July 25, 2014, 07:28:59 PM

Author Topic: L Lenses for crop bodies  (Read 20394 times)

candc

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 454
    • View Profile
Re: L Lenses for crop bodies
« Reply #195 on: November 26, 2013, 09:56:44 PM »
Those are good examples of good quality l lenses at a very reasonable price. The 10-22 I think is better opticly but the 17-40 is defiantly a better build quality. The 24-105 is a bargain any way you look at it.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: L Lenses for crop bodies
« Reply #195 on: November 26, 2013, 09:56:44 PM »

vscd

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 152
  • 5DC
    • View Profile
Re: L Lenses for crop bodies
« Reply #196 on: November 27, 2013, 04:42:35 AM »
Quote
Define me anything about an L lens other than a red ring

Build quality.
5DC, 24-85, 85 1.2L II, 80-200 2.8L, 100 2.8L IS, 14 2.8, 35 1.4, 75-300 IS, 40STM

Marsu42

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4356
  • ML-66d / 100L / 70-300L / 17-40L / 600rts
    • View Profile
    • 6D positive spec list
Re: L Lenses for crop bodies
« Reply #197 on: November 27, 2013, 05:18:32 AM »
Quote
Define me anything about an L lens other than a red ring
Build 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.

paul13walnut5

  • Guest
Re: L Lenses for crop bodies
« Reply #198 on: November 27, 2013, 05:41:11 AM »
Quote
Define me anything about an L lens other than a red ring

Build quality.

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.

Quote
Define me anything about an L lens other than a red ring
Build 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.

Quote from: Canon USA
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. 

dufflover

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 97
  • OH YEAH!
    • View Profile
Re: L Lenses for crop bodies
« Reply #199 on: November 27, 2013, 06:39:44 AM »
I'm very happy at how the recent lenses from Canon have performed. I mean with the age of better computing and what not I know "better performance" isn't always because of "better effort" from Canon, but regardless, I was always worried at the back of my mind that eventually Canon would eventually stop trying with lens performance with non-L's because, well, they would probably get away with it looking at the forums. Some posts/threads/forums rave on as if the only sharp decent lenses are L-lenses. Or to flip it around, Canon cheap out and make $#!% non-L lenses, and I bet more people would blame the buyers for not using L's than the company for making such poor value lenses.

But as Duffman said, this is not the case, making the previous paragraph, a complete waste .... "OH YEAH!"
Hurry up Canon and do something with your sensors! :P

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 13546
    • View Profile
Re: L Lenses for crop bodies
« Reply #200 on: November 27, 2013, 11:02:58 AM »
Quote from: Canon USA
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.

I agree that there's not a firm 'definition' of what comprises an L-series feature set, there are a few points worth making.  First is time - lens designs span many years.  You mention the 135L - that lens was released in 1996 and is still 'current'.  If I may be permitted a car analogy, for the base model Honda Civic in 1996, air conditioning was optional and power windows/locks were not available; on the 2013 base model Civic, those features are standard.

Second, there are differences beyond just the top line specs.  For example, you mentioned aspherical lenses – there are actually four different types of aspherical elements that Canon uses.  In decending order of quality (and cost), they are:

1. ground and polished glass aspherical lens element.
2. molded glass aspherical lens element.
3. molded plastic aspherical lens element produced by a high-precision molding technology.
4. replica aspherical lens element, ultraviolet-light-hardening resin layer on a spherical glass lens element.

L-series Lenses tend to use the first two types, where as non-L lenses tend to use aspherical elements from further down the list, but again there are no strict rules.

So, overall I guess I'd say that "what makes an L lens" is a gestalt sort of thing.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

Pi

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: L Lenses for crop bodies
« Reply #201 on: November 27, 2013, 11:52:44 AM »
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.

It is but on the format it was designed for.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: L Lenses for crop bodies
« Reply #201 on: November 27, 2013, 11:52:44 AM »

vscd

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 152
  • 5DC
    • View Profile
Re: L Lenses for crop bodies
« Reply #202 on: November 27, 2013, 04:09:50 PM »
I would go further...

...when a L-Lense is released, there is no better Lense from Canon available in the same focalrange. This doesn't mean that a new EF-Lense isn't capable to beat an older L-Lense-Design.

For example a good comparision is the 100mm 2.8 and the 100mm 2.8 L IS. On the optical formular, both are nearly identical and there is no need to upgrade to the "L"-Lense if you just need a Macro. The difference between both are features like a 9 Blade Aperture, Image Stabilization, weathersealing, LensHood or even a leatherbag. You don't need those features to get a picture but you will appreciate them if you use the lense more regularly. This is called "luxury" in some terms. So, the meaning of "L" is to extend the normal lense to something more "professionall" or to get around the budgetplanning and lowcost-hunters.

If you buy a Carl Zeiss Lense, you always get an "L" Lense price and quality, but you won't get something in normal price-ranges. Canon gives you the choice... budget or as it was meant to be. ;)


5DC, 24-85, 85 1.2L II, 80-200 2.8L, 100 2.8L IS, 14 2.8, 35 1.4, 75-300 IS, 40STM

Marsu42

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4356
  • ML-66d / 100L / 70-300L / 17-40L / 600rts
    • View Profile
    • 6D positive spec list
Re: L Lenses for crop bodies
« Reply #203 on: November 28, 2013, 05:48:52 AM »
For example a good comparision is the 100mm 2.8 and the 100mm 2.8 L IS. On the optical formular, both are nearly identical and there is no need to upgrade to the "L"-Lense if you just need a Macro.


The non-L has more CA wide open and the L is a tad sharper - but as you pointed out nothing to write home about and it's rather unlikely to get this with macro, it's matters more for dual use which is also the reason the L has the focus limiter switch.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=107&Camera=736&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=674&Sample=0&CameraComp=736&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

dgatwood

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
  • 300D, 400D, 6D
    • View Profile
Re: L Lenses for crop bodies
« Reply #204 on: November 28, 2013, 08:37:05 AM »
Yep, but in a cropped sensor context, we are discussing whether there is a need for EF-s L lenses.

I think there's a need for EF-S prime lenses, if only because they would be significantly lighter than their EF counterparts.  There's also a need for weather-sealed EF-S lenses.  Whether you want to then call them "L" lenses or not is a purely marketing decision.

Busted Knuckles

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
Re: L Lenses for crop bodies
« Reply #205 on: November 28, 2013, 09:19:35 AM »
Wading in....

There are very few, if any, lenses that can fully resolve corner to corner the precision of the current batch of sensors.  Even the $4000 zeiss is does not fully resolve a 1dx sensor - don't even think about the d800

With the pixel size of the APC sensor, (heaven forbid the 12 mp micro sensors on phones & P&S or if Canon just went FF w/ the 70d sensor) all the glass has to get better to meet the capabilities of the current fleet of sensors.  One need only compare the fuzziness of ISO images on TDP between a FF and APC sensor - pixel size does matter for the same framing/effective focal length. (composition is different between APC & FF equivalents and Brian at TDP has a great comparison in one of his reviews relative to background vs foreground - just wish I could remember which one.  oooof I am getting old)

So back to the subject at hand.  L glass for the APC sensor size.  Sigma 18-35, canon (perhaps now sigma) 24-105, canon 55-250, represents a lot of image quality, overlap so you aren't changing out a lens every 30 seconds, and not a whole lot of money.

vscd

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 152
  • 5DC
    • View Profile
Re: L Lenses for crop bodies
« Reply #206 on: November 28, 2013, 11:24:32 AM »
Fast primes for APS-C? ...for example the new Canon 24mm or 28mm IS is some kind of "L" Lenses for APS-C in my opinion. It has fantastic optics, stands for standard focal range on APS-C (Equiv 38.4/44.8), has IS and is listed for a higher price actually. It has no "L" designation, but I think this is aimed to the APS-C users  :o
5DC, 24-85, 85 1.2L II, 80-200 2.8L, 100 2.8L IS, 14 2.8, 35 1.4, 75-300 IS, 40STM

dgatwood

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
  • 300D, 400D, 6D
    • View Profile
Re: L Lenses for crop bodies
« Reply #207 on: November 28, 2013, 04:50:35 PM »
Fast primes for APS-C? ...for example the new Canon 24mm or 28mm IS is some kind of "L" Lenses for APS-C in my opinion. It has fantastic optics, stands for standard focal range on APS-C (Equiv 38.4/44.8), has IS and is listed for a higher price actually. It has no "L" designation, but I think this is aimed to the APS-C users  :o

Sure, you can use EF lenses on an APS-C camera.  That still misses the point, which is that an EF-S prime would be about two-thirds the size of an EF prime at the same focal length.  Folks who shoot solely with crop bodies are carrying around a lot of extra weight and bulk if they carry EF primes.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: L Lenses for crop bodies
« Reply #207 on: November 28, 2013, 04:50:35 PM »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 13546
    • View Profile
Re: L Lenses for crop bodies
« Reply #208 on: November 28, 2013, 06:07:24 PM »
Sure, you can use EF lenses on an APS-C camera.  That still misses the point, which is that an EF-S prime would be about two-thirds the size of an EF prime at the same focal length.  Folks who shoot solely with crop bodies are carrying around a lot of extra weight and bulk if they carry EF primes.

What's the basis for that?  The only current EF-S prime is the 60/2.8 macro, and it's bigger and heavier than the 50/1.4 and 50/2.5 macro, and the 85/1.8 is similar in size and 25% heavier.  Or maybe you're comparing the Sigma 30/1.4 DC to the Canon 35/1.4L, not really a fair comparison, IMO.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

Zv

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1151
    • View Profile
    • Zee-bytes
Re: L Lenses for crop bodies
« Reply #209 on: November 28, 2013, 09:04:09 PM »
Sure, you can use EF lenses on an APS-C camera.  That still misses the point, which is that an EF-S prime would be about two-thirds the size of an EF prime at the same focal length.  Folks who shoot solely with crop bodies are carrying around a lot of extra weight and bulk if they carry EF primes.

What's the basis for that?  The only current EF-S prime is the 60/2.8 macro, and it's bigger and heavier than the 50/1.4 and 50/2.5 macro, and the 85/1.8 is similar in size and 25% heavier.  Or maybe you're comparing the Sigma 30/1.4 DC to the Canon 35/1.4L, not really a fair comparison, IMO.

There are plenty of "light" EF lenses - let me see now, there's the 40mm f/2.8 pancake (don't get much lighter than that), the 35mm f/2 and newer IS version, the 28mm 1.8, the plastic (not so) fantastic 50mm f/1.8II, the 50mm f/1.4 isn't that heavy either and then there's the 24&28 f/2.8IS are quite small and compact too. The 85mm f/1.8 and 100mm f/2 are relatively light too.

I really don't see why we need more lighter EF-S lenses when there already are a bunch of very good EF lenses that cover a wide range of focal lengths and work on all cameras.

To me light = will break easily, like the 50mm f/1.8II. I don't want that. I'd rather have something with some weight for counterbalance and sturdiness.

And really, are the crop body users carrying a lot of unnecessary weight?? I don't think a couple of extra grams is going to make any significant difference. If they are that feeble maybe they ought to leave the DSLRs to the big adults and just use their little toy lego camera instead.   :P
5D II | 17-40L | 24-105L | 70-200 f4L IS | 135L | SY 14mm f/2.8 | Sigma 50 f/1.4

EOS M | 22 f/2 | 11-22 IS

canon rumors FORUM

Re: L Lenses for crop bodies
« Reply #209 on: November 28, 2013, 09:04:09 PM »