Yes, the "L" designation has to do as much with weather sealing and
rugged construction for professional use as it does with the optical
results. Unfortunately, you can't get an "L" grade 50mm without it also
being an f/1.2.
Chuck Norcutt
Moose wrote:
>
>
> There's a distinction here that many commenters on various forums* miss.
> And Canon seems to do little to make it themselves.
>
> At various times, there have been non-L lenses that outperform certain L
> lenses in some optical ways.
>
> The criteria are, as I understand it:
>
> 1. Is the optical performance up to professional needs?
>
> 2. Is the construction up to professional needs?
>
> Let's say C decided to make another version of the latest,
> plastic-fantastic 50/1.8, with considerable actual metal content, full
> weather sealing, full capability USM with full-time MF, solid metal
> mount, etc. However, using the exact same optics. In my understanding of
> the primary criteria of the "L" line this would qualify for "L" listing.
> That is, up to the needs and rigors of hard, extensive use under all
> kinds of conditions and optically solid.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|