Updating canon lenses

[RustBeltRaw]

I may disagree.

You might mean 'optics' as meaning 'lenses'?

Spot on, Bill. I've modified the original post with more accurate language.

Apart from optical quality, what do you see as reasons for L-series lenses? I can think of the following:

1. Wider apertures requiring physically larger lenses.
2. Higher build quality (metal cases, weather sealing, etc.).
3. Constant-aperture zooms, again requiring larger cases than most users would prefer.
4. Higher-quality glass for lower optical defects.
5. Arrangements of elements/groups with improved optical performance, but greater physical size, than lower-end lenses at the same focal length.

Again, this is me pondering off the top of my head. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[pat3pee]

I didn't realize that my question as to what lens to add to my present glass would solicitate such an interest and such expertise. I'm grateful for all the input and although I seem to be getting more confused than ever I will no doubt settle on a compromise choice once all the pros and cons have been weighed up.
Patrik

[inkista]

Patrik, the main thing to keep in mind, here, is what you want and what you're willing to spend. All of us are coming from different points of view with different budgets, and none of us is you. The job here isn't to find The Best Lens. It's to find the one that's the best fit for you. Everybody shoots different things in different ways, so what lenses we prefer or would buy also differs. Sometimes with lenses, it's simply a matter of taste.

We can offer opinions on what we would use in the same circumstances and why, and that might help you consider situations or factors you hadn't before. But in the end it's still your decision and your lens. Take the time you need. And I would also point out that there are places (at least in the USA) that rent lenses over the internet so if you're really torn between choices, maybe getting your hands on the actual lenses themselves might help you make up your mind.

[William W]

. . .
Apart from optical quality, what do you see as reasons for L-series lenses? I can think of the following:

1. Wider apertures requiring physically larger lenses.
2. Higher build quality (metal cases, weather sealing, etc.).
3. Constant-aperture zooms, again requiring larger cases than most users would prefer.
4. Higher-quality glass for lower optical defects.
5. Arrangements of elements/groups with improved optical performance, but greater physical size, than lower-end lenses at the same focal length.

Again, this is me pondering off the top of my head. . . Please [comment] . . .

(Grab a coffee - various comments addressed)

L Series:
L Series Lenses have to conform to a set of criteria. This point is sometimes missed or not understood.

One criterion, as I understand, is that to be labelled “L” in a particular “Series”, the Lens must mount to all Cameras in that “Series”.

The current Canon “Series” of SLR / DSLR is “EOS”, so therefore by definition, no EF-S Lens, nor EF-M Lens can ever be an “L” Lens, of this present “Series”. This point I make particularly as I reference quality and optical capacity of the EF-S 17 to 55 F/2.8 IS USM.

Other criteria for any particular L Series can be, but are not limited to: type of glass used; general structure, build quality and optical performance; general high quality materials and components; weather seals; generally an offering of more than one superior element compared and contrasted or improved upon a similar previously released lens.

I would rather make observations of the criteria, such as my commentary above, rather than articulating a list.
Once a list is created, there will be - and are - exceptions.

And this is purposeful by Canon’s fluid definition of “L Series” – even though some of the criteria, such as the first I mentioned are quite strict.

Examples and exceptions, L Series:

The TS-E 24 F/3.5L sat happily in a trio with the TS-45 and TS-E 90 – and many would argue that the 90 was the most sharp of the three, equal in build and quality and finish but the 24 gets the “L”, probably because it has the Aspherical lens element at the front.

Then we note the introduction of the TS-E 17L and the TS-E 24L MkII – and this appears to be an example of how the criteria for the L designation will change and reflects the possibilities and the technology at any particular time in the development of the lenses – because I doubt the TS17 would have received the L label if that lens did NOT have the two developments which were included in the TS-E 24MkII – those developments being ‘Tilt Lock’ a and ‘TS Rotation’.

So that is an example of how I understand the L criteria is applied: very strict in some areas, yet on a case by case basis and relative to the technology and the lens comparisons, at any particular point in time.

On the other hand if we make a list of rules then we get an horrible list of exceptions:
Firstly, in the example above, the TS-E 90 was (and still is) the fastest (largest Aperture) of all of the five TS-E Lenses.

Another example of exceptions is if we list “constant aperture zooms” – the EF 35 to 350 F/3.5~5.6L; 28 to 300 F/3.5~5.6L IS and EF 100 to 400 F/4.5~5.6L IS become glaring exceptions.

I’ve used the EF 35 to 350 F/3.5~5.6L (note this is NOT an IS lens, so it, along with the EF400 F/5.6L, are two examples NOT to list “Image Stabilization for Telephotos” as a rule for L series either), but getting back to the point I am making:

I’ve used the 35 to 350L and as for a blunt description - it is not really a very smart lens – (and with all the improvements, I understand the 28 to 300 is not a “most cherished lens”, either) - BUT both have the “L” Label and my guess is they get that label because, both lenses are brilliant in so far as their excellence, by comparison to other lens offerings, across such a wide Focal Length compass; and therefore, for a situation where ONE LENS has to be the answer, then most likely the BEST choice will be one of those two.

***

About what Kathy wrote –

The 16-35 has gone through three versions (it began as a 17-35) and some folks say they still haven't gotten it right.

Pertaining to having an “L” Label in the context of this response to Lex and also in context of the 16 to 35MkII and its cost and in response to Patrik and the thread’s main topic:

On the point of “not gotten it right” - the L Label is with respect to Canon Lenses and comparable within that Canon family, but it’s my opinion that subsequent iterations of L Series Lenses must be competitive and comparable to other Lens’ Families, especially such a direct competition, as Nikon.

I am not fussed that Nikon does have or might have a better lens in their 14 to 24, than my 16 to 35MkII.

I look at it this way, I have a Canon Kit: and I bought a Canon DSLR kit for many and various reasons including those reasons for me NOT to buy into a Nikon DSLR Kit.

I was aware and am still aware, that there will always be individual elements of any kit, which will be inferior or superior in a factor or many factors: but that’s the difference between macro and micro thinking and the relationship between those two thinking applications. For example, the opinion that Nikon’s Flash system is superior to Canon’s is irrelevant to me: because I have a Canon integrated Flash System because I have a Canon Kit.

That preceding is NOT a criticism of Kathy’s point about her being a tad miffed at Canon not delivering to the quality of a Nikon 14 to 24, nor is it criticising her feeling that the 16 to 35 is not worth $1700 – I understand both those points – what I am saying is I don’t care about those points as they don’t pertain to me and the way I think about my 16 to 35MkII.

And this is very important for Patrik (and others) when they get out the Boolean Algebra Table – these considerations MUST be made ONLY from their OWN point of view. (serious)

In fact addressing that particular point - Venn Diagrams might be useful also. (humour)

***

The 16 to 35's lineage:

The EF20 to 35mm f/2.8L was released in 1989 and is arguably the beginning of the 16 to 35 “EF” lineage: the 20 to 35L was discontinued when the 17 to 35L was introduced, quite a few years later.

But that’s a real ‘tit bit’ - and it’s because of my mistake in NOT taking both Modern and Ancient History as Elective Subjects at High School, I have been forever burdened with playing “catch up” and assimilating all the history I come across, through my Photographic Journeys - and loving it doing same.

***

Choosing Lenses - a few opinions

Personally I think one of the worst tools for lens choice are the so called “reviews” which are predicted PREDOMINATELY on laboratory “Lens Tests” -
OR (the worstest reason for buying a lens) . . . “Bokeh”.

The moment I read an editorial on “Bokeh” I wander off to cloud cuckoo land. But that’s just me, I figure what is, IN FOCUS, is more important . . . and as well as many other factors . . . how the lens feels; how it is balanced; what filter size . . . that's just mentioning a few elements for MY consideration.

***

Hello Patrik - we haven't forgotten you

I didn't realize that my question as to what lens to add to my present glass would solicitate such an interest and such expertise.

This Forum (CiC) I have found generally to be fantastic BECAUSE it allows (and encourages?) quality conversation for its own sake.

***

I'm grateful for all the input and although I seem to be getting more confused than ever I will no doubt settle on a compromise choice once all the pros and cons have been weighed up.

Do not be confused.

Just separate out the conversations and comments which are pertaining to your choice.

A second read through will arrange that for you quite easily.

The points which hit a note WITH YOU, will become quite obvious.

That’s the beauty of good quality conversation "around" a topic and the benefit of such a conversation over just writing “buy this lens, it is the best for you”.

It’s just that some of the conversations here at CiC are quite superior to other forums – and people often are a bit jolted, because these conversations are a bit different, as they wander around the topic, sometimes.

WW

[RustBeltRaw]

(Grab a coffee - various comments addressed)

*sip*

Very informative, Bill! The L series is more schizoid than I'd realized. It seems some of my misconceptions resulted from focusing on relatively short L lenses (200mm is probably as long as I'll ever need), EF only, and latest revisions only. Your point about any EF-S lens being automatically excluded from the L series is extremely relevant here, and not something I'd ever considered. Even if it's the sharpest, finest lens Canon makes, if it's EF-S, it can't be an L-series lens. Granted, in accordance with some of your later points to Patrik, being EF-S would exclude it from my personal consideration, simply because I refuse to buy anything that isn't full-frame compatible. Budget and user requirements will often trump everything else.

Personally I think one of the worst tools for lens choice are the so called “reviews” which are predicted PREDOMINATELY on laboratory “Lens Tests” -
OR (the worstest reason for buying a lens) . . . “Bokeh”.

The moment I read an editorial on “Bokeh” I wander off to cloud cuckoo land. But that’s just me, I figure what is, IN FOCUS, is more important . . . and as well as many other factors . . . how the lens feels; how it is balanced; what filter size . . . that's just mentioning a few elements for MY consideration.

I'm glad I'm not alone in this. I basically switch off whenever I hear "beautiful bokeh."

[inkista]

The L lens designation, to me, is mostly "if we can charge you $1000 or more for this lens", but then we have the 17-40L and 200/2.8L, and the EF-S 17-55 as counter examples.

We can't even go by the flourite glass thing, since not all Ls have it. And a lot of the non-Ls are now sporting UD and aspherical elements just like the Ls (so again, not sure the "higher-quality glass" argument stands up). And a lot of the Ls aren't weather-sealed. Neither my 135L or the 400/5.6L are.

We can't even say all the current exotics are Ls, despite the tilt shifts and the 8-15 fisheye zoom, because the MP-E 65 and the 135 f/2.8 Soft Focus aren't Ls.

Pretty much the only constant of the L class, really, is the red ring and a metal barrel. Oh, no, wait. Scratch that. The 100/2.8L Macro has a plastic barrel....

[William W]

. . . point about any EF-S lens being automatically excluded from the L series is extremely relevant here, and not something I'd ever considered. Even if it's the sharpest, finest lens Canon makes, if it's EF-S, it can't be an L-series lens.

. . . that's not the first time I have heard that response.

***

Pretty much the only constant of the L class, really, is the red ring and a metal barrel. Oh, no, wait. Scratch that. The 100/2.8L Macro has a plastic barrel....

. . . yes, even given that different lenses would suit various criteria because that criteria was introduced at a particular point in time: the only historical "constant" I have found is the "must mount to all cameras in the Series" . . .

I now have two "constants" - I forgot about the red ring!

WW

[RustBeltRaw]

Bill and Kathy: What are your thoughts on (so-called?) objective test methods like those used by DxOMark and The Digital Picture? DxOMark's strike me as over-simplified, but it seems like the test charts published from The Digital Picture's tests might at least be a good lens-comparison tool. I've delved pretty deeply into results from both sites, but it's hard to get a read on their true utility.

[William W]

I find the lens’ tests at The Digital Picture, useful for exactly what they appear to be: excellent controlled tests which can be easily applied for practically useful conclusions extrapolated by comparative assessments.

So: as a personal application, I do refer to them, when, either I cannot get my hands on a lens and/or for corroborating evidence of what I have already noted – or think I have noted.

For example – a while a ago I was considering buying a light weight fast wide – it came down to the EF35/2 or the EF28/1.8. I couldn’t get hold of one of those 28mm lenses, but I had a day with an EF35/2 – so I found those lens’ tests very useful (as I expected accuracy of them) such that I could ‘expect’ the 28 to be ‘better’ or ‘worse’ or ‘about the same’ - IN THE REAL WORLD – as what I experienced when I used the 35/2.

I am not familiar / experienced enough with 'DxO Mark' to give any worthwhile comment.

WW

[inkista]

Everything's useful, but you need to gather a lot of information from a variety of places and not rely on any single source to get the "whole picture" of the character of this individual lens. I tend not to use DXOMark directly, either--I'm too dumb to interpret their numbers. I tend to go to places like the Online Photographer or lensrentals blogs to tell me about DxO numbers. And I'll look at the test shots at digital picture. But I'll also look at Canon's theoretical MTF charts, and block diagrams, and dpreview's measurements, and read reviews on Fred Miranda and POTN (or wherever) and then weigh that all against my own experience, my lenses, and what I find works for me.

Or else I get a jones and buy on a whim. I'm a woman. I get to do that.

[William W]

Or else I get a jones and buy on a whim. I'm a woman. I get to do that.

that line just cracked me up!

[RustBeltRaw]

Or else I get a jones and buy on a whim. I'm a woman. I get to do that.

That certainly simplifies the decision.

Thanks again for all your input, guys.

[inkista]

Hey, sometimes the impulse buy turns out great!


Canon 5Dii. EF 40mm f/2.8 STM. iso 100, f/2.8, 1/160s.

[William W]

. . . such a tiny little lens on such a big camera -
. . . I like my big fat 16 to 35MkII with the 82mm filter thread - now that's a real "man's lens" !


Nice photo - have a great day - well, afternoon where you are.

WW

[PBelarge]

Take my response for what it is worth, I have only been seriously shooting for 3-4 years.

I shoot a lot of what you shoot. I have both a full frame and crop body (5D3, 7D) bodies. I have a lot of lens, mostly L but some others that I LOVE that are not L.
One of them is the Canon 10-22. I also shoot the 16-35.
Since you are shooting crop bodies, the 10-22 is what I suggest.
It is much wider than what you have now, and will compliment your selection of lenses well, also working well for most of what you shoot. It is an EXTREMELY good lens with the potential for very creative image capture once you start shooting and get use to the lens.
I love the lens for its clarity, color, creativity, the lens's good control over distortion, and general fun I have whenever I shoot with it.
Two issue to deal with:
1. It is not a great lens in the low light. A tripod will be a must.
2. You have to be careful when shooting at its wide angle - your feet will get in the image alot.

This lens has great "Bang for the Buck!"
There has been a lot of info passed to you in this thread, good luck picking a winner!