Just Another Lens Question

[Michael_2010]

If you were going to save your pennies and invest in one "L" series piece of glass, what would it be?

[RichardTaylor]

It depends on what I would be shooting and my budget, and also what other lenses I had.

For me it was the 70-200 F4 L. (as a general purpose good tele. It was the most expensive lens I had purchased at the time.

Next was a 100-400 F4.5-F5.6 IS L for birding and motor sport, although it makes for a great versatile very long tele. It is my most used lens.

Next was a 24-105 F4 IS L that came a a kit lens with my 5D

Last was the 135 F2 L (my favourite but not most used lens)

The lens I couldn't really do without is the 100-400.

I do not have any serious plans to buy any more lenses (unless one fails.)

[Elmo]

That would depend upon what you needs are (what you shoot), nothing else should enter the decision.

[Michael_2010]

I guess I am still looking for the best walk-around lens for me. Right now I have the Canon 18-55mm kit lens, a Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS, Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 AF APO DG OS HSM (I got for birding and other wildlife) and just recently picked up the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II.

So far, I really like the clarity I have been getting with that little 50mm. I would love to stretch that quality, or better, over a broader focal distance in order to cover a variety of situations. Right now I'm thinking the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM or the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM might fill the bill as far as range goes.

This is not something I plan to buy in the next day or so. It is an upgrade wish that might turn into a goal for down the road.....

[Elmo]

As you have most of the useful range covered look at what FL and f:stop most of your most important pictures are shot and buy the best lens you can afford for those ranges.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by Michael_2010

If you were going to save your pennies and invest in one "L" series piece of glass, what would it be?

L lenses are like potato chips--you can't stop at just one.

Seriously, you might be better off not getting an L. You really need to evaluate whether or not it's going to be worth it. An L lens may not be sharper than a gold-ringed USM counterpart. It's going to be bigger and heavier and a lot more conspicuous. The optical quality gains you get may be indistinguishable to you. And it's going to cost a buttload of cash.

Where an L has advantages are in build quality, usability features, CA control, contrast/color, and max. aperture. If you need those things, then an L is what you're looking for. But to simply improve on sharpness, you may not need an L. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I own three Ls (24-105L, 135L, 400/5.6L). The sharpest lens in my bag is my EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM (a non-L lens).

Take the case of the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM vs. the EF 85mm f/1.2L USM.

Yes, the 85L is magic. Yes, it renders bokeh unrivalled by any other Canon lens than the 135L. Yes, it's amazing. It's also huge. It's nicknamed the Canonball for a reason. It tends to overwhelm and unbalance anything but a 1 series body. It costs about four times as much as the 85/1.8. And the 85/1.8 is just as sharp and faster to autofocus.

Are there reasons to get the 85L? Undoubtedly. But for most folks, those reasons aren't going to be worth the additional $1200 it's going to cost to obtain them.

Get an L because it's the only lens that's going to do what you need. To simply improve over an 18-55 kit lens, an L could be some serious overkill. Nearly every walkaround zoom is going to be nicer than the 18-55 kit in some way.

The 24-70 and 24-105 are very popular lenses, but they don't go particularly wide on a crop body. Unless you habitually shoot long (as I do), they may not be great for what you want to shoot, and an EF-S lens that starts around 15-18mm (e.g., EF-S 17-55 or EF-S 15-85) might be a better fit. (Or you could consider the 17-40L or the 16-35L).

[Michael_2010]

Thanks! I needed that. lol

I'm a hobbyist and have no desire to be more than that. The L might not be worth the expense, but it seems kind of like the gold standard for Canon users. One would know they have an excellent piece of glass and any failures would be based upon abilities and poor judgement. Not lousy equipment.

Like I said, this is something I am thinking about right now, while I digest the ton of info about lenses that is all over the internet. Not ready to take the plunge in one direction or the other.

[andrewq]

I'm in the process of starting to save for a 70-200 f/2.8 IS L but suddenly the Sigma equivalent has me seriously thinking. I'm going to wait and see some reviews but that looks like a very impressive lens for a little less money.

[Michael_2010]

I have a Sigma 150-500mm lens I bought with the intention of using during the fall migratory season. That bazooka is a bear, but I have gotten a few pretty good handheld shots because of its stabilization mechanism. To me, it seems to be a solid, very well built lens. I would definitely consider getting another Sigma to replace my 18-55mm kit lens, if it had good reviews.