jerryg Loc: NE Pa

What is the differences between "L" lenses and the non - "L" lenses. Huge difference in price. Can you really see the difference or see it only on highly expensive laboratory optical glass analyzers. Could Canon or Nikon, or others ever make a bad lens or sell lesser hand glass.

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

L stands for luxury, that is what Canon says. The lenses are made very sturdily, with the addition of a front filter they are weather sealed, they are of superior glass, they are usually faster than most others. The bottom line is performance. Are they worth the higher price? People must think so, they sure buy lots of them. Are the results worth the cost and effort? See for yourself.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

I seen many photo's taken with L lenses and non L lenses and I could not tell the difference. The reason could be that most of the pics I have seen were photoshopped, so is it worth it, in my own opinion hell no, why do that when you can correct sharpness, CA and color fringing and ect via PP?

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

It's not just the glass that makes a difference between a professional grade lens and a consumer grade lens. It's build quality, materials, workmanship, bells and whistles, technology, and ability.

Yes, the less expensive lenses are fine for situations where the light is good and the photographer is talented. They (the consumer lenses) are mostly made of plastic including the bayonet part that connects lens to camera body. Therefore, weaker in design than the professional models. They have an inferior focusing motor that isn't as fast at focusing nor as quite as the more expensive cousin professional grade lens. The image stability electronics are inferior to the professional pieces giving the professional grade lenses an advantage of usually one more effective stop for hand held photography. The glass is usually designed with more precision ground elements and groups and those lenses might also have better engineered coatings that take a lot of expertise to engineer. These refinements result in less distortion, vignetting, pincushion, and flare.

One of the last but probably most expensive parts of professional grade lenses is that they usually have fixed instead of variable apertures which means more engineering costs, higher precision barrels that house larger apertures. A professional lens is designed for the rigors of every day use such as a professional photographer might have use for.

These fixed aperture lenses have larger apertures that give the photographer one or more stops of light advantage over the consumer grade of lens making it possible to shoot in low light conditions easier than using lenses that cost less. That is why "fast" lenses cost more.

There are some other bells and whistles that I'm not going to touch on but you can read about them on Canons web site.

Oh, I almost forgot, most of the professional grade lenses will work with Teleconverter while NONE of the variable aperture lenses will.

Basil Loc: New Mexico

Let me put it this way. I had the standard 28-135 kit lens on my 7D. A friend of mine kept singing the praises of the "L" lenses. He swears by them and says that's all he will ever use from now on. So, I finally relented and bought the "poor man's" L series - a 70-200mm f4 "L" lens (non-IS). I was blown away by the clarity and "pop" of the pictures I took with the L lens! So much so that I just bought another L lens - the 24-105 "L" IS USM which I managed to snag on sale (new) for $689 (Adorama sells this lens new for $1149, so I felt I got a pretty good deal). I can't wait to try it! I have put my 28-135 kit lens up for sale as I plan to use the 24-105 "L" as my every day lens. It's only f4, but it's "fixed" f4 where my kit lens was f3.5-5.6 max variable across the zoom.

1stJedi Loc: Southern Orange County

I own both styles and find that my non L lenses are sitting in the bag taking up space. I find many photographers seem to share Racmanaz's opinion -- why bother. In recent years the dependence on PP software would appear, in many respects, to have become a substitute for an exceptional photograph, or the professionalism needed to produce one.

The exceptional quality of the Canon's L series lenses provide the single best opportunity to maximize a photographer's skill and creativity. In short, and in my opinion, they are indeed worth the investment.

TucsonCoyote Loc: Tucson AZ

I get your drift jeep_daddy.....but why would any self respecting professional photographer use Canon equipment...for God sake !?? 8-)

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Jerry, I certainly would not buy L lenses because I thought that they are a lot sharper! They ARE sharper, but you pretty much have to pixel peep them to see it.
But they are made much better, and it would be pretty hard to wear one out.
They do have better optics and coatings, that DO become apparent if you start to push the limits of a lens, like shooting straight into the sun or bright lights at night, with minimal fringing.
Most are constant aperture, which is pretty much mandatory if you shoot with strobes. The zooms resist lens creep and I believe all are full-time manual enabled. Plus the Canon L lens line is more extensive and advanced than any other Brand.
But for sure, an L lens is more of an investment than just a purchase, as many, ten years later, will be worth the same amount that you paid for them, with some actually selling for more than their original costs!
Jerry, hope this helps some. ;-)
SS

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Because the are self-respecting??1 :lol:
SS

Swamp Gator Loc: Coastal South Carolina

Next time you are watching a football game in TV check out the sideline photographers. See if you can spot even one black lens among all the Canon white.

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

NOPE, that last statement was a wrong assumption. I shoot with 100-300mm f4.5-5.6 and the auto focus works fine with a 1.4 teleconverter.

jerryg Loc: NE Pa

Thanks for all the responses. In spite of what you all testify too the price difference makes it a tough decision. I have only 1 "L" (70-200 f4. I have tried some others and can't really see the hulabaloo regarding "L". If I were a pro-sports photographer on the side lines and making a lot of money it might be easier to justify the cost.

haroldross Loc: Walthill, Nebraska

There is a difference but sometimes it may not be readily apparent. The optics are first class and so is the build of the lens. Most of the L series lens are built like a tank- built for heavy duty use.

That being said, there are some great non-L Canon lens. The EF 100 f/2.8 Macro is a prime (no pun intended) example. It is a superb lens even compared to the L version. Concerning 50mm lens, I have found the EF 50mm f/1.4 to do as well or better than the EF 50mm f/1.2L. Again, the L series lens are built to last.

If you never do anything with your photos except view them on your computer monitor or print 5x7 or smaller prints you may not see any difference. On thing note is most L series lens have excellent contrast and for me that stands out. You can fix contrast in post and you can fix chromatic aberration in post. Any time you fix these types of lens issues, you will lower the image quality slightly. With a good lens there will be less work needing to be done in post.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

"L" means one thing, and one thing only on a lens. It means that there is at least ONE element in that lens that is fluorite glass. That's the jist of it.
Oh, and it means you get a red stripe on the lens.

Basil Loc: New Mexico

I respectfully disagree. Admittedly, I'm only an amateur, but when I started using my first L lens (70-200) I could see a definite difference in the clarity and "pop" of the pictures I was taking. The L lens clearly has excellent optics. Also, another thing you get with L lenses is excellent build quality, including weather sealing. I also like the fact that, at least on my 70-200, the front barrel doesn't rotate when I zoom in or focus, which is nice when I'm using a CP filter (I don't have to keep readjusting the filter when zooming in or out).

Is it worth it? Well, there are some L lenses I'd not buy new even if I wanted to because they are simply too much $$ for me to justify, but the 70-200 I first bought was $689, which is not outrageous and the 24-105 I just bought yesterday (don't have it yet) was also $689 (normally $1149 but I got it new on sale).

I plan to sell my 28-135 kit lens and replace it with the 24-105 L lens as my everyday lens. Whether I buy any more L glass is uncertain, but if I find a good deal on a good used "L" prime I'd be tempted I think.