Dback4430 Loc: Lockport Il

Will someone please post a photo taken with a "L"lens and then take the same shot with a kit lens so we can see the difference ?

BigBear Loc: Northern CT

I took these today with the same settings.

Kit lens 18-55


L lens 17-40

larrycumba

Makes the L look unneccesary.

BigBear Loc: Northern CT

It may appear that way in this test. However, there is a reason they give away the kit lenses with a new body.

Kit lenses are not weather proof as the L lenses are. They also feel cheap when you compare the construction.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

The 17-40 is an f4 all the way through the zoom range and probably tack sharp wide open.

Iduno Loc: Near Tampa Florida

I hope there's a difference. I just dropped this quarter's bonus on the 70-200 f/4 IS.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

It's hard to see it in these low res forum photos but look at the detail in the stickers in the L lens shot....now look at the lack of detail in the kit shot....

There is no comparison...the L kicks butt.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Bigbear,
how about posting the originals so we can do a 2:1 crop and show how much different they really are?

BigBear Loc: Northern CT

These are the originals.

18-55


17-40

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

My comparison says that the L lens wins. :)

It's not earth shattering but when you need definition, the L has it.

steveo52 Loc: Rhode Island and Ocala Florida

Great question and thanks BigBear for posting the photos. I got my answer. Time to start saving a few bucks here and there. I still need to decide on what type of L lens will work best for my use.

jimberton Loc: Michigan's Upper Peninsula

i would like nothing more than a "kit" lens to be as good as an "L" lens....................but no way.

before i had 2 L lenses, i made every excuse in the world why i didn't need L lenses and they were a waste of money....

i rented a 24-70mm2.8L and a 70-200mm2.8 IS for 4 days. i did outside shots, inside shots, everywhere i could. i must have taken 2000+ photos...........and sadly when i looked at the results and comparisons, the L lenses were better by far. after i returned those rented lenses, i took a part time job and saved up and bought those 2 models. (of course i quit the part time job after i bought those 2 lenses. for canon, there's nothing like L lenses...and there's a reason why professional photographers buy L lenses...and it's not to just look cool!
the 24-70L is black and i really dislike the light gray color of the 70-200.......but when i look at the photos they are used on....let's me know that i did the right thing.

it's kinda like when movies came out on dvd...i had a huge vhs movie collection (over 3000 movies)..........i always said at that time..vhs is as good as dvd...when i really knew it was. but changing over would cost me a fortune. same with L lenses. if the kit lens is working great for you...........use the kit lens. you will save a bunch of bucks for sure.

George H Loc: Brooklyn, New York

Iduno,
You did the right thing, that lens in my estimation is sharper than the 70-200 F2.8, may not work as well in less light but is one very sharp lens.

George

Iduno Loc: Near Tampa Florida

Thanks. I'd heard that it was even sharper than it's big brother and I'm banking on the IS to cover most of my lighting situations. I did order the tripod collar for other times.

docrob Loc: Durango, Colorado

perhaps not a very good subject to show critical differences