Difference between L lens and normal lenses
 

wasnt sure where exactly to look for this answer for this. i'm finally bored of my stock 18-55mm, and im currently deciding whether to buy a normal lens or go with an L lens, but the question is, for that huge extra amount u have to pay, what is the difference and is it really worth it?

Weather seal and gives u instant pro status within the dslr community

Not all L lenses are created equal...meaning, not all of them are weather sealed (as far as I know).

Also colour, contrast, and the more "exotic" focal lengths/f-stops.

Oh yeah and usually L lenses are glass, not plastic.

to me better colour and contrast is a big thing for me. would u guys say the pictures would be sharper too?

there are definitely intermediate steps between a kit lens and the equivalent L lens. All L lenses are made for full-frame cameras. If you're looking for something for your cropped frame, and I would suggest looking at some of the mid-range lenses. There aren't really any good direct replacement L lenses that can cover the same range as your 18-55mm. The closest I can think of is the 17-40mm F4L. Other than that, you're either going to lose out on the wide end, or the long end.

Lenses such as the canon 15-85mm F3.5-5.6 IS and the 17-55mm F2.8 IS would probably be some of the top lenses within that range, unless you want to shoot primes.

Google is fun!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_L_lens

There are many non-L's that are very wonderful though, and 3rd party lenses that are good too!

its waterproof

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-...9_746997_n.jpg

^thats a coffee mug, not a lens

my 70-200 f4 L is not weatherproof.

I have a 17-40 and I really like the contrast for outdoor shooting. However since I got my sigma 17-70 I find it much better for indoor shooting and natural colours like at a party etc.
17-40 great for photowalks on Granville island though colours just turn out so attractive and noticeably slr-ish if that made any sense haha
Posted via RS Mobile

The L lenses generally are weather-proof just like others said, they also give faster focus, more accurate focus, Higher IQs, better contrast etc. However, not all L lenses perform the same and there are some non-L lenses that are worth getting more than L-lenses base on the value to result ratio. One good example is the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 aka Sigmalux. It performs on par with the 50mmL f/1.2 at only fraction of the price.

Better equipment is never really THE WAY to go, finding what you need and extracting the full potential of an equipment is what will yield the best result for you~

This is true, but those lenses approach L pricing as well (the latter being 300 more than the 17-40)

The whole price justification depends on too many factors, many if not all of which were posted already.

Like boostslut said, there are many alternatives to L lenses at almost all the focal lengths that will give you "similar to L" results. The most common one I can think of is the 100mm 2.8 macro, which reviews pretty much say is almost equivalent to its L stablemate at half the price. Want cheaper? A lot of reviews say the Tamron 90mm which is almost half the Canon price is just as sharp and has better contrast. There's a pattern to be noticed here.

For a direct kit lens to replace your 18-55, take your pick:

Tamron 17-50 f2.8 non-VC/VC (non-VC is generally taken to be the sharper of the two)
Sigma 17-50 f2.8 HSM OS (this apparently meets or exceeds the Canon 17-55)
Sigma 18-50 f2.8 (I personally have this, and stopped down to even f/4 it's very sharp)
Canon 17-40 f4L
Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS USM

Any of these should be an upgrade to your current kit. The prices range from ~$400 used to $1200 brand new.

Those are all fast lenses though (with the exception of the 17-40 F4L), which are great for indoor, but for the same price, you can get great lenses for a lens with a longer range, and still with IS/OS/VC which might work great if it's going to be your only lens.

Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 (Decent lens, no IS, good price)
Canon 17-85mm F4-5.6 IS (You can find these for cheap, decent lens, a little soft)
Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 OS HSM (pretty new lens, pretty sharp)
Canon 15-85mm F3.5-5.6 IS USM (Sharp Lens, pricey)

I find when I'm travelling around, I appreciate that extra 20-35mm extra at the long end, just so you can get the picture that much tighter... But it really depends on what you want to shoot.

i actually have a tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non-vc for sale.

the sigma 17-70 lenses are solid performers. many people don't like its colour rendition because it is warmer, but i think the contrast is great and is a good step up from the kit lens and a good intermediate lens before stepping to an L glass.

range and what you're going to use it for should determine whether or not you should decide on getting the L glass. also, for 1.6x crop there's nothing that would directly replace the kit 18-55. you lose range either way you go whether its down to 17-40, or 24-70/105.

Yeah. Only the is models of the 70-200 are weather sealed.
Posted via RS Mobile

here's a list of L lenses that are highly weather sealed

http://www.lensplay.com/lenses/lens_weathersealed.html

remember not all L lenses r weather sealed and remember there is a difference between weather sealed and water proof, not the same!!

thx for all the suggestions, i just checked out the sigma 17-70 on youtube. that lens looks great, seems like a good replacement for the kit lens! thanks all :D

^there are a few differences in the sigma range

HSM = hyper sonic motor
Macro = ... macro lol, generally lower minimum focusing distance
OS = Optical stabilizer

The one I have is the 17-70 F2.8-4.0 OS HSM Macro LOL
The thing is 2.8 is only at 17, anything higher ie. 20mm is already smaller aperture

Try them out see how you like it though,
I took this 2 days ago
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-..._5289306_n.jpg
I already cooled down the tones a little bit, but as you can see on AWB it is still very warm >.<

I own the SIGMA 50mm 1.4 HSM. Byfar my most favorite lens. Super sharp; fast focusing and the bokeh at 1.4 is amazing.....the only downside is the size and weight of the lens.

On the other hand, if you get the good EF lens NOW, you'll already have it should you ever go to a full-frame body.

I've been playing with a borrowed 70-200 F4L and a 100-400 F4.5-5.6L, and I can tell you, these things are amazing, even on my 40D.