Canon L series

What is it? I surf this site http://web.canon.jp/imaging/l-lens/index.html and I don't know what is L stand for. "Luxury"?

So to someone who has these L lens. How do they compared to normal Canon lens. My wishlist is the 50mm f1.2 L USM lens They are very expensive lens I could not afford one any soon as my noob experiences.

they are made with better materials.. so it's quality is on another level. because of the extra pieces of metal around the rings and stuff (don't know technical terms), it's weight is also upped. The price and the weight suggest the lens are very distinctly purposed and for pro's or hardcore enthusiasts.

L does seem to indirectly refer to "Luxury".

That said, you said you wanted the EF 50mm f1.2L. The EF 50mm f1.4 is a third of the price and you only lose a third of a stop

L is like the Infinity to Nissan, the Acura to Honda, the Lexus to Toyota.

people who can justify the expense will go straight to the "L" for the reassurance that they're getting a better product (sometimes a lot better, sometimes marginally better, but always better).

it's great marketing... and it works.

Flourite vs Glass
Metal vs Plastic
Sealed vs Non-sealed
Fast vs Slow
High contrast vs Low
Heavy vs Light
Reduced flare vs High
Smooth focus ring vs choppy

And of course the most important... the red ring... LOL
Once you go "L" you will never go back.

I just picked up a 70-200mm f/4L IS USM and I am amazed, the image quality, contrast and sharpness are amazing. Now with the rebates on, I think I'm gonna grab me a 24-70mm f/2.8L... $2650 is lenses in a month..I must be crazy.

Thanks for replies.

I was looking at Canon EF 17-40mm f4.0L USM and a EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. I like taking landscape photos. There are my next lens I'd get. Prices on these lens are almost same. What should I pick?

You pick the one based on the focal length you need. 10mm is a lot wider than 17mm on a crop camera. Likewise, 40mm is a lot longer than 22mm.

Originally Posted by KorruptioN

L does seem to indirectly refer to "Luxury".

That said, you said you wanted the EF 50mm f1.2L. The EF 50mm f1.4 is a third of the price and you only lose a third of a stop

true. i don't think the price difference is worth that third of a stop.

Originally Posted by nden

Thanks for replies.

I was looking at Canon EF 17-40mm f4.0L USM and a EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. I like taking landscape photos. There are my next lens I'd get. Prices on these lens are almost same. What should I pick?

if you like landscape shots, i'd suggest a wide angle. therefore, the 10-22.

Careful, once you go L, you gotta satisfy your L cravings. Its like an addiction, no other kind of lenses will compare. They say the 17-55mm F2.8 IS is almost L quality though, I do not know if its true, however. Its price is up there with L glass.

CSAgent, 17-55mm F2.8 IS is nice... Is it new product released? Look like a nice lens too.

Now, my notice: the EF 17-40mm f4.0L has hood and bag included in package, but the 10-22mm doesn't have anything included. Let me reconsider one more time.

This is my 2nd lens to add to my addition. It's a hard choice. Thanks for your inputs.

Originally Posted by nden

Now, my notice: the EF 17-40mm f4.0L has hood and bag included in package, but the 10-22mm doesn't have anything included. Let me reconsider one more time.

This is my 2nd lens to add to my addition. It's a hard choice. Thanks for your inputs.

I have the 17-40 L and it's one of my favorite lenses. Acceptably sharp at all focal lengths, good contrast, not too heavy. I wish I could say the same for my 24-105 L, which isn't as sharp and doesn't match the contrast of the 28-135 non-L it was "replacing" even though it was twice the price.

Originally Posted by nden

Now, my notice: the EF 17-40mm f4.0L has hood and bag included in package, but the 10-22mm doesn't have anything included. Let me reconsider one more time.

17-40 is a great walk-around lens, it's ultra wide on FF but not wide enough on a crop body. Personally I think the 17-40 is way over-rated. I'd go for the Tamron 17-50 F2.8. The Tamron is more value for money as it has a bigger zoom range and is 1 stop faster. The 17-40 has better build quality and faster focus speed (USM).

10-22 is an excellent lens for ultra wide work. I have also considered getting a 10-22, but ended up buying a Tokina 12-24 f4. It has very good optics, gorgeous color and contrast, constant F4 throughout the focal range and excellent build quality. The 10-22 is 2mm wider and has USM. Again the Tokina is more value for money. It's also $300 cheaper and comes with a hood!

Originally Posted by nden

CSAgent, 17-55mm F2.8 IS is nice... Is it new product released? Look like a nice lens too.

Its been out for a few years now actually, the price tag is what gets most people.

Tamron has a similar equivalent of 17-50mm F2.8 throughout, but no IS though. For 1/3rd of the price, its an awesome alternative.

Originally Posted by nden

Thanks for replies.

I was looking at Canon EF 17-40mm f4.0L USM and a EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. I like taking landscape photos. There are my next lens I'd get. Prices on these lens are almost same. What should I pick?

For everyday walkaround lense, I will go with 17-40. The 10-22 is too tight of a focal range and wide angle is more for doing creative stuff (for me anyway). Plus 10-22 will not work on 5d or 1-series if you decide to upgrade later.