canon L series lenses
Posted by: Rick Weldon on 04 November 2003
has any one compared L series zoom lenses with canon prime lenses? ihave 3 or 4 of canons consumer grade (mid price) zoom lenses and compared to the prime lenses they are crap
Posted on: 04 November 2003 by Former member
Rick
I had an old manual focus Canon (FD lens system), then I switched to the autofocus system (EF lens). As far as 'consumer grade' lenses are concerned, I had the widely popular 35-80 f3.5-4.5 and 80-200 f4-5.6. They were very light and easy to use, but the optical quality was well below any standard you would expect. They were made of 100% plastic I guess. I also had some old lenses bought s/h, such as 28 f2.8, 50 f1.8, and a Sigma 400 f5.6 APO. All these were much much better then the zoom lenses above. I also had an early zoom lens, the 35-105 f3-4.5, it was made of glass and metal. Probably one of the first in the EF series I believe, the zooming system was 'push and pull', rather than rotate. The autofocus mechanism was slow and noisy but the quality was very good.
I'm sorry I can't comment about L lens, which are certainly extremely good lenses (and they should, given the prices).
Finally, a few years ago I traded all the autofocus stuff for a fully manual camera with a couple of lenses but this is a different story.
Stefano.
I had an old manual focus Canon (FD lens system), then I switched to the autofocus system (EF lens). As far as 'consumer grade' lenses are concerned, I had the widely popular 35-80 f3.5-4.5 and 80-200 f4-5.6. They were very light and easy to use, but the optical quality was well below any standard you would expect. They were made of 100% plastic I guess. I also had some old lenses bought s/h, such as 28 f2.8, 50 f1.8, and a Sigma 400 f5.6 APO. All these were much much better then the zoom lenses above. I also had an early zoom lens, the 35-105 f3-4.5, it was made of glass and metal. Probably one of the first in the EF series I believe, the zooming system was 'push and pull', rather than rotate. The autofocus mechanism was slow and noisy but the quality was very good.
I'm sorry I can't comment about L lens, which are certainly extremely good lenses (and they should, given the prices).
Finally, a few years ago I traded all the autofocus stuff for a fully manual camera with a couple of lenses but this is a different story.
Stefano.
Posted on: 04 November 2003 by Bob Shedlock
Depending on your criteria, the primes are "better" than the zooms. (some favor sharpness, contrast, etc.) I have Canon L zooms, and I'm thrilled with them, BUT, they are big and heavy compared to primes. Stopped down, particular models are pretty darn close to prime equivalent, not the equal.
As a basis for comparison, I used to have all zuiko primes and nikon primes for my camera bodies - I much prefer my output now with the "L" zooms. (Gee, just wrote almost exactly this in another thread.) Borrow a few (or rent) and try them first. They are expensive.
As a basis for comparison, I used to have all zuiko primes and nikon primes for my camera bodies - I much prefer my output now with the "L" zooms. (Gee, just wrote almost exactly this in another thread.) Borrow a few (or rent) and try them first. They are expensive.
Posted on: 04 November 2003 by Top Cat
Bob's hit it on the head - the L-lenses are comparable with the non-L primes (I have had 28-70/2.8L, 17-40/4L, 50/1.8mkI/II, 50/1.4USM and 85/1.8USM and I'd say that they're all pretty much in the same ballpark optically, which is to say pretty good, though the 50/1.8 is a little soft wide open, as is the 50/1.4. However that's true of all fast primes outside of Zeiss and Leitz).
All of which are considerably better than the consumer zooms, though at f8-f11 you'll find the differences less pronounced.
John
TC '..'
"Sun went down in honey. Moon came up in wine. Stars were spinnin' dizzy, Lord, the band kept us so busy we forgot about the time."
All of which are considerably better than the consumer zooms, though at f8-f11 you'll find the differences less pronounced.
John
TC '..'
"Sun went down in honey. Moon came up in wine. Stars were spinnin' dizzy, Lord, the band kept us so busy we forgot about the time."
Posted on: 05 November 2003 by Ron Toolsie
I now use the 20-70 2.8L and the 70-200 2.8L (sadly NOT the IS version) as well as the 1.4x teleconverter (also an L-series lens). I also have owned the 28-80 3.5/5.6 entry level lens and the 75-300 USM zoom, both of which are softer with peripheral vignetting and distortion. The 28-105 was better but still no match optically for the 20-70L which had far more saturation and crispness to its images, even noticeable on 4x6 machine prints. However, unless you are prepared to use a tripod and mirror lock a large portion of their potential superiority is squandered. Its very easy to take blurry pictures hand holding with the focal length set to 200 and the exposure time any less than 1/500.
Ron
Dum spiro audio
Dum audio vivo
Ron
Dum spiro audio
Dum audio vivo
Posted on: 06 November 2003 by Rick Weldon
thanks for your help, has any one tried the new sigma ex range of zooms?
Posted on: 06 November 2003 by Top Cat
I owned an EX 28-70/2.8 for a while but whilst optically a hair's breadth away from the 28-70/2.8L (which I have also owned as reported above) it isn't built as well and mine seized up in Greece and I can't justify keeping kit which isn't 100% reliable, so I took it back (it was fairly new) and bought the L.
John
TC '..'
"Sun went down in honey. Moon came up in wine. Stars were spinnin' dizzy, Lord, the band kept us so busy we forgot about the time."
John
TC '..'
"Sun went down in honey. Moon came up in wine. Stars were spinnin' dizzy, Lord, the band kept us so busy we forgot about the time."