What is one Canon L Series Lens you have to have

[rvpals]

Hi

I'm seriously looking into buying one expensive L series Canon lens. I know they are very expensive. That is why I want the great photographers on this web site to share the opinions.

What is your most favorite L series Canon Lens and why?

(Personally, I want to have 1 L series Lens that would fulfill regular every day use. Have both wide angle shot and pretty good zoom. Right now I'm looking at the 70-200. I like to take natural scenery such as cityscape & landscape and sometimes get close on the action such as animal / birds.)

Thank you. For a poor amateur like me, your opinion is very valuable. (I could probably only afford 1 of them)

[OsmosisStudios]

Based on what you've said, the 24-70 f/2.8 seems more appropriate, but that depends greatly on what you want to shoot.

[lputman]

I agree with Osmosis. The 24-70 is an excellent all purpose lens or even the 24-105 is a good option. Breaking into L glass is an expensive endeavor but well worth it. Plan and save accordingly and you will be very happy with your purchases.

[oldwolf]

have to agree with the others. the 24-70 would serve your purposes more unless you're going to stitch images together for your cityscape/landscape shots.

[rvpals]

Thanks, everybody. It's very helpful. Guess I should start saving now.

[rvpals]

Before I take the plunge into L series lens, can you guys share what are the major differences between L series lens vs a regular canon lens (such as the kit lens 18-55mm) in terms of photo quality?

One thing I did notice is (looking at other people's photo with L series) is that image looks so much sharper and clearer especially when look closely. What else are the significant improvement over regular lens?

Thanks

[inkista]

I hate to say this, but the main significant improvement that's happening when you find example shots of someone using L glass is that the photographer behind the camera is someone who's dedicated enough to photography to be spending over $1000 on a lens, and was probably equally willing to pony out the dough for a full version of Photoshop and Lightroom and training on how to use them.

L lenses are great. They have terrific sharpness, contrast, CA control and (usually) wide open performance. They have larger maximum apertures, better build quality and more shooting features that make life a little easier. BUT.

They are still individual lenses with individual strengths and weakness. They're still using glass, not magic air. They're damned expensive for only a marginal gain over "lesser" lenses, and they're a lot bigger and heavier and much more conspicuous than non-L counterparts.

There are negatives to Ls, as well as positives.

And L glass doesn't do a damn thing to improve your composition, timing, or eye. L glass doesn't do a damn thing to improve your ability to interact with subjects, run a business, or or be in the right place at the right time. It doesn't improve your knowledge of how to use the camera.

An L lens is still just a lens. A little nicer than the average, hoo-boy yes. But it's still just a lens. Not a magic bullet. Not a way to bypass learning photography.

I own three L lenses. I love them to bits. They were worth every penny to me. I can still take lousy pictures with them, because I am a no-talent hack hobbyist who's just having fun.

I will also leave you with three other things I've found to be true. The sharpest lens in my bag is a non-L: the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM is sharper by far, particularly at 100% crop, than any of my three Ls. The lens I (currently) love the best for image quality characteristics is my old manual focus adapted Contax Zeiss Planar T* 100/2. I still use my Ls more than either of those two lenses.

It's not all about sharpness.

[rvpals]

Originally Posted by inkista

I hate to say this, but the main significant improvement that's happening when you find example shots of someone using L glass is that the photographer behind the camera is someone who's dedicated enough to photography to be spending over $1000 on a lens, and was probably equally willing to pony out the dough for a full version of Photoshop and Lightroom and training on how to use them.

L lenses are great. They have terrific sharpness, contrast, CA control and (usually) wide open performance. They have larger maximum apertures, better build quality and more shooting features that make life a little easier. BUT.

They are still individual lenses with individual strengths and weakness. They're still using glass, not magic air. They're damned expensive for only a marginal gain over "lesser" lenses, and they're a lot bigger and heavier and much more conspicuous than non-L counterparts.

There are negatives to Ls, as well as positives.

And L glass doesn't do a damn thing to improve your composition, timing, or eye. L glass doesn't do a damn thing to improve your ability to interact with subjects, run a business, or or be in the right place at the right time. It doesn't improve your knowledge of how to use the camera.

An L lens is still just a lens. A little nicer than the average, hoo-boy yes. But it's still just a lens. Not a magic bullet. Not a way to bypass learning photography.

I own three L lenses. I love them to bits. They were worth every penny to me. I can still take lousy pictures with them, because I am a no-talent hack hobbyist who's just having fun.

I will also leave you with three other things I've found to be true. The sharpest lens in my bag is a non-L: the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM is sharper by far, particularly at 100% crop, than any of my three Ls. The lens I (currently) love the best for image quality characteristics is my old manual focus adapted Contax Zeiss Planar T* 100/2. I still use my Ls more than either of those two lenses.

It's not all about sharpness.

Thank you, that's very informative.

[Manny]

One common "mistake" made by amateurs ( and I am one), is that you want the ability to take ALL types of photographs - portraits, landscape, wildlife and all. You then start looking at lenses that will do it all. Unless you have a very deep pocket, you can't do it all. Look at the type of photographs that you would like to focus on to develop your skills. You also need to be aware of the camera body that you currently have - crop body or full frame, as this will have an impact on the type of lense that you buy. If you have a crop body, but hope to upgrade to full frame, you may decide to buy FF lenses right now. Good luck.

[rvpals]

Originally Posted by Manny

One common "mistake" made by amateurs ( and I am one), is that you want the ability to take ALL types of photographs - portraits, landscape, wildlife and all. You then start looking at lenses that will do it all. Unless you have a very deep pocket, you can't do it all. Look at the type of photographs that you would like to focus on to develop your skills. You also need to be aware of the camera body that you currently have - crop body or full frame, as this will have an impact on the type of lense that you buy. If you have a crop body, but hope to upgrade to full frame, you may decide to buy FF lenses right now. Good luck.

I believe I have the crop body (Canon EOS T1i), all EF lens work with both full frame & crop body?