Can canon and nikon lenses be used on either camera?  And what are "L" lenses?

 Carrie

carrie g.:

Can canon and nikon lenses be used on either camera?

Not every "L" lens is necessarily the best, or sharpest, for the price. Test any lens you buy and have the option to return it. Some "L"s are phenomenal; some are mediocre.

RVsForFun:

Not every "L" lens is necessarily the best, or sharpest, for the price. Test any lens you buy and have the option to return it. Some "L"s are phenomenal; some are mediocre.

While I agree that this may be true, I have not experienced it yet.  I think a lot of photographers start looking at their images at 400% and try to find defects.  I haven't gotten a soft lens yet.  I have several L lenses and they are all sharp as the proverbial tack.

That said, the EF-S series of lenses often have L quality glass inside them (and prices to prove it) even though Canon will not give the L designation to any of its EF-S lenses. 

RVsForFun:

Not every "L" lens is necessarily the best, or sharpest, for the price. Test any lens you buy and have the option to return it. Some "L"s are phenomenal; some are mediocre.

I can vouch for this... I had a 70-200 f/4L that was way below mediocre. I tried for 4 months to get a sharp picture out of it, and never did. It got kicked to the curb... However, the 24-70 f/2.8L that I have now is terrific! I love it!

Dan

which lenses would you experienced people recommend? And where would you recommend buying them?

Depending on what you plan on shooting will determine which lenses you buy.  At the present time I have the 70-200, f2.8, USM, and the 100-400, f4, IS USM and I love them both. I'm in the process of ordering the 24-70, f2.8 to add collection.

Larry

dgrits:

RVsForFun:

Not every "L" lens is necessarily the best, or sharpest, for the price. Test any lens you buy and have the option to return it. Some "L"s are phenomenal; some are mediocre.

I can vouch for this... I had a 70-200 f/4L that was way below mediocre. I tried for 4 months to get a sharp picture out of it, and never did. It got kicked to the curb... However, the 24-70 f/2.8L that I have now is terrific! I love it!

Dan

 

Really???  I have that same lens and love it.  I wonder if yours was defective?  It was the only L series lens I could afford so that is the one I went with.  I used it for football games last fall and then I loved it so much I used it for everything else.  I even used it as a portrait lens for some senior pictures.  I then got a 24-70mm L lens which is now my favorite.  Neither of my lenses have IS on them so I have to be careful, but I really can't afford IS until I make more money. 

dgrits:

RVsForFun:

Not every "L" lens is necessarily the best, or sharpest, for the price. Test any lens you buy and have the option to return it. Some "L"s are phenomenal; some are mediocre.

I can vouch for this... I had a 70-200 f/4L that was way below mediocre. I tried for 4 months to get a sharp picture out of it, and never did. It got kicked to the curb... However, the 24-70 f/2.8L that I have now is terrific! I love it!

Dan

I too have an EF 70-200 f/4L that I love for shooting football and soccer (especially daytime).  It's clean and sharp and not nearly as heavy as the f/2.8.  I think, sometimes, as with any product, there are examples of bad quality that slip past the quality control people.  We'd hope that the quality control on a Canon L is very high but if you get one that doesn't meet your expectations, return it.

You have to compare your apples with apples too.  I've seen folks compare a fast non-L prime to the same range in a slow L zoom -- not exactly a fair comparison.  The prime should win every time.  Compare the non-L prime to the same speed L prime and see which wins.     Compare the EF 70-200 f/4L to the EF 80-200 f/4.5-5.6 (closest lens) -- expect to see some serious difference in quality (and build).

I think sometimes we have too high expectations for any zoom and especially for the 70-200/70-300 range.  We need to remember that zooms tend to not be as sharp over the whole range as the comparable prime lenses and that this range of zoom is historically the range with the most problems in that regard.  If given a choice between one of the non-L EF 70-300 zooms and the L EF 70-200 f/4; I'm picking the L lens every time. 

As for where to buy:  Many people on this board shop at Adorama and B&H Photo online.  I've ordered from both and find they each have their own pros and cons.  If you're in a hurry go with B&H.  Also, don't forget to look at the used section of each.  Some people shop lenses on eBay - I like eBay but am more comfortable buying lenses from a dealer so that I can send it back if I'm not happy.  And I don't hesitate to send a soft lens back for a replacement.

The red stripe of an L lens applies to the shorter lenses.  The L series telephotos have a red stripe and are off-white.  Sometimes called "big white", these can be seen at every major sporting event from college athletics to the Olympic Games.  There's a reason that there's so many "big whites" on the sidelines - they consistently get the shots.

I use this page for factual and up-to-date information about the Canon EF lineup.  There are plenty of lens review pages on the web as well, I think most folks like Pbase.
 

 

The 16-40mm L lens is not "L" quality from all the posts I've read on the boards. Apparently Canon took the 16-35mm f/2.8 lens chassis and dropped a mediocre lens group in it, then called it an "L". The 16-35 f/2.8 is another matter altogether; it's great by all accounts I've read. My 70-200 f/2.8 is great at any aperture. Most "L"s do represent better results than the amateur line but I tested, and chose, the 17-85mm USM over the 24-70 L lens.

RVsForFun:

The 17-40mm L lens is not "L" quality from all the posts I've read on the boards. Apparently Canon took the 16-35mm f/2.8 lens chassis and dropped a mediocre lens group in it, then called it an "L". The 16-35 f/2.8 is another matter altogether; it's great by all accounts I've read. My 70-200 f/2.8 is great at any aperture. Most "L"s do represent better results than the amateur line but I tested, and chose, the 17-85mm USM over the 24-70 L lens.

I'm not sure I'd agree with this to the fullest degree, but there is definitely some general belief that the 17-40L is not as rock solid as other L lenses.  But it is a bargain compared to the 16-35L.  I've seen some great shots with the 17-40L, so I'd say if you get one that you don't like, send it in for calibration or replacement, because I think it can be a great lens.  There are folks here with some very impressive photos out of this lens.  Doktor Stranj is one I think. 

from the http://forums.mpix.com/post/240096.aspx thread.

 

CoachBetty:

I too have an EF 70-200 f/4L that I love for shooting football and soccer (especially daytime).  It's clean and sharp and not nearly as heavy as the f/2.8.  I think, sometimes, as with any product, there are examples of bad quality that slip past the quality control people.  We'd hope that the quality control on a Canon L is very high but if you get one that doesn't meet your expectations, return it.

My 70-200 f/4 L IS is unbelievably sharp and an excellent lens.

As for where to buy:  Many people on this board shop at Adorama and B&H Photo online.  I've ordered from both and find they each have their own pros and cons.  If you're in a hurry go with B&H.  Also, don't forget to look at the used section of each.  Some people shop lenses on eBay - I like eBay but am more comfortable buying lenses from a dealer so that I can send it back if I'm not happy.  And I don't hesitate to send a soft lens back for a replacement.

I've only ever used Beach and B&H.  Beach for some of my P&S cameras and B&H for all my DSLR gear so far.  What do you like about Adorama that is better than B&H?

The red stripe of an L lens applies to the shorter lenses.  The L series telephotos have a red stripe and are off-white.  Sometimes called "big white", these can be seen at every major sporting event from college athletics to the Olympic Games.  There's a reason that there's so many "big whites" on the sidelines - they consistently get the shots.

My white lenses have red stripes too!

I use this page for factual and up-to-date information about the Canon EF lineup.  There are plenty of lens review pages on the web as well, I think most folks like Pbase.

I was using Pbase but I am finding some really helpful shots at www.pixel-peeper.com as well.  Worth adding to your favorites or bookmarks.

Tom_Steele:

CoachBetty:

I too have an EF 70-200 f/4L that I love for shooting football and soccer (especially daytime).  It's clean and sharp and not nearly as heavy as the f/2.8.  I think, sometimes, as with any product, there are examples of bad quality that slip past the quality control people.  We'd hope that the quality control on a Canon L is very high but if you get one that doesn't meet your expectations, return it.

My 70-200 f/4 L IS is unbelievably sharp and an excellent lens.

As for where to buy:  Many people on this board shop at Adorama and B&H Photo online.  I've ordered from both and find they each have their own pros and cons.  If you're in a hurry go with B&H.  Also, don't forget to look at the used section of each.  Some people shop lenses on eBay - I like eBay but am more comfortable buying lenses from a dealer so that I can send it back if I'm not happy.  And I don't hesitate to send a soft lens back for a replacement.

I've only ever used Beach and B&H.  Beach for some of my P&S cameras and B&H for all my DSLR gear so far.  What do you like about Adorama that is better than B&H?

The red stripe of an L lens applies to the shorter lenses.  The L series telephotos have a red stripe and are off-white.  Sometimes called "big white", these can be seen at every major sporting event from college athletics to the Olympic Games.  There's a reason that there's so many "big whites" on the sidelines - they consistently get the shots.

My white lenses have red stripes too!

I use this page for factual and up-to-date information about the Canon EF lineup.  There are plenty of lens review pages on the web as well, I think most folks like Pbase.

I was using Pbase but I am finding some really helpful shots at www.pixel-peeper.com as well.  Worth adding to your favorites or bookmarks.

 

I don't like or dislike Adorama more than B&H -- they each have pros and cons.  I generally go with whichever has the better deal UNLESS I need it fast.  Adorama is a couple days slower in general than B&H.  I've never used Beach though I'm looking at a couple gadgets from 47th Street Photo.  I've also used Porters for gadgets.

In my experience, B&H is lightning fast!  Thanks for the tips.