what the "L" stands for

[ReF]

from page 14 on canon's astrophotography guide, it is stated that the "L" stands for "Luxury." did anyone here already know this?

[cdifoto]

I wish I had enough money to Pimp the Caddy Lenses. :D

[Chucko]

I think it stands for the Loot it takes to buy one.

They certainly do induce Lens Lust. On one of the other forums I frequent, they refer to it as "L-coholism"!

[ReValveiT]

They aren't really 'all that' imo...

There are many 3rd party Lenses that give you the same quality for a 3rd of the price.

[cdifoto]

They aren't really 'all that' imo...

There are many 3rd party Lenses that give you the same quality for a 3rd of the price.

Then why do you still own one?

[ReValveiT]

Because I think the 70-200mm f/4 is the exception. It's priced well and there isn't really a 3rd party alternative.

I was referring to Lenses like the 16-35mm f/2.8L and 17-40mm f/4L where the likes of Sigma and Tamron have some nice, cheaper alternatives.

[cdifoto]

Ahh ok...you're talking about the shorter focus lenses. After the 75-300 and 28-135 IS lenses (in a few days), I'll be purchasing the same 70-200 you have. Unfortunately $1700 doesn't come easy to me. :(

[ReValveiT]

Unfortunately $1700 doesn't come easy to me. :(

Nor me. Wish it did!

[cdifoto]

I'll be poor for a little while but I'm hoping once I get the proper lenses together, I can start to offer PJ services to our various small town local newspapers & publications.

Around here, degrees and paperwork don't matter if you can prove you know what you're doing. I'm hoping to take advantage of that. I just need the tools first. A kit lens doesn't exactly do the trick. :D

[George Riehm]

Because I think the 70-200mm f/4 is the exception. It's priced well and there isn't really a 3rd party alternative.

maybe the Sigma 70-200 f2.8...but still it is $200 more.

I was referring to Lenses like the 16-35mm f/2.8L and 17-40mm f/4L where the likes of Sigma and Tamron have some nice, cheaper alternatives.

[TheObiJuan]

They aren't really 'all that' imo...

There are many 3rd party Lenses that give you the same quality for a 3rd of the price.

It's not all about lens sharpnes. Contrast, build quality, and optical quality is also crucial. You get this with canon L.

[cwphoto]

They aren't really 'all that' imo...

There are many 3rd party Lenses that give you the same quality for a 3rd of the price.

You have got to be kidding right?

I challenge you to name one OEM lens that beats the equivalent Canon L.

[cwphoto]

Because I think the 70-200mm f/4 is the exception. It's priced well and there isn't really a 3rd party alternative.

I was referring to Lenses like the 16-35mm f/2.8L and 17-40mm f/4L where the likes of Sigma and Tamron have some nice, cheaper alternatives.

Nothing Sigma and Tamron have compares to Canon's L-series - they are in a totally different market.

Last time I looked, none of these manufacturers even had a competitor to the Canon 16-35 zoom. Both have a 17-35 - but it's not constant f/2.8, and the imaging performance is measurably less than the Canons.

[TheObiJuan]

You have got to be kidding right?

I challenge you to name one OEM lens that beats the equivalent Canon L.

The tamron 17-35 kicks the shit out of the older canon 17-35L.

The sigma 30mm is surely holding its own against the much more expensive 35L. The 35L has slightly better bokeh, contrast, and much better build and feel though.

The sigma 14mm is better in some aspect than the 14L, but the 14L shines in some points.

The 70-200 f/2.8 sigma is pretty equal to the 70-200 f/2.8L, except for the sigma not being white. ;)
These are just a few off the top of my head.
In most of these cases the L wins in some aspects, but gets beaten in others, price is usually/always one.

[TheObiJuan]

Nothing Sigma and Tamron have compares to Canon's L-series - they are in a totally different market.

Last time I looked, none of these manufacturers even had a competitor to the Canon 16-35 zoom. Both have a 17-35 - but it's not constant f/2.8, and the imaging performance is measurably less than the Canons.

The 17-35 tamron is more in the league of the 17-40. They really should get rid of the f/2.8 on the wide end since its too soft anyways. If 3rd party manufacturers kept up their standards they could compete.

[Bluedog]

Nothing Sigma and Tamron have compares to Canon's L-series - they are in a totally different market.

Last time I looked, none of these manufacturers even had a competitor to the Canon 16-35 zoom. Both have a 17-35 - but it's not constant f/2.8, and the imaging performance is measurably less than the Canons.

OK ... The read this (http://nododo.home.comcast.net/ultrawide/index2.html) ... or this (http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/reviews/tam1735.htm)

and I'll add this: the Canon 16-35mm L is a poor f/2.8 lens given the quality vs price comparison. It suffers from CA more than any of the cheaper competitor lens.

[TheObiJuan]

OK ... The read this (http://nododo.home.comcast.net/ultrawide/index2.html) ... or this (http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/reviews/tam1735.htm)

I had a shot to get one for 320 on FM, but I went for the sigma 20 intead. :(

[cwphoto]

The tamron 17-35 kicks the shit out of the older canon 17-35L.

The sigma 30mm is surely holding its own against the much more expensive 35L. The 35L has slightly better bokeh, contrast, and much better build and feel though.

The sigma 14mm is better in some aspect than the 14L, but the 14L shines in some points.

The 70-200 f/2.8 sigma is pretty equal to the 70-200 f/2.8L, except for the sigma not being white. ;)
These are just a few off the top of my head.
In most of these cases the L wins in some aspects, but gets beaten in others, price is usually/always one.

The Canon 17-35 L has been superceded for over three and half years by the 16-35 L. So the only way Tamron can compete is to compare older, outdated designs - nice one.

You don't seriously think the Sigma 70-200 is in the same league as the Canon do you?

Pros are much less interested in the price of optics than the performance. Not many serious pros even consider the cheap OEM stuff.

[cwphoto]

OK ... The read this (http://nododo.home.comcast.net/ultrawide/index2.html) ... or this (http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/reviews/tam1735.htm)

and I'll add this: the Canon 16-35mm L is a poor f/2.8 lens given the quality vs price comparison. It suffers from CA more than any of the cheaper competitor lens.

Not the copies I've used.

[Bluedog]

Not the copies I've used.

Guess that just goes to show you not all copies are that same ... including the high dollar L series Canons.

Here's some more for you to ponder (http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml) as its cheaper 17-40L brother does better in testing.

again the Tamron 17-35mm XR Di seems to be just as good from the reviews.

[cwphoto]

Guess that just goes to show you not all copies are that same ... including the high dollar L series Canons.

Here's some more for you to ponder (http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml) as its cheaper 17-40L brother does way better in testing.

again the Tamron 17-35mm XR Di seems to be just as good from the reviews.

The 17-40 is not a bad lens but the 16-35 is sharper at F2.8 ;)

[TheObiJuan]

The Canon 17-35 L has been superceded for over three and half years by the 16-35 L. So the only way Tamron can compete is to compare older, outdated designs - nice one.

You don't seriously think the Sigma 70-200 is in the same league as the Canon do you?

Pros are much less interested in the price of optics than the performance. Not many serious pros even consider the cheap OEM stuff.

I am pretty sure that canon replaced the 17-35L with the 17-40L. They dropped the f/2.8 since it was not up to L sharpness. The tamron 17-35 was around then, so it IS a valid argument.

The sigma 70-200 f/2.8 DG has HSM, which is equivalent to USM, both are metal and of exceptional quality. Both zoom rings are wide, soft rubber, and smooth moving. They both are practically equally sharp, contrasty, but the sigma is warmer and the canon is colder.

The canon looks better, has a focus limiter switch, and is weather sealed.

If I have the extra cash at the time I will get the canon because of the little extra, if not, then sigma it is.

[Bluedog]

I guess all those guys you see with press passes at sporting events and such shooting with the Sigma EX lens aren't Pros working for various magazines and newspapers ... :rolleyes:

[cwphoto]

I guess all those guys you see with press passes at sporting events and such shooting with the Sigma EX lens aren't Pros working for various magazines and newspapers ... :rolleyes:

All two of them?

I'm sure they are - but they represent a very small minority (I did say "not many" after all).

If money were no object the sample size of OEM to L-series would be even smaller.

Wake up Blue - PJ is overwhelmingly L territory, you ain't winning this...

[Bluedog]

All two of them?

I'm sure they are - but they represent a very small minority (I did say "not many" after all).

If money were no object the sample size of OEM to L-series would be even smaller.

Wake up Blue - PJ is overwhelmingly L territory, you ain't winning this...

I didn't realize we were in competition on this but as for that some of your points are very bias ... I'm finished ... :rolleyes:

[ReValveiT]

Ok guys,

All I'm saying is, non-pro's shouldn't be quite so quick to drool over, and want 'L' Lenses. Of course, Pro's aren't going to think twice about buying them. They are Canon's TOTR Lenses and aimed squarely at the money-no-object Pro. They do not represent good value but, they are "the best" so Pro's buy them and Canon knows it can charge silly money for them.

Of course I'm not saying they're sub-par Lenses. They are superb Lenses., But like I said, there ARE other Lenses out there that give 'L' glass a real run for its money at 1/3rd the price. This cannot realistically be denied.

So no, I'm not joking. 'L' Lenses aren't "all that". Your average armature is not going to be too impressed with them - considering they probably spent more on the Lens than they did on their 300d / 350d. Like most things in life, you get to a certain price-point and anything above that will give a very small increment in quality for a given price jump.

[cwphoto]

Ok guys,

All I'm saying is, non-pro's shouldn't be quite so quick to drool over, and want 'L' Lenses. Of course, Pro's aren't going to think twice about buying them. They are Canon's TOTR Lenses and aimed squarely at the money-no-object Pro. They do not represent good value but, they are "the best" so Pro's buy them and Canon knows it can charge silly money for them.

Of course I'm not saying they're sub-par Lenses. They are superb Lenses., But like I said, there ARE other Lenses out there that give 'L' glass a real run for its money at 1/3rd the price. This cannot realistically be denied.

So no, I'm not joking. 'L' Lenses aren't "all that". Your average armature is not going to be too impressed with them - considering they probably spent more on the Lens than they did on their 300d / 350d.

I'm a pro and I think they represent great value. The prices are fair to me.

[ReValveiT]

Yes, you're a Pro so the cost isn't going to be such an issue to you. The Lens is making you money.

[Rex914]

Because I think the 70-200mm f/4 is the exception. It's priced well and there isn't really a 3rd party alternative.

I was referring to Lenses like the 16-35mm f/2.8L and 17-40mm f/4L where the likes of Sigma and Tamron have some nice, cheaper alternatives.

I'd love to concur, but you picked out the 2 worst of the lot (relatively speaking). Canon's weakest lenses in its lineup are all of its wide lenses. The vast majority of its telephoto L's and L primes kick most of the competition. Sigma's telephotos are pretty good too, but some of them lack HSM which is a major deterrant for some. But then again, you need a big budget to be using such lenses in the first place.

But this ignores the big picture. We presumably don't buy L lenses just for the namesake. We buy them because we are looking for certain functionality that is only reasonably available in an L lens. Sometimes, the competition will offer a similar product and sometimes, this product is on par or even superior to the Canon offering, but when you get into the high budget range, it's pretty much Canon's ground as they are the only show in town.

[ReF]

wide lenses for SLR systems seem to be particularly weak compared to other formats. i'm not stating that it's a fact, so don't hold me to it, but i read that somewhere. you can also kinda tell just by looking at what's available.

if money wasn't a problem, i'd probably end up with mostly canon L glass, exept in those cases where the 3rd party lenses are getting better reviews than the canons. i'm not going to buy L glass "just because" even if i had deep pockets. that weather sealing also help. i was in hawaii and discovered that it drizzles all of a sudden, all the time. it started raining one time while i was setting up an IR shot with my one L lens. the rubber sealing probably saved my butt, as i have heard stories about water creeping between the mount and shorting out the lens. i also have a canon brochure that shows one of those white canon L's being drenched in artificial rain :eek: focusing is also quicker with canon USM lenses than any 3rd party lens i've tried (though only marginally).

still, for most people, the L series represents a poor cost to benefit ratio.

[Rex914]

I agree that some lenses are horribly overpriced namely the wide ones, the 24-70, the 28-300, the 35-350 and the wider primes. But I honestly think the that the ones like the 135 f/2, 300 f/4 IS, etc. represent a great value for what you get, especially if there's no comparable or existing 3rd party offering.

[ReF]

I agree that some lenses are horribly overpriced namely the wide ones, the 24-70, the 28-300, the 35-350 and the wider primes. But I honestly think the that the ones like the 135 f/2, 300 f/4 IS, etc. represent a great value for what you get, especially if there's no comparable or existing 3rd party offering.

i forgot about those L tele-primes! many of them are actually pretty well priced and from what i've heard/read, yield excellent results and performance.