Canon's L lenses are not worth it!!?

Question

http://www.flickr.com/photos/27145979@N02/3630786574/sizes/l/

I made about three of these photograph comparisons. From what i can see, there is no real difference. The Nikon's cheap lens is better. I mean, the 55-200mm lens was only $199 but the 70-200mm f/4L was $600. Why did i spend all of that money?

Answer 1

Actually, I can't view the first link, but in the second the canon lens seems to be brighter - not that I can really tell as the image is rather small.



But that's neither here nor there. The point behind an L series lens is not necessarily how much better it performs than other lenses, but the way that it is made. And I guarantee the L lens in this pseudo-comparison will outlast the nikon - being that I've used that nikon, albeit briefly. But that's not even the point. If you're the sort of person who only cares about how well you perceive the image quality vs. price, than you'll never find the need for a professional lens. Nikon has pro lenses too, you know.



When you buy a lens, the money you invest determines how long you plan to keep and use that lens. Technically, my AF nikkor 70-210mm f/4-5.6D outperforms both, and it's a 12 year old push/pull zoom with loose mechanics. It's still my best telezoom, and has lasted beyond any of the DX AF-S lenses I've had the misfortune of owning - except maybe my 16-85 VR, which I spent $500+ on.



Though I like him, don't let Ken Rockwell fool you about cheap lenses. Sure, he loves to plug his el cheapo lenses as the best for the money, but he doesn't use them ALL the time (and even admits to that). So if you're going for longevity, the more money you put on a lens, the better quality it will be.



Note: Your comparison isn't enough to convince me that this isn't just some rant about cost justification. You don't give the conditions under which the test was conducted. You don't share the cameras used - which have implications, you compare nikon vs. canon, and the differences in sharpness attributable between JPEGs of the two. And sure, the 70-200 f/4L isn't canon's best. For another $350, you could have the much better 70-200 f/4L IS, which is one of canon's highest rated lenses in terms of image quality. So it's true what they say, you do get what you pay for.

Answer 2

Every professional photographer I have spoken with who makes use of Canon will swear via the L glass. The fluorite crystal detail creates a particular crispness and minute tonal pleasant that makes persons seem at a first-rate shot and move "Ooohhhhhhhh!" The query will have to be if the funding is valued at it for you. Will you employ the lens to make it valued at whilst? If you intend on creating a dwelling from images, then sure, move with the nice equipment you'll have enough money. However, learn up on third social gathering enterprise (Sigma and Tamron) lenses which can be related to what you wish to shop for. I received the Sigma a hundred and twenty-300mm f/two.eight lens and the 2 pals I lent it to (one professional, one hobbyist) mentioned it is an satisfactory lens and the pictures the professional did of a football fit had been great. That lens price lower than part of the related Canon high lens. I spent approximately 60 mixed hours learning lenses over a number of few months and the money I stored going with that lens was once valued at it.

Answer 3

For Canon's L lenses, there's no enormous differences when you compare the pictures side by side.

But you'd feel very much differences. Because I tried 70-200 f/2.8L before, and I was really satisfied with the capability of really really fast focusing. and the sharpness of the image are really stunning (except for several type of L lenses) when I tried to shoot the subject using thin depth-of-field.

Answer 4

screens are 72dpi or 92 dpi on mac, to test lenses use prints and print at 300dpi



also goto say dpreview and look at the mtf charts



the print is always the proof - thats why we have portfolios in print - - if its good on print then its publishable - low dpi screens are a poor indicator, get 3 4x6s or 8x12s printed then see maybe - - also some files can handle more sharpening that others et cetera

Answer 5

You know, the subject matter is hardly optimal for comparison.



Here is Canon 135 mm f 2 L. It's pretty sharp (I did airbrush her skin--but overall sharpness was not changed).



http://www.flickr.com/photos/little_pooky/3627600473/

Answer 6

Have you tried the Tamron line? I have only one, an 18-200, but it's quite nice and only about $250. Very sharp and crisp.



Good Luck