Canon's L-series (red bands) have metal casings. The glass is also nicer, the barrels are rated much higher for dust/moisture protection. This is reflected in their much higher price tags.

I tried a couple L lenses and they were plastic, felt cheap as fuck, and horribly difficult to focus. Even tried a 50mm f/1.2 L and returned it within an hour of unboxing it. That thing, despite costing 3X as much, felt like a cheap toy in comparison to a Rokkor 58/1.2 or a Nikkor 50/1.2 (both of which are 1/3 of the price in perfect condition), and at the end of the day I still liked the rendition and hand feel of my Contax-Zeiss Planar 50/1.4 slightly better.

I don't use autofocus, pretty much ever, so that isn't a consideration. But I do want quality precision mechanics, and I feel that shouldn't be much to ask for.

My old lenses feel like quality scientific instruments, in comparison, and have long focus throws that allow me to focus very accurately.

I now own a Canon body and zero Canon lenses except for an FD 300/2.8 that I modified to fit EF.

>and horribly difficult to focus. >I don't use autofocus, pretty much ever, so that isn't a consideration.

But it is a consideration. Modern lenses are all designed for autofocus bodies. Yes, you can flip them into manual, but it is still a manual adjustment on a gear designed for computer control. A decent manual focus lens will typically have 270 degress of motion in the filter ring allowing much better control for humans. A autofocus lens typically only has 90 degress of motion (and then infinite turning drek). Much hard to get critical focus manually on an autofocus lens than a manual focus lens.

Also, your older lenses probably weigh much more than the modern lenses. Lots of people prefer the lighter barrels.

I do a fair bit of astrophotography, and the modern Canon glass is great for that. Crip, clean, and no need for focus once truly focused on infinity (varies on each lens, but typically "close" to where it is marked). The older lenses just don't have the sharpness.

So there's a place for each of the older and newer lenses in my kit.

> I do a fair bit of astrophotography

Interesting viewpoint! I do a lot of astrophotography and I found AF-capable lenses to just not work for me at all because a couple of shakes and some play in the gears would slop the lens out of focus, and the short throw and lack of infinity precision make it really hard.

For astrophotography I just love being able to focus on a star and either calibrate the lens stop to be at infinity, or slap some gaffers tape and it's good for at least 2 months until the night temperature outside changes significantly.

Of course, yes, sharpness is an issue for many older lenses, but the better ones of the 70s and 80s have very decent IQ. Honestly I just wish modern lens manufacturers would make more manual focus lenses. Laowa, Samyang, and Zeiss are all awesome for continuing that tradition.

Yes, I've always focused manually for astrophotography, and it always results in a series test images. Even using the live view at 10x, there is still room for improvement even though it is a good start. It's always a take pic, zoom all the way in on preview, and then make adjustments from there.

I would buy an entire kit if they would release modern glass with 100% manual including aperture. There are places that will rehouse your lens so that it is full manual. The cost pretty much doubles the cost of the lens, but I have been tempted to do that for the 70-200.

Many of the Ls are metal on the inside. A tough lightweight plastic shell can have major advantages (lighter, impact resistance, etc.)

For a great example of a sharp modern L, check out the 16-35 f/4 IS. I'm not an ultra wide photographer by nature, but that lens impresses me each time it is called-upon.

Choosing lenses, in the long run, is such a personal choice. My favorite first came to market in the early 1990s (and spent this morning with it) -- glad you have found good fits, too :).

Yeah I’ve got a few of the L lenses and am impressed by them. I think the 50mm f/1.2 is particularly known for being soft though.

35mm f/1.4 - super sharp, great quality lens.

100-400 f/3.5-5.6 II - amazing lens. Very sharp and focuses very fast. I often use this with a canon multiplier as well for wildlife shots. For the price it’s amazing.

16-35 f/4 IS - this is such a great landscape lens.

I rented the 1.2 this winter. It's kinda soft, but the rendering is beautiful. If you're going to work at f/8, the 1.8 STM or 1.4 are both as good or better.

Wide open in heavy snowfall at night, there's nothing I've experienced like it. Not quite life-changing, but it's real good.

Couldn't justify a purchase, but I may have purchased a used 1.4 a month later..... The focus-falloff, rendering, and out-of-focus elements aren't the same, but it's still wonderful in the dark and inexpensive-enough to be replaced if I kill it. Someday, the stars will align and I'll work with a 1.2 again.

My desert-island lens is a (used) 400 f/5.6. Someday I'll try the 100-400, but worry about the telescoping assembly ingesting moisture and dust in the field.

> My old lenses feel like quality scientific instruments, in comparison, and have long focus throws that allow me to focus very accurately.

FWIW, I've noticed that Hasselblad lenses have the longest focus throws of any lens I've ever used.