Michael Zimmet wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 22:33:43 +0200, Snorre A. Selmer wrote:
>
> > I'm hooked on "L"s, but there are non-"L" lenses that perform really well too...
>
> . . . But there are also more than a few non-L lenses that are real
> winners. For example, the 50mm f/1.4 is outstanding, and sells for
> about 1/6 the cost of the "L" series 50mm (the f/1.0). I own an
> 85mm f/1.8 that's another example of a reasonable affordable, non-L
> lens that's as good as any short tele out there (even if it isn't
> the "L" series 85mm -- the f/1.2).
In quite a few cases the purpose of the "L" treatment is to bring a lens up to
acceptable standards and not necessarily to make it exceptional. The UD, aspherical,
and/or fluorite elements are sometimes used to correct the distortions and aberrations
that result from very large maximum apertures in telephoto and ultra-wide lenses--the
85/1.8 doesn't need it, but the 85/1.2 does. Similarly, the 17-35/2.8L needs it to
match the performance of the 20-35/3.5~4.5--because of it's large maximum aperture,
the 17-35 lens would likely perform far worse than the slower 20-35 lens if it didn't
get the "L" treatment. OTOH a lens like the 135/2L--possibly Canon's
sharpest--probably doesn't need to be an "L," but is an exceptional performer because
it is. It all depends on the particular lens.
> Sometimes I almost wish Canon would split the EOS lens line into 3
> groups -- budget lenses, professional lenses, and exotic lenses.
> (Won't happen, and I'm not entirely serious about wishing it would.)
I would say that exists already. The kit zooms and lenses like the 28-105/3.5~4.5 and
the 70-300 zooms fall in the mass-market category; moderately-priced high-performance
lenses like the 35/2, 85/1.8, 100/2, 100/2.8 macro and 200/2.8L are in the middle
range, and those lenses that cost US$1000 or more are the "exotics." As I've mentioned
here before, the one thing that's missing (with the exception of the 100-300/5.6) is a
series of non-"L" versions of a few "L" lenses, like the two versions of the FD 300/4.
>From a photographer's standpoint if not from a marketing one, it seems a shame there's
no 200/4, 135/2.8, or 300/4.
fcc
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
