Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 4, 2005, 7:17 AM   #1
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 17

I've seen a lot of articles about the superiority of fluorite vs glass. I understand the refractive concept of glass vs flourite, what I want to know is how big a difference does it really make? Is it worth double the price of the regular glass black canon lenses?

Is it worth it with my EOS 300D body? Or would I only really appreciate the difference on a 1D or 20D?
SRXy is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 4, 2005, 9:22 AM   #2
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 301

The 2MP advantage of the 20D allows a bit more cropping or photos that are about 15% larger. If you are within the limits of resolution of the 300D I can't see why you would see any differences at all in print quality.

There are many advantages of the 20D over the 300D and future 350D, however these are mainly "feature" differences that aren't required by everyone.

So, I guess the answer is if you are critical about the sharpness, contrast, color etc. of your photos and are unhappy with the results you are getting with the consumer Canon lenses, then the L-glass lenses will be worth a look. There are also a number of lenses available from Tamron and Sigma that are better than the similar Canon consumer lens (and some are worse). Some lenses are absolute gems for as much as 1/3 the cost of L-glass.

You can take great photos even with the cheapest consumer Canon lens if you understand the limitations of the lens. Most of them give a pretty decent pictures as long as you are using the middle of the range for f-stops (for my Canon 28-105 USM II the pictures aresharp between f8 and f11).

Visit photozone.de and look at their lens reviews.

BobA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 4, 2005, 1:12 PM   #3
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 62

I find there is some overlap between EF lenses and EF-L. I find my 50mm f1.4 EF to be sharper than my 17-40 f1.4L and my 100-400 f5.6L.

All else being equal, "L" lenses have better sharpness, contrast etc. But all else being equal, primes are simpler and usually optically superior to zooms. So I'm not surprised to find some of the EF primes are sharper than some of the L zooms.

I too have a 300D body and I can see the differences in lens quality in back-to-back comparisons. Differences are readily visible when wide open, especially in the corners. But at f8 they are much harder to see. Overall, in most photos I take, differences in lens quality are subtle. You can see them if you know what to look for but they don't jump out at you.
mrc01 is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:01 AM.