Are L range Canon lenses worth the extra cost?

Answer 1

The L lenses generally give you better optics, a better aperture range (constant f/2.8 zooms), better build quality, and faster AF. You pay extra for all of these things.
With regard to the image quality, if you're using a dRebel or a 20D/ 30D with a 1.6 crop factor, AND if you stop the lens down to around f/5.6, you won't see much difference between a $1600 L and $500 mid-range lens.
As others have stated, third party brands also have pro lenses. With Sigma it's the EX line. Many of these can be an attractive alternative (for the price).

Answer 2

Every pro photographer I have spoken with who uses Canon will swear by the L glass. The fluorite crystal element creates a certain crispness and minute tonal quality that makes people look at a great shot and go "Ooohhhhhhhh!" The question should be if the investment is worth it for you. Will you use the lens to make it worth while? If you plan on making a living from photography, then yes, go with the best gear you can afford.

However, read up on 3rd party company (Sigma and Tamron) lenses that are comparable to what you want to buy. I got the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 lens and the two buddies I lent it to (one pro, one hobbyist) said it's an exceptional lens and the shots the pro did of a soccer match were incredible. That lens cost less than half of the comparable Canon prime lens.

I spent about 60 combined hours researching lenses over several few months and the money I saved going with that lens was worth it.

Answer 3

Yes, absolutely, i recently bought the canon EF 100-400mm L IS USM lens and its quality is staggering, i can take hand held photos at 400mm and get exposure times down to 1/125thS with no camera shake or blur, the image stabilisation is worth its weight in gold.

One other thing to consider though is your camera, if you're going to buy a lens like i did to get the best from it you need a camera with a full frame 35mm sensor not an APS-C one. The APS-C sensors effectively increase the focal length of your lens because its not capturing an image from the whole of the rear end of the lens, focal lengths increase by a factor of 1.6 which is fine with a 400mm lens or a 600mm mirror lens (which i also have) but if your working close up of using a macro lens it kind of negates the point of a wide open lens.

Problem that that gives you is the cheapest Canon D-SLR with a full frame sensor is the EOS5D, now that is a fabulous camera 12.8mp etc, but the cheapest i could source one in the UK was £1599 after a £200 rebate from Canon, now thats fine if you have plenty of disposable cash or are going to earn an income from photography, but for the keen amateur its a f*ckload of money. You get L series, you get the quality camera and before you know it you've spent 3 1/2 grand on a camera and 2 lenses - just dont tell my wife :)

Answer 4

I just bought a 100-400 IS L lens. I think it is worth it. Both the optics and construction were important factors.

I opted not to go for the Tamaron or Sigma as I wanted IS. If you do not want IS, you will get a cheaper lens.

However, I regret not buying a Canon lens many many years back so I would say that unless you take very few photos and dont really print larger than 5 x 7, you should go for the L lenses.

Answer 5

That's entirely up to you...no doubt that they are better lens, but only you know how much more you want to pay for them. Here's a site with sample photos of the different canon lens:
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon

If you're a professional photographer, then this would be a no brainer...

Answer 6

That's silly question and you know it. Of course they are.