Talk:Canon L lens

message: I believe that there are three lenses which should be removed from the macro section of list:
1) EF 50mm f/2.5 macro. It does not have a red ring, is not labeled on the box or other wise as an L-lens.
2) EF 65mm f/2.8 (macro 5:1), while it is quite astounding in its maximum reproduction ratio is not an L-lens. It does not have a red ring, is not labeled on the box or other wise as an L-lens.
3) Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM (macro 1:1) lens is not an L lens. As a side note, the EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM which is rightfully on the list should obviously not be confused with the non-L version. The L-version has image stabilization (Canon calls this "IS"), includes whether-sealing in the design and has 9 circular aperture blades while the non-L-version has only 8 straight aperture blades. All these differences can aid in improving durability of the camera system, image quality (especially in out of focus areas of the image) and image sharpness especially when hand-holding the camera (i.e. not using a tripod) while shooting at high magnification.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.79.12.117 (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not all the macro lenses listed are L-lenses 

message: It's quite official. And there are many non-EF L lenses. Refer to the below link.
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/fd/data/fd_500_45l.html
link does not work 07:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  L means "Luxury." 

message: I think the second paragraph is mostly speculative, and has no factual basis. Nobody truly knows why Canon has not designated any EF-S lens as an L-series. The only reference given on this subject is also speculative: "Some may wonder why such a pricey lens wasn't marketed as a true Canon L grade lens - obviously a marketing decision." This comment is purely speculative, an original opinion, not a fact. Yes it is more than likely true, but we have never seen any evidence by canon to prove that. Therefore this information can only be considered original research. Since this information is provided on wikipedia, an observer might think this information to be true. We do not know if it is true. I think the information stated in this paragraph, could be considered damaging by Canon Inc. Maybe it should be removed. Thoughts? Nebrot (talk) 01:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a year now since I posted my thoughts on this. This paragraph is as stated, is purely speculative, original though. There is not one reliable source. I'm deleting it. Nebrot (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  L-series EF-S mount lenses 

message: I removed this sentence:
 "Telephoto L-lenses typically do not have gelatin filter holders, to maintain compatibility with the Canon Extender EFs."
Every L Ultra-Tele I've had in my hands was equipped with a gelatin holder. Not the same type as the wide-angle lenses, which is visible when you unscrew the lens from the body and which might be a problem with extenders (I've never tried because you are not supposed to use extenders on wide-angle lenses) , but had a separate and removable filter slot near the lens mount. If you don't know what it looks like and where to look for it you will probably miss it. Every non-wide-angle (e.g. 24-70)or non-ultra-tele lens (e.g. the 70-200) does indeed lack a gelatin holder simply because it is not needed, front lens filters are used instead.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.180.90.173 (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think most people are aware of the 52mm drop-in filter holders that Canon Super telephotos have, like the 200mm f/2L, or 500mm f/4L. I think that this sentence was referring to the rear gelatin filter holders that most wide-angle lenses have, like the 17-40 f/4L or 14mm f/2.8L. I'm going to fix it so it has a more direct, specific meaning. Nebrot (talk) 23:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gelatin filters on L-type tele lenses