Canon ''L'' lenses..

GJ · Old hand Status: Joined: 06 Dec 2007 Posts: 388

Hey guys,

I am reading into the lens stuff.
Adrian gave me some interesting links in another thread.
I wonder what makes Canon ''L'' lenses so special?

Can someone shine a light on this?
_________________

uncle aj · Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 9:57 am Post subject: Re: Canon ''L'' lenses..

GJ · Old hand Status: Joined: 06 Dec 2007 Posts: 388

And a big thanks again Adrian....

_________________

GJ · Old hand Status: Joined: 06 Dec 2007 Posts: 388

Someone pointed me towards the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM

I think it's a great lens for my walks, and within my budget.

Then maybe start saving for a nice telelens, like a 100-400..
_________________

uncle aj · Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 4:14 pm Post subject:

ColinB · Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 4:25 pm Post subject:

Tools · Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 5:40 pm Post subject:

The 24-105L is a great lens..

But with the crop cameras, such as the 50D, you can get by with a lighter 17-40L lens..

plus it gives you a bit more wide angle for great scenics.....
_________________

...............

GJ · Old hand Status: Joined: 06 Dec 2007 Posts: 388

Hi Larry,

Thanks for your input.
Your advice is actually me ''next'' lens, followed by a telelens.

Gotta start somewhere huh?

_________________

Gedanken · Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 8:00 am Post subject:

Gerard, L-lenses are a terribly expensive habit, and awfully addcitive to boot.

My first L-lens was the 70-200 f/2.8L IS. Now as it was, I was pretty pleased with the results that the Sigma 18-200 was giving me, but I didn't like having a small aperture (f/6.3) at 200mm zoom, so I looked around and eventually got the Canon.

Now some days I'm not all too bright - after having shelled out for the lens, I started wondering why they were that expensive.

I did a direct comparison between the two lenses at 200mm. Here are the results:

Taken with the Sigma lens.

Taken with the Canon lens.

Both shots were taken at 1/200s shutter speed and at f/13. Paying particular attention to the graininess of the Sigma shot and the "Swiss Made" at the bottom of the dial, you can see how much more crisp the Canon's shot is. It's the biggest jump I've had since moving from VHS to DVD.

The other factor is the build quality. When I went to the Melbourne Air Show earlier this year, the weather was just awful, but with the weather sealing on both the L lenses and the 50D body, I really didn't have all that much to worry about except for outright downpours. I'd certainly have missed a lot more shots with my Sigma because I would have had it packed away for protection.

Just to muddy the waters up a bit, have you taken a look at the 24-70 2.8L? When I was weighing getting it against getting the 24-105, I did a bit of homework and found the overall view to be slightlyin favour of the 24-70 in terms of IQ, although that may mean less to you than the extra 35mm.
_________________
Different packaging, same classic taste!