Hidden L Lenses?

OD · Joined: 10 May 2007 Posts: 10

The discussion about the 70 - 300 IS sparks an interesting question - which lenses would you consider to be hidden L lenses?

Build quality obviously has to be discarded, as non Ls cant compete in this field, so speaking purely about image quality, which lenses are the best in the non L series? Which ones are highly recommended w/o being Ls?

I would say the 100mm macro lens should be mentioned. The regular 100mm might also. The EF-S 17 - 55 IS has to be considered one, as should the 10 - 22. Which other ones would you include?

Tiberius · Joined: 18 Nov 2006 Posts: 369

The 50mm f1.8 II lens is considered very good, and as a user of that lens, I agree. Definitely an excellent lens.

spluurfg · Joined: 21 Nov 2006 Posts: 107 Location: London

Must agree with the EF-S 10-22. Not only is it mind numbingly sharp, but it has great contrast and color representation before editing, can shoot towards the sun with little flare, has great handling, is lightweight and compact, etc etc. It also has a great range and fills a unique position for crop cameras -- if not for this lens, I think I'd probably have to move to full frame to get true wide angle.

I also believe the EF-S 60mm Macro could possibly be given the title... very sharp and good color contrast/accuracy. Great handling as well with true ring USM and distance scale. Though this tends to be pretty true of a lot of Canon primes (or any primes) compared to zooms.

Will hope to own a 17-55 one day... I can only imagine the handheld shots in low light with an f2.8 plus IS.

disgustipated · Joined: 26 Jun 2007 Posts: 3

I also have both the 50mm f1.4 and the 10-22mm and I agree that they are excellent 'pseudo-L series' lenses.

Perhaps the 50mm f1.4 is not up to the L-series standards due to its non-ring-type USM, which reportedly fails fairly requently. (I hope mine doesn't). Optically, however, its definitely up there !