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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 31, 2005, 10:00 AM   #1
CPV
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 22
Default

I do not know a whole lot about the different lenses, yet...

What makes the Canon L series so much better than really anything else.

Faster focussing? Sharper image? Better color quality?

I am thinking about the f4 70-200 Canon L, but do not know how big of difference it will be vs. say a comparable Sigma or whatever.



Thanks,

Jordan
CPV is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Aug 31, 2005, 10:09 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
G35Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 323
Default

Pretty much all those things. Better optics, USM focus mechanism, weather sealing, higher quality coatings...the lenses are typically sharper, faster, built better,better color and contrast.

Sigma's EX line is supposed to be more L-like...but I can't say as I've never used an EX lens.
G35Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2005, 12:44 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

For Canon EF - L I'd say the following would apply:
  • Faster focussing (if ring USM drive)[/*]
  • Sharper image[/*]
  • Better color quality[/*]
  • Excelent build quality[/*]
  • Weather sealing[/*]
  • Usually have 1 or more special rare-earth glass elements[/*]
  • Nice white barrel
    [/*]
  • optional tripod collar available if appropriate.[/*]
  • very expensive[/*]
  • 1 year warranty
    [/*]
Yes I use some Sigmas like the 120-300 F2.8 EX HSM

For Sigma EX the following would apply
  • Faster focussing (if ring HSM drive)[/*]
  • Sharper image[/*]
  • Better color quality[/*]
  • Very good build quality[/*]
  • Usually have 1 or more special rare-earth glass elements[/*]
  • comes with a case
    [/*]
  • comes with a tripod collar if appropriate.[/*]
  • not so expensive[/*]
  • 7 year warranty (in Canada)
    [/*]
Peter


PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2005, 1:17 PM   #4
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

PeterP

Not all L are dust and water resistant - although several posts implied this


... and although I won't try this until another month, and Sigma didn't advertise it. This lens seems to withstand the element quite well: http://www.hoothollow.com/Tip-December%202003.html

I'll let everyone know shortly...
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2005, 2:07 PM   #5
Member
 
terryf1960's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 30
Default

PeterP wrote:


You forgot very big and heavy. My 70-200mm F2.8L IS weighs a ton. I had it out this past weekend and trying to get some shots of people on water skis and tubes pulled behind a boat and its very akward to work with. Not to mention I'm so paranoid something was going to happen to it out there. My 24-70mm F2.8L is not that light either. The only upside to all this is that after having those 2 lenses on my camera I no longer complain about my 17-40mm F4L

Quote:
or Canon EF - L I'd say the following would apply:
  • Faster focussing (if ring USM drive)[/*]
  • Sharper image[/*]
  • Be[/*]
  • tter color quality[/*]
  • Excelent build quality[/*]
  • Weather sealing[/*]
  • Usually have 1 or more special rare-earth glass elements[/*]
  • Nice white barrel
    [/*]
  • optional tripod collar available if appropriate.[/*]
  • very expensive[/*]
  • 1 year warranty
    [/*]
Yes I use some Sigmas like the 120-300 F2.8 EX HSM

For Sigma EX the following would apply
  • Faster focussing (if ring HSM drive)[/*]
  • Sharper image[/*]
  • Better color quality[/*]
  • Very good build quality[/*]
  • Usually have 1 or more special rare-earth glass elements[/*]
  • comes with a case
    [/*]
  • comes with a tripod collar if appropriate.[/*]
  • not so expensive[/*]
  • 7 year warranty (in Canada)
    [/*]
Peter

terryf1960 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2005, 6:43 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 544
Default

CPV...

My experience with "L" class lenses is limited to the EF 70-200 f/4L. It's a truly great lens. I opted for it because of its (relatively) small size. The 2.8 version by Sigma has some wonderful reviews, but all of the f/2.8's are really big and heavy.

My EF 70-200 f/4L produces beautiful color and focuses very quickly... even with the cheap Tamron 1.4X TC attached. The pictures it yields with my 20D are visually sharper and clearer than those produced with my EF-S 17-85 IS, which is no slouch.


Wildman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2005, 9:35 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

:blah: Not sure I'd consider that a feature :blah:
terryf1960 wrote:
Quote:
You forgot very big and heavy.
Peter.
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2005, 9:46 PM   #8
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

PeterP wrote:
Quote:
:blah: Not sure I'd consider that a feature :blah:
I do: :idea:

1. It builds up your muscle - what's better than exercise while having fun...
2. The faster lens enable the higher precision AF sensor in the camera (f/2.8 or bigger)
3. A shallower DOF - you can turn an f/2.8 into an f/4 but not vice versa
4. A brighter viewfinder especially when combined with a polarizer
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2005, 9:58 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

BTW: The EF 70-200 F2.8 IS L is only 3.24 pounds :blah:

The Sigma 120-300 F2.8 is 5.73 pounds.
Add about another 3 pounds for a 20D, bg-e2 grip, 500dg-super flash and a better beamer, batteries, and memory and you are really on your way to building up your biceps :G
Oh and maybe another 10ish pounds for a tripod and head.

I think I will re-define SO to mean Sherpa Ondemand :G.
(Now must hide from same):homey:

Peter
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2005, 11:12 PM   #10
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

PeterP wrote:
Quote:
BTW: The EF 70-200 F2.8 IS L is only 3.24 pounds :blah:

The Sigma 120-300 F2.8 is 5.73 pounds...
That's about the same weight as an EF 300 f/2.8 L, but a zoom...

-> but that's good thing because with the 2x TC @ 600mm, it's still only 1/2 the weight of the EF 600 f/4 L which is why I can still handheld for theses shots taken straight down from a cliff (tripod don't point down between their legs do they?): :-) :lol: :G


NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


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 4:55 PM.