Canon "L" lenses compared with older MF lenses.

[killwilly]

Not quite sure if this is the right place to post this, mods please move if not.

As a Canon user I visit a number of forums which are dedicated, more or less to Canon gear and the same claim has been posted hundreds of times. ' L glass is the best and nothing can beat it'. Is there anyone on this forum that has put this claim to the test and done a comparison between L lenses and the older manual focus lens, which can now be purchased for a fraction of the cost?

Since I am no longer able to afford these "super" lenses, I would be very interested to hear of any manual lens that does compare.

[sadness]

And now you started a War. But what is it good for ?
I use a Domiplan once in a while, for nothing else but for fun, I don't know if its lenses are of glass even, maybe plastic.

The best glass is the one that pleases you the most and not the one that is praised by others.

I think in one of this forum's posts there was a statement, once you go zeiss you never go back, or similar.

[visualopsins]

Please look here: http://forum.mflenses.com/best-of-lenses-gallery-f37.html

[killwilly]

I have no intention of starting a war, or even a debate. I was just wondering if anyone owned and used both and had done a genuine comparison.

I have looked at the sample gallery, but you can look at samples forever and not reach a conclusion, unless two lenses have photographed the same subject under exactly the same conditions.

[my_photography]

I am sure no one will argue if I say "L" lens are good lens. (They better be at that price). However not all "L" are made the same. A lot of older manual "L" lens and newer AF "L" lens differs in coating, glass elements etc. Thus, it is already difficult to compare "L" lens let alone comparing with other glasses with different formula and characteristic.

For example, I like photos taken with Helios 44 series lens. It is definitely not "L" price nor built quality. However, no "L" can produce that famous helios characteristic. But then again, there are also a lot of people who do not like the helios type of bokeh.

Perhaps if you are more specific at what focal length you are looking at, you might get more suggestions.

[Kram]

Well, I've only rented L lenses, but I recently rented Canon's 100mm Macro f/2.8L IS. I had been shooting with a Nikkor 105/2.8 for macro.

While the Canon was perhaps slightly sharper, for the cost, the Nikkor 105 is better. FWIW, the IS did not have a significant affect in extreme macro mode.

The Nikkor 55/2.8 is also a superb lens.

[martinsmith99]

I have about 60 or so lenses. 3 of my lenses are L lenses. They are unquestionably my best lenses but not necessarily my favourite lenses.

Favourite lenses are Helios 44 (any version), Trioplan 100mm, Tair 11. Not really expensive lenses, but they seem to inspire some of my best pics.

[tikkathree]

[killwilly]

Thanks guys for your replies.

Martin. It's interesting that you mention Helios 44 as being your favourite lens. I bought a Helios 44m-4 58mm off eBay only last week and so far it's proving to be a much sharper lens than the CZ 50/2.8.

Is there a way of finding if the lens is Soviet or Japanese manufacture?

The serial number is:- 87171087

[ZoneV]

Are not all Helios 44 from Soviet Union? I am not a specialist on Soviet lenses.

Canon L lenses seem to be very good, but I suppose Zeiss and Leica lenses are on the same level or even better.

I have no Canon EF L lens with AF, but some FD L lenses (24, 85, 300). I like them, but they are not my most used or most liked lenses. I prefer my Minolta Rokkor 58/1.2 and I am a big admirer of the Meyer Trioplan 100 with its special bokeh, too.
And I think I use more often my Helios 44 or even the Porst 135/1.8 with very bad reputation than I use my "better" Zeiss 50/1.4 (C/Y) - why? Perfect lenses are sometimes a bit boring!

[Rolf]

I own 5 or 6 "L" lenses.

It is always a question of what I have to do. When I make for example a special journey or visit places which I do not visit every day, special situations etc. I will go with my "best" equipment - which means the chance to get images with perfect IQ, no blur, exact WB and exposure etc and this all together in a short time. Then I prefer only AF and these are my "L" lenses.

If I have time for shooting or at my daily walks etc. I like to go with MF lenses.

[berraneck]

[iangreenhalgh1]

I think the op was asking what MF lenses will give him IQ of a similar level to what L glass can offer on average.

On example off the top of my head is the Tair-3C 4.5/300. I've never owned a Canon L 300mm but when I look at shots from expensive Canon glass I'm not seeing much better (if at all) than I see from the Tair.

I bought my Tair last year for 35ukp.

How much is a Canon L 300?

[ManualFocus-G]

I have the Canon 300/4L and it is very sharp wide open with very little CA. It's by far the best 300mm prime I've tried (and I have had several). Whilst the Tair 3 looks good value for money, I haven't seen images as sharp and free of CA as I've had from the Canon. BUT...I haven't tried the Tair myself yet, which I would need to do before I draw a full conclusion.

However...I much prefer the rendering of the Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 100-300/4.5-5.6 and would rather use that than my trusty 300/4L.

[uhoh7]

The lens widely considered to be the best in the FD line, without exception, the nFD 24/2, is not an L lens.

On the other hand there is an nFD 100-300 which has the L, and is nothing special.

That all said, the nFD 50/1.2 L may be the finest high speed lens ever made in terms of pure performance. Almost certainly it is the sharpest MF superspeed.

24/2:


the also superb nFD 20/2.8

[trifox]

I am not going to answer the question which one is better - 'L' or non-L.

The 'L' stands officially for 'LUXURY'

and I must admit that's true..

I know Zeiss' performance but Canon is an optical giant - someone here would argue about this fact but Canon is a 'good man' !

They have done so much to optical improvements and their innovative approach is absolutely amazing.

Despite the fact that Canon is also producing a 'crap lenses' that compromise the optical quality, otherwise Canon is a great brand.

Manual focus lenses by Canon:

The FL and FD line is amazingly superb and I love them so much..

I have got 3 'L' lenses: 80-200 f4, 100-300 f5.6 and 85 f1.2 L and they're amazing but again different from Zeiss.

Zeiss was killed by Kyocera but Canon's brand keeps living.

Back to Canon lenses; another superb lenses without 'L' label:

FL 19 f3.5 - I have got one - with damaged coating - lack of contrast because of the coating issue. amazing colours - awaiting conversion
FL 35 f3.5 - killer - I have got one - amazing sharpness, absolutely true colours - there is not diff between colour space in the picture and reality.
FL 300 f2.8 Flourite - I have got one in FL mount - killer, rare, collectible item, heavy - and wow!
FL 135 f2.5 - killer - I have got one - stunning vintage colours!
Fl 100 f3.5 - amazing lens - I have got 2 copies - sharp, amazing colours
FL 55-135 f3.5 - absolutely amazing piece of glass and metal !!! Vintage and impressive engineering work

FD 50 f1.2 - superb lens - I have got one
FD 135 f2 - superb - I have got one
FD 100 f2 - absolutely amazing lens -- now quite expensive - I have got one - extremely compact!!
FD 28-85 - superb - I have got one - absolutely amazing engineering work -a little bit plastic but good
FD 24 f2.8 -- the quality may vary - this one has floating element -- if it's badly adjusted, it may have bad corners - otherwise superb sharp lens with little flare!
FD 80 f1.8 - absolutely great lens - true colours - red is red, green is green, blue is blue - I have just tested that one! Outstanding lens! Very small and very compact!
FD TS 35 f2.8 - no comment - I have converted 2 copies - and my copy is awaiting conversion! Absolutely flawless optics - the first TS lens for 35 mm camera system - amazing fact.
FD 55 f1.2 -- very good but I like the the lens rather than the performance. Nice engineering work!
FD 35-105 ASPH -- this one is a real surprise!..
FD 200 f4 Macro = stunning - I have done just conversion and test = wow lens.
FD 85 f1.2 ASPH -- no comment -- true diamond!

Finally, a few words about Canon FD 24 f2 - this lens is non-L version ... I have got one.
this lens is waiting in my shelf to be converted but I think that this one is the best wide angle in that focal length in the globe.
My opinion, of course..

tf

[kuuan]

[ManualFocus-G]

[cooltouch]

[uhoh7]

[cooltouch]

Okay so now I'm curious. Have you had an opportunity to try out your 50/1.2 L against the old 55mm f/1.2 SSC Aspherical? I've never owned either but I've always sort of considered the latter to be the equivalent to the 85 like mine, but as a 55mm. And howabout Canon's other 85's? Have you had a chance to compare the 85 Ls with your 50 L?

[iangreenhalgh1]

Another really nice lens to add to that list, Stan - the FL 2.5/35.

Mine doesn't quite hit infinity after I hacked it to fit on my EOS, but it is a very sharp lens with extremely good colour rendition imho.

I forget whether this was f2.5 or f4 but to my eyes, it's very sharp.

[uhoh7]

[DSG]

I only have one L series lens, the FD 85mm f1.2 L, and its probably the best L series lens ever made, in my totally unbiased opinion
If it could focus to infinity then it would definitely be my favorite lens period but it cant so my other most favorite "L class" lens is my old FL 55mm f1.2, which is one of the sharpest lenses I have ever used, easily beating my supposedly stellar Zeiss 50mm f1.7 Planar T*.
I hear good very things about the Canon 135mm f2 L and I've seen some really great images taken with it...In all seriousness, it could well be the best L series lens ever made...But its high price means I will never get a chance at owning one.

[woodrim]

Graham: Superb images!!!