Investing into Canon L series lenses when you own a Rebel body?

KCook wrote: Sure, they can tell the difference pixel peeping. But can laymen (not eagle eyed enthusiasts or agency editors) tell the difference in prints?

practical Kelly

I'm not even talking pixel peeping.

I can tell the difference between a $7000 dollar lens and a $250 dollar lens.

Bokeh is leagues better, sharpness is leagues better.

Plus you can't get narrow depth of field like you can on the L glass.

If I let you use a 200 f/2 for a day you wouldn't even be debating me

When I switched to Canon, I skipped the kit lens, and paired with an L series...had experience with Pentax lenses, ( good & better ) and knew not to waste my $$ on less than the best I could afford. First advantage I noticed was sharpness, and next...that creamy bokeh! ( I agree with Scotty...I'm far from a pro, and the difference was obvious. )

My friend had the first Rebel ( the 8 MP ), and after a few years, got a couple L series lenses. When the 50D came out, she up-graded the body. I'm certain that she made the right choice.

I tell you what. When we actually have that meetup for pt (Yosemite I believe). i'll let any of you try out my high end lenses out on the d800 just so you can see for yourself.

Yes you can defiantly tell the difference between a good lens and a bad lens. The bokeh and overall sharpness is the first point. Then contrast and colour are sometimes different. Distortion (especially at the wider angles) is less controlled in weaker lenses. Lastly comes pixel level sharpness.

Of course stop down to f/8 and the differences become less so, so it really depends on what you're shooting.

However Kelly isn't totally wrong. Print up a picture and your average person on the street wouldn't be able to tell the what they're looking at (won't be able to tell what sorta camera was used) because they're looking at different aspects. Heck photographers would have problems telling what camera a shot came from. Though side by side I'm sure everyone could see differences. Bokeh quality especially is noticeable. Sharpness too.

Print a shot from an iPhone and a shot from a DSLR and people can tell the difference.

Well... I've had a rebel and then upgraded to a "Kiss" which I believe is still pretty much a rebel? I dunno. I took the advice of getting nicer lenses before a nicer body and I couldn't have been happier.

That being said, do you need to go all the way to L series? You could get something nicer than your kit lens without going that expensive.

Scotty wrote:
Plus you can't get narrow depth of field like you can on the L glass.

For the same f stop and focal length the depth of field will be identical. L glass can't change the lens physics.

MajorMagee wrote:

Scotty wrote:
Plus you can't get narrow depth of field like you can on the L glass.

For the same f stop and focal length the depth of field will be identical. L glass can't change the lens physics.

There is no f/1.2 that isn't L glass in Canon. Research a little bit before commenting on it.

MajorMagee wrote:

Scotty wrote:
Plus you can't get narrow depth of field like you can on the L glass.

For the same f stop and focal length the depth of field will be identical. L glass can't change the lens physics.

Scotty wrote:

MajorMagee wrote:

Scotty wrote:
Plus you can't get narrow depth of field like you can on the L glass.

For the same f stop and focal length the depth of field will be identical. L glass can't change the lens physics.

There is no f/1.2 that isn't L glass in Canon. Research a little bit before commenting on it.

But you said f2 not f1.2 before...

Scotty wrote:

Use an 85L and a regular 85 f/1.8 and you'll see the difference every time.

Sorry, I was confused by your earlier statement and thought your were comparing an f2 L series with a regular f1.8. My mistake.

I am underwhelmed with all of the L lenses. Why? Because I'm a goofball of course. Everyone knows that L lenses are the greatest ever!!!!

My opinions definitely have nothing to do with 20 years of shooting and printing with a wide variety of lenses, testing gear way too much, and showing the results to other experienced photographers for discussion.

I said "underwhelmed" because I didn't want to go so far as to say "disappointed". But after reading thousands of threads like this one I am disappointed. I was ready for the L magic, and all I got were some nice lenses.

Don't worry, true believers. No one believes the heretic.

MajorMagee wrote:

Scotty wrote:

MajorMagee wrote:

Scotty wrote:
Plus you can't get narrow depth of field like you can on the L glass.

For the same f stop and focal length the depth of field will be identical. L glass can't change the lens physics.

There is no f/1.2 that isn't L glass in Canon. Research a little bit before commenting on it.

But you said f2 not f1.2 before...

Scotty wrote:

Use an 85L and a regular 85 f/1.8 and you'll see the difference every time.

Sorry, I was confused by your earlier statement and thought your were comparing an f2 L series with a regular f1.8. My mistake.

It happens

Henry Peach wrote: I am underwhelmed with all of the L lenses. Why? Because I'm a goofball of course. Everyone knows that L lenses are the greatest ever!!!!

My opinions definitely have nothing to do with 20 years of shooting and printing with a wide variety of lenses, testing gear way too much, and showing the results to other experienced photographers for discussion.

I said "underwhelmed" because I didn't want to go so far as to say "disappointed". But after reading thousands of threads like this one I am disappointed. I was ready for the L magic, and all I got were some nice lenses.

Don't worry, true believers. No one believes the heretic.

Have you tried an 85L, 200 f/2 or any super primes?


I was dissapointed in the 17-40L, 24-70L and 70-200 2.8L IS (mark I)

The new EOS-M