Define me anything about an L lens other than a red ring
Plenty of well built cheaper non L lenses. The non L TSE's and MPE are tanks. The USM EF primes are on a par with the likes of the 200mm f2.8 and 135 f2.0.
Define me anything about an L lens other than a red ringBuild quality.
In addition to that, my personal definition would include that L lenses have good iq wide open on ff - maybe not from edge to edge on (ultra) wide angle, but good enough not to worry about stopping down all the time like with budget lenses.
Yep, but in a cropped sensor context, we are discussing whether there is a need for EF-s L lenses.
I sold my 17-40 as, optically at least, the 18-55 IS mk1 was quite a bit better than it, on APS-C obviously. I don't know that IQ is strictly speaking always a parameter. I also know of a few cheapies or non-Ls that perform pretty well even wide open.
So thats not unique to L's.
Highly regarded among professional photographers, Canon L-series lenses are distinguished by a bold red ring around the outer barrel. What makes them truly distinctive, however, is their remarkable optical performance — the result of sophisticated Canon technologies, such as Ultra-low Dispersion (UD) glass, Fluorite and Aspherical elements, and Super Spectra Multi Coating.
Yep. I read that marketing schpeil. 'What makes them truly distinctive, however, is their remarkable optical performance'
yet there are non-L's that out-perform or match equivalent L's. The use of 'such as'
supports my point.
There are other lenses with UD and Aspherical elements, and not every L uses flourite elements.
I have a set of expectations that go along with spending the extra money on an L lens. And with the exception of the 17-40, my expectations have been met or exceeded. But to me, that is all that L means.
And to go back to the OP's debate, I therfore don't think that there is any need for 'L' ef-s lenses, as L doesn't actually define anything.