duckshots Loc: Burlington VT

Canon makes many sharp, well built lenses. L lenses make beautiful images, especially when used with the correct camera. Worth the money? If you have the money, they are. If you shoot with a crop sensor, they aren't.

That being said, I hated the 24-105. Lens droop. Couldn't carry it. People swear by it. 24-70 LII works better on a 5D Mark III than a Mark II. 85 1.2 focuses slowly and back focuses, but produces maginificent images.

ggibbs1971

I have the 28-70L, 300/f4L 70-300IS & the Tamron 17-355. All these lenses will accept the Kenko DGX teleconverters.

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

Sounds like a great question for Canon.

obeone

I have both L and non L lenses, as well as a couple of non-Canon lenses. Which I use depends on what I'm going to use the final product for and where I'm going to be shooting. My 70-200 F2.8 IS is a big lens and would not work well in crowds where I am very constricted in my movements.
My preferred walk about lens is a Proto-Master 28-300, that I've used for years. It gives me very acceptable results up to about 11x13 prints and I've won many awards with it. I also like it because it's much smaller and easier to carry and conceal.

Marionsho Loc: Kansas

Did you know that the Nikon ads are shot with a Canon camera?

gym Loc: Athens, Georgia

Why would you say that L lenses aren't the right choice for a crop sensor?

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

If you compare apples to apples, such as the EF70-300mm f/4-5.6 L IS to the EF70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS there is a considerable difference in certain areas. The L is the same length but is .5" wider. It weighs 15oz more and has 19 elements in 14 groups compared to15 elements in 10 groups. Most of the extra weight comes from the extra glass, the heaviest component of most complex lenses. I assume Canon put it in there for a reason. How much difference does it make? The heavier construction is certainly a consideration. As far as image quality, I'm sure there is a difference but I don't know where you would start to see it at. Is it worth the more then double price? I would guess that only the person buying it could answer that. Personally, all my lenses are L's because I have always found that buying the best I can afford is usually the cheapest way to do things.

haroldross Loc: Walthill, Nebraska

I had that problem with the newer 24-105 that I had- I got rid of it for that reason. My older one does not have that issue.

The 24-105 is a nice lens, but it is at the bottom of the chain when comparing L lens. Lens vignetting is fair on a full frame body. Lens flare is well controlled. There quite a bit of color fringing at 105mm at f/4. There is quite a bit of geometric distortion; pincushion at 105mm and barrel distortion at 24mm. The new bodies have corrections for this in the camera and most software packages can automatically correct these issue.

If this lens is your only exposure to the L series lens, I suggest you rent or borrow one of the 70-200mm lens (f/2.8 or f/4). I think then you will see the L series in all it's glory.

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

The 24-105 is a very nice lens. It is Canon's bait, and the idea to start using it as a "kit" lens is brilliant, IMHO. Canon expects to reap huge returns on their investment of using the lens to show the benefits of "L" lenses. And, if you really want to see the glory of "L" get a copy of the EF300mm f/2.8L IS USM. A more impressive piece of photography equipment you will not find. And ... it makes great photos! :lol:

rocketride Loc: Upstate NY

I just got my first "L" lens. The 24-105 f/4 that came with my new 6D. I love it.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

All you wanted to know about Canon's "L" lenses...Oh, as the article says, not all "white" lenses are Canon's & I see any number of non white lenses on the sidelines too...That said, Canon seems to be the preferred lenses for sports photography...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_L_lens

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

One aspect of the L lenses is, that they stand up to harsh treatment. It is nice to know, not having to worry about some rain or snow, they 're sure build very nicely. They usually are fast glass as well (with only a few exceptions), so they are build for performance, so nice IQ can be expected as well. They also hold their value very well over time!

AntonioReyna Loc: Los Angeles, California

I agree with you. The 28-135 is a very good lens, but the 24-105L/4 is better. I have used both extensively. Keep shooting!

elliott937 Loc: St. Louis

I thoroughly enjoyed reading all the responses about the L series lenses. I have two perspectives to add here.

First, with a friend I went to our St Louis Zoo. We stood side by side shooting exactly the same subject. Now, ignore the friend idea other than she had an L lens and I did not. So, every time I took a shot with my non-L lens, I took the next shot with her L Series Lens, framing the same shot. We did that for about ten shots around the zoo. Then I viewed these shots, side by side, on my iMac 27" screen. Saying absolutely nothing, I asked my best friend to look over my shoulder and tell me what difference he saw. In every single case, we pointed to the L Series shots and said they are definitely sharper. I already thought so, but I already knew which was shot with which lens. He had no idea why I was asking, so he was very objective about it. The L Series lens simply was markedly sharper. That was my convincing test that L Series lens are better.

Second. "Two Foot-itis". I'm told that in the buying-a-boat world, it seems that each year, boat owners decide the want a new boat, one that is two feet longer. "Men and boys, the price of their toys"! Maybe so, but I have replaced my share of lenses for ""better"" lenses. Not any more. I have three L Series lenses, ranging from 17mm up to 200mm. I also bought Canon's L Series 2x multiplier (about $300 I think), so I'm good to 4,000mm. My "Two Foot-itis" is now put to rest. I have no need or desire to buy another lens. I'm confident these three lenses will be with me for the rest of my life. So, it gives me peace of mind knowing I have Canon's best. I plan to shoot for the next 20 to 30 years. Spending zero dollars for new lenses makes this an very economical activity.

Thats my take on L Series lenses. On, two of these were purchased used from my local camera store. I love Amazon and their prices. But I have a wonderful rapport with the sales men. For two of the three lenses, the watched for the "trade up" deals with their customers. My newest 17 - 40 had every piece of paper and accessory with it and not a single mark of wear. Neither the salesman nor I could even detect it was not brand new, yet I saved big dollars.

So brick-and-morter camera stores for me, and L Series too.

Allen Hirsch Loc: Oakland, CA

As an example of what an L lens can do, these were all taken 27 rows up from the floor (back when the Warriors still allowed real cameras and lenses in Oracle Arena - they subsequently change their policy :() with a 70-200L f2.8:

http://allenh.zenfolio.com/p1022167256

All at 1600 ISO, with a Canon 40D (not the most forgiving sensor for noise at high ISO), shot wide open in order to get high enough shutter speed. I continue to be quite pleased with the sharpness and color this lens produces, and its versatility in the field.