L series glass

[trelaflip]

I had the chance to mess around with a Canon 17-40mm L series glass and was quite amazed. To bad there so expensive :(

Curious who else here shoots with L glass and what you think about it?

[Saralonde]

Canon L lenses are definitely a step up from the rest, and yes, they are expensive. I own one, the Canon 70-200 f/4 L. It is probably the last expensive L, which is the only reason I own it :) . There are, however, some Canon lenses which are not labeled L but come very close to L quality, such as the 100mm f/2.8 macro.

I guess you can always start saving ;) . That 17-40 is a good one to work toward.

[Triglav]

I am still recovering from buying the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM last year, but I do not regret it. It is my favourite lens and is really sharp. So hurray for the L series

[smc1377]

I was photographing a dance competition and while I was on break, I stuck a 70-200mm F2.8L USM lens on my camera and snapped a few shots at 200mm. I then compared them to the 200mm shots from my 28-200 F3.5-5.6 USM lens. It wasn't immediately evident but once I got home and loaded the pictures onto my computer, it was a night and day difference. There's no comparison at all. That was the first time I felt shame when it came to my photo equipment.

Currently, I'm proposing to my boss a lens purchase. Either the 24-70mm f2.8L USM or the 24-105 f4.0L IS USM. Both are around the $1100 range so price isn't the issue. I just keep going back and forth on which one I'd rather have. On one hand, the f2.8 on the first lens is really nice and makes a huge difference vs the f4.0 when it comes to indoor photography, but I hear that the IS on the second lens makes up for 2-3 stops, so if that still holds true, they should be about equal in performance.

And since I really don't care all that much in the zoom difference between the two lenses, I'm really stuck trying to decide if I'd rather have Image Stabilization or f2.8. Any thoughts anyone?

[Saralonde]

Either the 24-70mm f2.8L USM or the 24-105 f4.0L IS USM. Both are around the $1100 range so price isn't the issue. I just keep going back and forth on which one I'd rather have.

I'd love to have this problem ;) .

If I were to chose, I'd pick the 24-105 because of the IS. I have a bit of a problem with camera shake; my handhelds always need sharpening and I use my tripod as much as I can. Plus I'd like the extra length. 2.8 is nice and generally something I like to have, that's why I got my Tamron, but IS is a real draw. Unless you are shooting in a lot of active or low light conditions, perhaps the 24-105 is the one. Of course this is all highly subjective :) . At any point in the day, I may change my mind :D !

Did you read these reviews?
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-2.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

[rootshell]

I am still recovering from buying the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM last year, but I do not regret it. It is my favourite lens and is really sharp. So hurray for the L series

I love my 70-200 f/2.8L USM as well. Expensive but worth the investment. Hurray for the L glass, ouch for the wallet.

[Bail]

I own a 17-40mm F4L and It just doesn't suit me at this moment. I love the wide angle and the fast focusing but It does not fill my needs. I got it when I bought the camera so it didn't kill me.

I'm interested in concert photography. Most places will not allow flash so I need a lens with a Large aperture. Thinking about the 20-70mm F2.8L

[inkista]

I have two L lenses: the 24-105L and the 400mm f/5.6L. The L definitely makes a difference, particularly for color rendition, but what I've found is that for sharpness, sometimes using a gold-ringed USM lens can get me as good or better results. (IMHO, primes always beat the hell out of zooms for sharpness, even Ls).

The 24-105 is a lens with a lot of compromises--it's optically very ambitious, so it's not the perfect lens, and there are a lot of problems with variations on copies. Sometimes it's razor sharp, and sometimes it's good, but not fantastic. A friend borrowed it for a weekend and didn't have much luck with the focus on it, and found that he still preferred his non-L EF-S 17-85 IS USM. So I would heartily recommend trying before you buy.

The f/4, even with the IS, really pushes the limit on available light shooting (and I've never gotten more than two stops from it). I had both it and the 85mm f/1.8 with me at the World Science Fiction Convention last year, and hands down the 85mm took most of my keepers. OTOH, the 24-105 had the reach at Comic-Con to get this shot at the Veronica Mars panel, so it can be done:

iso 800, @105mm, f/4, 1/100s, handheld.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/75/195926296_987161dab9.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/inkista/195926296)

But yes, now I'm lusting after the 135mm f/2L. The problem is that once you go L, it's really hard to go back.

Here's an example of the IS in action:
iso 1600, @24mm, f/4, 1/8s, handheld.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/104/306340883_cf314e728b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/inkista/306340883/)

You can see that I'm hitting the limits--there's still some motion blur to be found, particularly in the large version (http://farm1.static.flickr.com/104/306340883_cf314e728b_b.jpg). IS is not a replacement for a tripod, despite the ad copy. :D

It is also true that the 24-105 is a little long on a crop-body camera. This doesn't bother me, as I tend to shoot long, and rarely dip in the under-20mm range, but when you want to go wide, it can get frustrating. Some folks assume that having the 24-105 and the 10-22 will be perfect coverage, only to discover that they tend to use the 20mm-30mm range and the breakover comes at the worst possible point and the 17-40L is a much happier lens for them. Doing EXIF analysis of your photos with something like ExposurePlot (http://www.cpr.demon.nl/prog_plotf.html) can help you decide if the 24-105 is for you.

[smc1377]

Saralonde - those reviews are actually what narrowed down my choices between the two. I think you had posted reviews of other lenses from that site in other threads, and in surfing around that site, I kind of narrowed it down to those two lenses. Thanks!!

Inkista - I really appreciate the extensive review/advice along with pictures. As to your advice about trying before buying, I think I might have to convince the boss to rent the two in question from rentglass.com or someplace similar. Thanks!!

[trelaflip]

Im here at work doing overtime as I type this. I see L glass coming soon :D :D

[inkista]

Inkista - I really appreciate the extensive review/advice along with pictures. As to your advice about trying before buying, I think I might have to convince the boss to rent the two in question from rentglass.com or someplace similar. Thanks!!You're welcome. I suppose I should also add that I love the hell out of my 24-105, don't regret purchasing it, and that it lives on my Rebel XT as my default lens. :D

[sdjl]

I love my L glass :D

[mdwsta4]

no need to go into a long story about them. bottom line is they're worth the money and that's that.
my 17-40 f4L stays on my camera 99% of the time. next month i'll be ordering a 70-200 f4L for a telephoto to go along with it.

[whiteflyer]

L lenses are the best canon offer , but as said above some non L's are just as good, In fact most reveiws rate the 17-55 2.8 IS to be sharper than the 24-70 2.8 L.

I'm looking for a new lens and yes it is very tempting to look the part and get a red ring L but reading the October-December EOS magazine the say:

Should I buy an L lenses? In our opinion, to justify spending top money on lenses, you should be able to answer yes to at least one of the following statements:

• I often print my images larger than A4.
If you print your images at less than A4 size, then it is very unlikely you will ever notice the difference in results between lens and L series lens and a non-L series lens.

• I have to shoot hand-held in low light. The wider maximum apertures of the L series lenses allow faster shutter speeds in low light levels, helping you get a shot
when otherwise it might be impossible.

• I shoot sports where I can't get close.
If you need a super telephoto lens, you have little choice. All new in this range are L series.

• I shoot wildlife where the animals are far away
As with sport, if you need a long telephoto lens to allow you to get closer to a timid creature, or you want to photography a dangerous creature and keep your distance, the super telephoto lenses are the only answer.

• I am a professional photographer.
If you put your kit through a grueling time, day after day, and don't want it to fail, the extra durability of the L series lenses will repay the investment in the long term.

[gh patriot]

My 70-200 f/4L IS USM is great! I rarely take it off. Worth all 110,000 pennies.

[crunch]

I love my 24-105. It beats the hell out of my old 28-90 (300X kit lens).

On the 24-70 vs 24-105 debate, I'll add my 2c: I had the same problem and went for the 24-105, for 2 reasons: 1. I like the extra reach outdoors, and outdoors the f/4 is ample (during the day anyway), 2. I knew I was going to add a nifty-fifty to my kit anyway for the low-light stuff.

It's fantastically sharp across the range, however, that being said, my 100mm macro blows it out the water, @ f/4.

Other than a couple of primes I still plan to get (85 f/1.8 for now), I'll stick to L glass. My next problem is to choose between one of the four 70-200s :( After which I'll have the 16-35 vs 17-40 debate :)

The only thing to add is that I have not and will never regret buying L glass.