Canon L lens: it really makes a difference

[djotaku]

Last weekend I rented the Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8L USM to shoot my cousin's wedding. I wasn't the main photographer, but I'd been looking for an excuse to rent some L quality glass and this was as good a time as any.

I have to say I was NOT disappointed. The lens did an amazing job of lightning fast autofocus in the church and, of course, was silent. Last thing you want to hear is the buzz-buzz of a non-USM lens focusing during the church service. And, L USM is even quieter than non-L USM. The resulting images were sharper and more saturated than anything else I've ever shot.

So, why am I sharing this? Recently there's been a lot of hullabaloo on this site and others about how equipment doesn't matter. You can do the same on your point and shoot as a Canon 1D. I'm here to tell you it's false. Yes, you do need the basic skills first. L lenses and top notch dSLR will not magically make you take photos like Scott Bourne or Joe McNally. But, boy does it help!

As I've gone from the kit lens to primes to [trying out] Ls, I've seen the quality of my images (from a technical standpoint) increase. In other words, you eventually reach a limit of your equipment. I can take a good image with my kit lens, but I probably won't want to blow it up to 20x30 inches. (I've made super enlargements of many of my photos to hang at my house and others' houses)

So, if you're into dSLRs, and want awesome photos (not just snaps to show your family) my advice is to save up your money and buy the best lenses you can. While you're saving up, work on improving your skills so when you get those L lenses you will be able to take advantage of them. I've bought lots of lenses before the Ls and knowing what I do now, I wouldn't have wasted my money with that.

[gazsus]

I had the chance to try an L lens yesterday, the EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM, and I came away very disappointed.
I've been using the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM for several months and have been very pleased with the results, but the chance to compare an L lens was too good to miss.
Imagine my disappointment when I could find no discernible difference between the two lenses.
I used my Canon 20D, tripod, MLU and wired remote to compare lenses, taking around 30 photos with each lens. (same subject, aperture, ISO, etc etc)
Compared the results in Lightroom at 2:1 ratio and could find no difference whatsoever between the resulting images.
I was led to believe L glass was worth the outrageous price but on this showing I think not.

[nathanbarlow]

Originally Posted by djotaku

.... I've bought lots of lenses before the Ls and knowing what I do now, I wouldn't have wasted my money with that....

ahhh but you have used the previous lenses to learn on - they were more than good enough at one point in time. Plus the money wouldnt be wasted per say, as most lenses keep their value pretty well if looked after.

Dont get me wrong - it is nice to hear that you have got to a skill point where L lenses are becoming an asset to you, but dont be to quick to diss the lenses you previously used - even if its only in appreciating that they taught you XYZ.

[Quo Fan]

You are experiencing what I call the "crawl, walk run". When I teach the martial arts, I have to teach a person to crawl before I can teach them to walk before I can teach them to run. Same with photography. Crawl, walk run. Start with the kit lens (crawling) then upgrade to better glass (walk) and finally get some L glass (run).

I have 2 L lenses in my kit and they spend the most time on my camera. I also have a lens that I paid US$20 for, and think it is super. I have taken some fantastic shots with the $20 lens.

But yes, sometimes it is the equipment, not the photographer (but not always).

[djotaku]

Originally Posted by Quo Fan

You are experiencing what I call the "crawl, walk run". When I teach the martial arts, I have to teach a person to crawl before I can teach them to walk before I can teach them to run. Same with photography. Crawl, walk run. Start with the kit lens (crawling) then upgrade to better glass (walk) and finally get some L glass (run).

I have 2 L lenses in my kit and they spend the most time on my camera. I also have a lens that I paid US$20 for, and think it is super. I have taken some fantastic shots with the $20 lens.

But yes, sometimes it is the equipment, not the photographer (but not always).

Very good point. Really, my disappointment is in that the money I spent on the medium level glass was part of the way towards L glass so I could have been saving money. Once I get my 70-200mm L, I probably won't ever use my 55-200mm unless the L is in the shop.

Also, as you mention with the $20 lens, my $100 50mm f/1.8 is pretty amazing and almost matches the L glass. Of course, I'm comparing a zoom to a prime so it makes sense the 50mm f/1.8 would seem so amazing. I'd have to compare it to the 50mm f/1.2L. I hear that's not as sharp as it should be, but perhaps most of those people are comparing it wide open and f/1.2 is a razor thin depth of field.

gazsus -> If the quality was not that much more amazing, you are still gaining two things with the L lens. 1) the aperture is f/4 at any length 2) the construction is solid and more weather-proof

[gazsus]

Originally Posted by djotaku

gazsus -> If the quality was not that much more amazing, you are still gaining two things with the L lens. 1) the aperture is f/4 at any length 2) the construction is solid and more weather-proof

The only reason for me to purchase L glass is for superior quality in my photographs, as this was not achieved the glass has been returned. If I don't gain in quality, I don't gain anything.

After much deliberation I've decided on the Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS. I'm very pleased with the sharpness and the focal range will prove useful in many situations.

Saved myself a small fortune too.

[inkista]

Ah, yes. L lenses are great fun. Too bad they cost an arm and a leg. A lot of people see getting "training wheels" lenses as a waste of money, but you have backup lenses or lighter-weight travel alternatives now. And, if you took care of them, you can recoup most of the money you spent by selling them.

BTW, L-USM isn't limited to Ls. What you're looking for specifically is ring-type USM, vs. micromotor. (E.g., the 85/1.8 and 70-300 IS USM both have ring-type USM). Here's a list of the lenses that was posted on dpreview, identifying the USM type of each lens.

Now, stay away from the Fred Miranda Alt. Gear forum. Just trust me on this. You really don't want to know there are more than just one or two lenses that are considered to be better than Ls. Once you step outside the Canon box, you start to learn, it's not just good-better-best, but rather that there are possibilities of other flavors of glass.

Gazsus--I'm actually not that surprised you couldn't see any difference between the 70-200 f/4L and 70-300 IS USM: those lenses are very close in image quality. (And price). And L glass vs.IS on a telephoto zoom is pretty even-stevens as a trade.

But I will tell you that with experience, you eventually can see the difference, and it can become large enough to be worth the pricetag difference. But until you can, there's no point in spending wads of cash on Ls. I will say, though, that sharpness is not everything. For me, the main reasons to get L glass are the wider apertures and the higher contrast. Not the sharpness (although that's nice, too)--a lot of USM counterparts can have just as much sharpness as the Ls.

[TerryMC]

Originally Posted by djotaku

So, why am I sharing this? Recently there's been a lot of hullabaloo on this site and others about how equipment doesn't matter. You can do the same on your point and shoot as a Canon 1D. I'm here to tell you it's false.

That's something some of us knew for a long time. Can you picture a Cordon Bleu chef using a butcher knife? Talking about it is cheap, how he had mastered it after many decades and learned to use its 'sweet spots'.

'Training wheels' vs. 'short cut to success'. I preferred the later. Isn't that the reason why people asking for buying advices here? Or they like to share other's 'training wheels'.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by inkista

But I will tell you that with experience, you eventually can see the difference, and it can become large enough to be worth the pricetag difference. But until you can, there's no point in spending wads of cash on Ls. I will say, though, that sharpness is not everything. For me, the main reason to get L glass are the wider apertures and the higher contrast. Not the sharpness (although that's nice, too)--a lot of USM counterparts can have just as much sharpness as the Ls.

I'd also be tempted to see the posters results comparing the 70-300 to the 70-200 f/2.8

[jdepould]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

I'd also be tempted to see the posters results comparing the 70-300 to the 70-200 f/2.8

I'm not sure about Canon, but the Nikon 70-300 is really good out to about 270mm, especially if you stop down.

As far as the "equipment doesn't matter" thing ... well, it does and it doesn't. It matters right up to the point where your abilities end. All the glass in the world isn't going to save you from not being able to see like a shooter.

Could I do a lot of the things I do with an 18-55 or 70-300? Yes. Can I do them better with my 24-70 or a 400? Yes.