Anyone use those Canon EOS "L" primes?

L lenses? only the 2/135, but this one is amazing, draw, sharpness, just beautiful!
But they all are large and heavy
 
Had the 35/1.4L and the 3-cam non-ROM Summicron R for a long time. Both were very good in their different ways. L definitely sharper anywhere near wide open, R had a beautiful look of its own that was recognisable even in images on the back of the camera. Amazing colour, but smeary corners on 9 inch prints until about f5.6.

Just sold both though having tested the 35/2 Distagon in EF and found I preferred it to either of the others.

Tom
 
I also have the 100/2.8 macro, it's a really nice portrait lens, high resolution, soft bokeh, a bargain. The new image stabilised L version gets good reviews, as do the 35 and 50 L's you are considering, also the 135L. The only problem I have with Canon EF mount FF bodies and lenses is their bulk and weight compared to an M-mount RF equivalent.
Also consider, AF and IS are great until something breaks. The middle element group in my 24-105 malfunctioned and the repair set me back 30% of replacement cost. Simple primes have a lot to recommend them.
 
I use the 85L for a lot of my concert work. People say it's too slow to focus for that kind of work but I've never had a problem. That lens alone will garauntee I'll never leave the Canon EOS system. There isn't a single lens like it as far as I know, besides the speed, it's sharper at 1.2 than many of my other lenses stopped down at f8 and it draws oof areas like nothing else. Ok... the lens alone weighs more than my bessa R3A and a bunch of lenses, but it's worth it for what it does.
 
Slightly OT, but the 35/1.4L I used balanced much better on the EOS3 (film) than the 5D, the EOS3 grip is much more comfortable in my hand.

I've used a Summilux-R 50 on my 5D and found it difficult to focus fast, partly due to the Canon focusing screens, partly due to the long focusing throw. The Summicron-R 90 was easier to focus due to larger magnification of subjects.

I haven't done any direct comparisons between the Summilux 50 and EF50/1.4.

Here's a sample of the Summilux 50 on 5D, wide open.

3556475027_0181bc7013_o.jpg
 
35L has to be one of the best 35mm lenses out there. Its very sharp, has super nice bokeh, reliable AF, very little fringing or distortion.

35L @ f1.8
4729690861_f52c528163_o.jpg


35L @ f1.4
4082543837_25f2a873a9_o.jpg



The 50L has to be one of the best fast 50mm lenses available for SLR's in my opinion. There are those who say that 50mm f1.4 is just as good, and they are frankly wrong. I've had both, and the 50L is a significantly better 50mm. It's a little different in character from the 35L and a little less sharp wide open, but still very very sharp.

50L @ f1.2
3952773216_f589d20c05_o.jpg


50L @ f1.2
3007784676_9b977cbd43.jpg




and here's on on film - hp5 @ f1.2
3218475449_21df482324.jpg



The 24L is as good as the 35L, but at 24mm focal length, and the 85L and 135L are both the best lenses in their class. They're possibly the best 85 and 135mm lenses made, barring the zeiss 135mm for sony mount of course, which is at least as good as the 135L.
 
Here's some more 35L samples, all of them wide open @ f1.4 on a 5d.

rider-1.jpg



fishm-1-3.jpg



00283-2.jpg



As you can probably tell, I'm a big fan of the canon L primes :)
 
Disaster_Area said:
I use the 85L for a lot of my concert work. People say it's too slow to focus for that kind of work but I've never had a problem. That lens alone will garauntee I'll never leave the Canon EOS system. There isn't a single lens like it as far as I know, besides the speed, it's sharper at 1.2 than many of my other lenses stopped down at f8 and it draws oof areas like nothing else. Ok... the lens alone weighs more than my bessa R3A and a bunch of lenses, but it's worth it for what it does.
Click to expand...

Agreed - it actually is that good.
 
I have and use the 35L, 50L, 85L and some longer L teles for sports. Short answer is they are all truly wonderful lenses IQ-wise. But they are large and heavy and comparatively expensive, especially that 85. So despite their quality, I spend more time with my RFs that now wear Zeiss. Since Zeiss now markets EF-mount versions, I want to try the ZE lenses alongside the Canon Ls.
 
I'll be the contrarian here and say that it's the top-quality RF lenses that are too big and heavy for their stated purpose. The prevailing sentiment here seems to be that an RF kit with lenses is so small and compact that you can carry it anywhere, but if your kit contains the Biogons, Aspherical Summiluxes and Noktons that are being compared to Canon's L glass, that's not really true. Such a kit is smaller and lighter than an equivalent Canon body and lenses, but it's still too big and too heavy to carry around on a whim.

As to the L glass, the 50 and 35 L lenses are within spitting distance of any good RF glass (handheld, available light, YMMV) and the 85/1.2 and 135/2 are in a class of their own, IMO. They have a combination of functionality and performance that equivalent RF lenses can't match.
 
I guess it depends... after lugging my concert kit around (30D & 50D, 85L, 30mm f1.4, 20mm f1.8, 70-300IS and flash) my RF kit feels like a vacation even though many might consider it too heavy (R3A & M2, 90mm Elmarit, 50mm Nokton, 50mm Summitar, 35mm Ultron, 25mm Skopar & 15mm Heliar). That's the kit I carry with me practically everywhere at it's a pleasure to carry compared to my EOS kit.

I do tend to carry my RF kit 90% of the time when I'm shooting for pleasure but lenses like the 85L and 135L (which I'm hoping to pick up soon) will ensure the back breaking digital kit isn't going away anytime soon... and it has the added bonus of making ANY RF kit I carry feel light :)
 
After using Leica M cameras and lenses, when I bought a Canon 5DmkII, I expected that what I had heard - that Canon L lenses are on par with Leica M lenses - would be true. While it may be true for some people, I did not find it to be true for me. I think that while lens image quality may be quantifiable by lens charts and so forth, apparent quality is subjective. In other words, you & I may look at the same image and both be equally convinced that image is positive proof of the high quality or lack thereof in a particular lens, regardless of what it does on lens charts.

I bought a 17-40mm f4.0L and the distortion was so "reckless" I returned it for another one that was better but still nowhere near what I expected from a top quality lens. So then I rented a camera bag's worth of lenses and did my own subjective tests using little or no science, the results of which you can see here.

My own conclusions based on what I wanted from a lens in terms of image quality were that of the Canon L lenses I tried, the 24-105 f4.0L was actually a pretty good lens, but that the 35mm f1.4L was just a good lens. However, the Zeiss lenses - specifically the 35mm f2.0 T* ZE - were exactly what I expected from a high quality lens. The difference as I saw it was in micro-contrast that yielded at least the visual perception of greater detail and in color rendering which I saw as both truer and more thoroughly saturated in the Zeiss lenses than in the Canon lenses.

The advantage the Canon 35mm f1.4L has over the Zeiss 35mm f2.0 ZE is faster aperture and autofocus. But for my photography, those two things don't really matter, and what I saw in the Zeiss lens' images does.

4557075372_920f41c5c2_b.jpg


4438613417_763aaae0a1_b.jpg


4448484721_e00481d051_b.jpg


Your mileage may vary, in other words. I suggest renting the lenses you are considering and seeing for yourself. Most pro-shops have rental, or you can get rental lenses on line from places like Lensrentals.com. Worth the rental price so you get what will work for you.
 
I don't think it's fair to compare L zooms to M Primes... all the the L Zooms I've tried have been exceptional... for a zoom. But I've yet to find a zoom made by anyone that compares to a really nice prime, some of the 70-200L variations come close. The L Zooms are great if you need the flexibility, and there's a lot of professionals that need it, but they won't stand up IQ/distortion wise to a prime, and as far as I know there isn't a zoom made faster than f2.8 which rules them out for a lot of my photography.
 
The 17-40L does have distortion, but it's a zoom remember. If you don't want distortion, use the 17mm t/s or the 14mm f2.8L II - of which neither have barely any distortion.

I had a zeiss ze 50mm for a while, and didn't really like it. Wide open it was fairly poor - about the same as my canon 50mm 1.4. The 50mm f1.2L blew it away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top