is obvious.
Yeah, but pick up any of the fast USM primes and say a 200 f2.8 or 135 f2.8 and the difference isn't so apparent.
The L's are properly designed as tools for a given job, so it's not to be unexpected that they have individual characteristics, some are state of the art and have everything that could be reasonably expected from a lens by a working professional. Others are robust precision tools with the money spent where it matters rather on redundant features like say AF on a TSE or IS on a fisheye...
My gripe is not about the general greatness of L lenses and the expectation that the red ring rightfully inspires, it's just that as a parameter of comparison, it's not the greatness, it's the general bit that bothers me.
To decry a budget lens ('gateway' was spot on) as being or not being 'L quality' just isn't all that useful.
It's blind submission to marketing speak.
I've came up with two things for my list...
1. Red Ring
2. EF mount
Dang, there are other lenses with EF mounts that aren't L's.
Sheeeeeet (to quote Clay Davis)
1. Red Ring.
I'm aware I'm being a boring pedantic pr1ck here. I just don't know what L quality means. Well I do. But really, literally, we don't. Canon doesn't. As their EOS Works statement belies.
It shouldn't be so easy a thing to say, if it isn't so easy to define.
And it shouldn't really be applied to a lens like the 55-250 STM in any terms. It's just not helpful at all to anybody.