I’m a pro and use L glass, but I’m also seeing more and more amateurs using L glass.
I think that most people when they start getting more involved in photography start to lust after such lumps on their camera (and the white ones especially have that extra ‘ooh’ factor) :D

Yes, some of them can be expensive, but the 70-200 f2.8 L IS isn’t THAT much when you consider it will outlast the body it’s attached to by a long way.

Personally I still enjoy using my 70-200 F4 L which is a lot lighter and still can give me nice Bokeh. I don’t need the extra stops, but if it were for a hobby I would go for the 2.8

Make of that what you will :D

These were the most popular lenses, not necessarily the most widely-owned. As evidence, note that none of the usual “kit” lenses included with consumer, even “prosumer” Canon cameras is included. (I know nothing about Nikon gear.) The Rebels (xxxD) usually come with the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS. The 50D can come with the 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS, 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS or 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS. The new 7D can come with the 28-135mm lens. Only the full-frame 5D might come with one of the top Canon lenses, the 24-105mm f/4L IS, but that package is $3500, decidedly NON-consumer.

It’s possible that some of the 233 readers who voted (a small sample) may not even own a lens they voted for. The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, for example, is a workhorse for sports photographers and others and is probably on the “wish list” for many people, especially those struggling along with mid-to-tele zooms that are f/5.6-6.3 at the top end. The same can be said of the 24-70mm f/2.8L, probably the favorite lens for wedding photographers who use Canon cameras, plus an adjunct for sports photographers, another that’s probably on a lot of wish lists.

The #3 most popular lens, the Canon 50mm f/1.8 II, is also Canon’s cheapest lens ($110 at B&H for the “USA” version). Many people call it the “Nifty Fifty,” as it has a wide range of uses, even on Canon’s 1.6x bodies (Rebels, XXD, & 7D), where it has the same framing as an 80mm lens on a full-frame/35mm camera. It’s usually the first or second “extra” lens I’d recommend, depending upon what the person starts with. For example, if he/she got the 18-55mm kit lens, then a decent mid-tele zoom with IS would be in order, which one depending upon the person’s budget. For example, the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS is $255, the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM (better quality) is $390. Second would be a fast mid-length prime, like the Nifty Fifty or the 50mm f/1.4 ($400) if one can afford it, unless the person will be shooting a lot of indoor available light shots of groups, where the venerable Canon 35mm f/.2 ($320) or the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 ($439) might be better.

Canon does make a 70-300mm lens. If you’d like one, use this link to go to B&H. They’ll be glad to send you one for $549 with free shipping. This lens repaced Canon’s 75-300mm lens, which I’ve read was the first Canon lens to have image stabilization.

However, the references above were all to a *SIGMA* lens, not the Canon lens. Sigma makes 3 versions:

70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG Macro – $159

70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro – $209 – the one mentioned above

70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG OS LENS $399, which has OS – optical stabilization

If you’re serious photographer, avoid the first (cheapest) one. Spend another $50 and get the second, at least. It’s much better quality. The first lens is the successor to the cheap one got with a Rebel 2000 9 years ago, though I probably paid more for it than I should have. It often came, as mine did, packaged with a Sigma 28-70mm 28-80mm lens. That was a good range for 35mm film cameras, but wouldn’t be really “wide” for most Canon DSLRs (Rebels, xxD, 7D).

You raise a good question. Go to The-Digital-Picture.Com and read Bryan Carnathan’s reviews of each lens. He also has a section with recommendations for various uses. Read the article on Canon General Purpose Lens Recommendations.

My own thoughts:

The 17-85mm lens is a great general-purpose lens for a xxD or Rebel (xxxD) camera. It’s roughly equivalent to a 28-135mm lens for a full-frame camera. That’s one of the more popular (and useful!) zoom ranges. It has a good IS (not the latest, but quite good), full-time manual focusing, and isn’t all that expensive nor heavy. it would replace your kit lens, not supplement it. (In fact, it was often an optional “kit” lens with the 30D.)

The 17-85mm can take very good photos, within its limits. (It’s NOT a good “low-light” lens, of course, nor does it have the “bokeh” of the wider-aperture 17-55mm f/2.8 IS.) Bryan’s site will give you “lab data,” plus Bryan’s shots. I’ve put some examples of my own on my iDisk. Look for “Canon 17-85mm Examples.” They include 800 x 533 (or 533 x 800) scaled shots plus 100% crops (100pc). In one case, the 100% is from the side, not the center or focus point. Most of those were taken at the long end (85mm). The EXIF data will show the exposure information. (It doesn’t show the lens–that gets dropped when you scale or crop the image.)

I’ve also uploaded some examples with the 17-55mm f2.8 IS of similar topics (nature). I don’t have the 17-40mm f/4L, so I can’t give examples with it.

Why do I have both lenses? Good question. The answer is the same as for why I have both the 70-200mm f/4L IS and the 70-200 f/2.8L IS, plus a slew of fairly-fast primes (Canon 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, and 100mm f/2, plus Sigma 30mm f/1.4). I mostly do two types of photos: horses and equestrian events on one hand and nature (flowers, plants, birds, insects, etc) on the other. These are not very compatible in requirements.

Photographing horse shows (often in indoor arenas) requires fast shutter speeds, so faster lenses are a necessity. I usually carry the two f/2.8 zooms, one or two primes (e.g., 35mm & 85mm) and a camcorder. I started with the 17-85mm & 70-200mm f/4L IS, but they just didn’t work. I first got the primes, then the f/2.8 zooms.

When I’m photographing “close-by” nature–e.g., flowers in my yard or someone’s garden, when I can work out of my car–I go for the sharpest lenses I have, like the 70-200mm f/4L IS and 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, plus Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro and/or Sigma 180mm f/3.5 Macro. (The macro lenses are faster and focus closer, but the lack of IS makes them harder to use handheld.)

When I’m walking through the woods, I don’t want to carry 118 lbs of gear, plus I may shoot more distant and/or smaller subjects (e.g., birds), so I carry the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS behemoth, 17-85mm (a better match than the 17-55mm in focal length) and often the 100mm macro and/or Sigma 10-20m f/4-5.6, plus 1.4x extender and 12mm extension tube. To lighten the load, I carry the 70-200mm f/4L IS instead of the 100-400mm and a Canon 250D close-up lens instead of the macro lens. That limits distant shots, but it can work, especially with the extender and extension tube.

Do I need all those lenses? Of course not. I could do just fine with the two f/2.8 zooms, 100-400mm, 100mm macro, and probably the 85mm f/1.8 (the prime I use the most at horse shows). However, I accumulated the lenses along the way. Someday, I may pare down, but, for now, all those lenses are useful.