Canon L lens: it really makes a difference

[inkista]

Originally Posted by crunch

Almost but not quite... 100mm f/2 vs 100mm f/2.8L ...

D'oh! Ya got me. I keep forgetting they added that L macro!

[daft_biker]

Originally Posted by inkista

I
I'm not saying Ls aren't worth it. But you do need to look at them as individual lenses, and you have to evaluate more than just sharpness at 100% crop. Every lens has tradeoffs and its own peculiar strengths and weaknesses. Some folks tend to assume because an L costs three times as much as the other lens down they're going to get three times the lens or three times the sharpness, and they aren't.

I agree but some folk don't want to know and will argue like fanboys until the cows come home....there's plenty fLashion victims out there

Why don't I want a wide f/1.4 lens to photograph a landscape? Is it curvlinear distortion that creates problem with fast lenses drawing straight lines? I think the size/weight/price thing has already been mentioned.

[djotaku]

Originally Posted by inkista

D'oh! Ya got me. I keep forgetting they added that L macro!

I was super jealous for that new L macro because of the new type of IS, but a review on dpreview points out that it's not really that useful when doing macro. Really what they would need is a kind of IS that stabilized against back-forth motion - one of the main reasons to put it on a tripod. And once it's on a tripod, there's no need for IS.

[Mr Guy]

Originally Posted by inkista

y'know, like once the L and the red ring goes on the lens the elements are suddenly made of magic air that no longer need to adhere to the laws of physics instead of, y'know glass that has to obey physics and how optics actually work.

And everyone knows that's not how L-lenses work; it's how Pentax limited primes work. Observe this optical formula diagram for the FA 77mm ltd: