Evening

by w.hrybok

submit your photo


Hall of Fame
View past winners from this year

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Take the 2-minute tour ×
Photography Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional, enthusiast and amateur photographers. It's 100% free, no registration required.

The Canon L lenses are much more expensive and presumably much better quality than non-L lenses. What makes an "L" lens? How much better are they over a similar length/speed "ordinary" canon lenses?

share|improve this question

4 Answers 4

up vote 17 down vote accepted

According to Canon, L lenses contain all their best technologies like ultrasonic focusing motors, florite and aspherical lens elements for best optical performance, and are built to survive being used by the pro photographers. Many times this also means sealing against dust and humidity.

Let's take these two lenses:

In this case, the L version is much better built, 50% heavier, with better image stabilizer, more sophisticated optical construction, weather sealing, ring-type USM with full-time manual (consumer version has just micro-USM motor). Optically the L version performs better than the non-L, but not as good as EF 70-200 f/4 L IS, and nowhere as good as €400 EF-S 60mm macro lens.

Additionally, the L telephoto lenses are white, which is meant to reduce chance its insides overheat on the sun as well as tell everyone around you have a Canon L lens.

Overall: L lens will be heavier, optically and mechanically better, and more expensive than similar non-L lens. This does not mean it will outperform everything else regardless of lens type.

share|improve this answer
3  
Originally L simply stood for Fluor which is more sensitive to heat than glass which is why the lenses were painted white. –  Itai Jan 16 '11 at 14:48
3  
And not all the L lenses are white. Smaller ones (in term of focal length) are also black but keep the red ring (16-35 and 24-105 for example) –  LudoMC Jan 16 '11 at 14:59
    
@LudoMC: I've edited the answer, thanks for clarification. –  che Jan 17 '11 at 19:29
4  
Not sure that comparing zooms vs primes is a valid comparison. –  JamWheel Jun 28 '11 at 14:41

There is no one definitive answer for that, as the differences are in a few areas. It is usually regarded as having a superior optical quality, but from reviews and sample images it can be seen that this is not always the case - at least sometimes you get results which you'd not expect from a "L". Similarly, for a non-"L" lens there are examples of lenses giving "L" quality.

Then there is a difference in build quality. Many, if not all, "L" lenses are weather sealed, which means that with a matching body, you can shoot even in light rain and expect no damage to your equipment.

Targeted at the pro audience, there is no EF-S "L" lens, I guess b/c Canon assumes pros use only full frame (or APS-H) bodies. I wonder if this will change in the future as more pros are using a 7D as their tool.

Oh, and one more thing - the L's have that sexy red ring...

(I'd mention the white color, but not all of them are colored white - it is mainly kept for the longer ones).

share|improve this answer
4  
And the L stands for... Luxury. –  Jędrek Kostecki Jan 16 '11 at 13:09
1  
I think officially it does not stand for anything. –  mattdm Jan 16 '11 at 13:45
3  
From Canon documentaion itself (software.canon-europe.com/files/documents/…) it seems they give an answer to this: And an L for “luxury.” (page 15). –  LudoMC Jan 16 '11 at 14:56
    
I guess it's more important to sound right than to have correct info. –  Jędrek Kostecki Jan 16 '11 at 17:02
1  
L does indeed stand for "luxury"...I think it is rather appropriate, as Canon L-series lenses are pretty luxurious. ;) –  jrista Jan 16 '11 at 23:39

In addition to the improvements in build quality, performance and use of flourite elements mentioned above, another thing unique to the L series is that all L lenses come with a leather bag (or proper case for the super-teles) and a lens hood.

So even though you just spent £700 ($1100) on the EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS, you wont get a small plastic hood thrown in! (that will cost you another £20)

share|improve this answer

Just got my new L series today. I have owned another L series for several years, and a couple regular lenses for years before that. I have used both the L series and the regular lens to photograph a wedding recently. In my opinion, the L series really generates pictures that make it seem as though you are right there in the moment when you are looking at them, in a photographically candid sense, when you take a picture. I have put my regular lens photos side by side with the L series photos, and while I've captured some pretty good ones with the regular lens, the L series just seems to add another dimension. It's almost as though it can capture what I'm looking at as well as my eyes--the depth perception of the objects, the vividness, the contrast of colors, etc.

L series would probably be a good investment if:

(a) You take photos a lot and are serious about photography/cataloguing moments (b) You're considering being professional (c) You have the money to splurge on a one time quality item

If you do infrequent photography, like just the occasional bar-b-q, the standard lens that comes with the EOS camera packet should be fine.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.