Is an L lens worth it? - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM

08/16/2006 09:10:32 PM · #1

Hi everybody! just upgraded to dslr and im considering lenses.. Got the 30D with 18-200 sigma in a birthday gift, and i think its not sharp enought for me.. very budget'y, if you know what i mean..

Im reading all those great things about canon's L series, and im all hyped up on it.. i wanna get bit by the L-bug ^^ .. soo

Im thinking to begin my lense careere by trading in the sucky 18-200 sigma with the 17-40 L lense, is this stupid or worth it?

Any other razor sharp lense i should consider ?

im thinking when i get the money, my lineup would be somewhere around 3 lenses.. 10-22 EF-S / 17-40 L and the 70-200 /4 L..

and ofcourse the topic question, is the L series worth the extra money ?

hope somebody will take a little time to share their experience to a beginner in dSLR :)

thanks in advance.

Skip

Canon EOS-1D X

08/16/2006 09:12:13 PM · #2

it depends on what you are trying to do. for me, it's worth it. every penny of it.

faidoi

Pentax K10D

Pentax DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF

08/16/2006 09:12:21 PM · #3

Once you go "L" you will never go back.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

08/16/2006 09:14:13 PM · #4

i see..

skiprow, im trying to take great pictures :D

fotomann_forever

08/16/2006 09:14:13 PM · #5

Originally posted by faidoi:

Once you go "L" you will never go back.

Yup, that's my slogan :-)

JRalston

Canon EOS-20D

08/16/2006 09:17:15 PM · #6

It has been SO worth it for me. I always thought I was doing something wrong because I could not get tack sharp images, especially with my telephoto lens. Once I used L glass, I learned the problem was the glass and not me!

It has been worth every penny. Go for it.

faidoi

Pentax K10D

Pentax DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF

08/16/2006 09:17:15 PM · #7

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by faidoi:
Once you go "L" you will never go back.

Yup, that's my slogan :-)

"Once you go white you never go back to black" :P

Message edited by author 2006-08-16 21:22:45.

faidoi

Pentax K10D

Pentax DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF

08/16/2006 09:17:20 PM · #8

Oops, double post.

Message edited by author 2006-08-16 21:18:15.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

08/16/2006 09:23:23 PM · #9

man, fast reply's here :D

is all the L lenses very good, or is there a few black sheeps ?

Elvis_L

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

08/16/2006 09:23:38 PM · #10

I love my two. the 17-40 is fantastic!

eschelar

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

08/16/2006 09:30:30 PM · #11

Absolutely man, I think you are walking the road the right way.

On the note of 17-40 f/4L, you might also want to consider the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (which is very high quality, check photozone.de) and possibly the Tokina 16-50 f/2.8 (also likely to be very high quality).

That's pretty much what my kit will be like. Or at least it will be when I can afford the 10-22mm lens.

I will also be using the 50mm f/1.4 and a handful of extension tubes for macro stuff.

The 30D does very well with lenses with a max aperture of f/2.8 or better due to extra sensors being used in the autofocus mechanism.

Nothing at all wrong with the 70-200 f/4L outside of that one small caveat which may lead to you wanting to upgrade later...

Options for upgrade there include:
Canon 80-200 f/2.8L (discontinued) (700-850 USD 2nd hand)
Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 (a newer version added a 'macro' close focus ability, if you don't want that, you might be able to get an older one for cheaper)
Tokina 50-150 f/2.8 (wait and see)
Canon 70-200 f/2.8L (obviously significantly more money)

To be honest though, in 90% of what you will likely do with your lens, the f/4 max aperture won't really be a major issue, but everyone is different. I shoot my 80-200 at f/2.8 a lot.

As to ALL 'L' lenses being good, that's debatable. They certainly are good, but compared with other lenses, they can be either almost the same or even in some limited cases not as good for certain things.

Photozone.de shows some of these things up in certain lenses. However, they tend to focus on sharpness a lot. There are other issues.

And like any other product, there are occasionally flawed copies that make their way to market.

The real trick is whether the improvement in quality is worth the extra money.

Message edited by author 2006-08-16 21:33:04.

hankk

Canon EOS-5D

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

08/16/2006 10:19:00 PM · #12

What's your experience, and what will you do with the camera? What's your financial situation?

the 18-200 has a lot of compromises, but it does have a wide range, and is good if you only have one lens and need both a moderate wide angle and moderate zoom. Its also nice as a "walk around" lens if you don't want to carry the whole kit (or don't want to swap lenses all the time.) If your main focus is shooting for the web, or 4x6 or so photos, its a good lens.

L glass is expensive, and some of the third party lenses may be as good on a crop sensor camera.

If you want a sharper lens, and money is an issue, get a 50 f/1.8. Its reported to be a great lens for a low price.

Learn your camera, and save up for better lenses. When you have enough money to buy L glass, look back and see what focal length you used most, then buy a lens in that range. And decide if you want primes or zooms.

Prof_Fate

08/16/2006 10:56:15 PM · #13

The 17-40 f4 L is good, but IMO the sigma 18-50 2.8 EX or tamron 17-50 2.8 are better deals - more range, 1 stop faster when you need it and as sharp for less money.

The 70-200 f4 is very sharp, and lighter and less costly than the 2.8 version, but I love my tamron 70-210 2.8 (discontinued lens) and one day will have the canon 70-200 2.8 IS. For me the extra 1 stop is worth it for low light and better bokeh.

An alternative if you want a one lens solution is the canon 24-105 f4 IS ($1200 ish). A less costly but as sharp is the tamron 24-135 3.5-5.6 for $400. Is the canon better? Yeah, but 3 times better?

You could get one of the 18/17-50 and the 70-200 f4 for $1000 ish, less if you sell your 18-200. you won't miss the 50-70 gap.

petrakka

08/16/2006 11:06:39 PM · #14

everyone talks about sharpness, which you will get with the L lenses, and better sharpness than pretty much any tokina tamron and whatever 3rd party glass....but to me, the advantage of professional glass is the build quality. I wouldn't have dropped all the dough on my 17-35 and 80-200 2.8 lenses if they weren't build as good as they are.

For me, I'm shooting pretty much every day, and I bang stuff around.

If you are not tough on your gear, I might say save a few bucks and buy the 3rd party 2.8 glass, if you need to save a few bucks that is.

But the professional equipment is definitely worth it, it just depends on how hard you are gonna work your investment.

renefunk

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

08/16/2006 11:11:14 PM · #15

hey guys try this page and get all the info you can for canon lenses

//www.the-digital-picture.com/

MadMan2k

Sony Alpha a6400

Tamron 70-180mm F/2.8 Di III VXD

08/16/2006 11:18:44 PM · #16

Originally posted by petrakka:

But the professional equipment is definitely worth it, it just depends on how hard you are gonna work your investment.

Hell yes. You have an 18-200 now, so you don't have a big gap in focal length between wide angle and longish telephoto, and you can get most of the shots you will probably want to get for now. In other words, you can make do until you realize which real lens you need first. If you always shoot at the long end, get the 70-200 2.8, maybe with IS. If you shoot in really low light, pick up a 50mm 1.4. If you always shoot at the wide end and want wider, get a 10-22. If you shoot between 25 and 80mm most of the time, and want faster shutter speeds and less DOF, get a 2.8 normal zoom.

Of course, you'll want to have a nice full set of lenses eventually, but since you have an all-in-one solution for now, I would save up until you can afford quality ones. You have a good camera to base it on, and you'll be much more happy with your images if you don't skimp on the lenses. Although some 3rd party lenses are pretty sweet (the Tamron 28-75 and Sigma 105mm 2.8 macro for two)

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

08/17/2006 09:59:33 AM · #17

hmm.. all this is very confusing.. im reading reviews after reviews and L lenses all get great ratings, but they are price as hell..

I walk around most of the time with the camera in my hand, so for example the 70-200 2.8 is out of the question.

I would like a wide-angle lense with some zoom.. 24-70 2.8 L is one, but i dond think it goes wide enought.. and the 17-40, allmost half the price here of the 24-70, i dont think the 17-40 goes long enought .. (could be wrong)

I adapt myselfe to what i have to work with.. and its easy to get lazy with a 18-200 lense ^^

could i get a spesific tip on a good walk around lense, sharpness and quality is a must, wideangle and a little zoom on top..

thanks again, great forum this :)

goc

Apple iPhone 4

08/17/2006 10:07:54 AM · #18

all i have to say is this :-)

Telehubbie

Canon EOS-40D

08/17/2006 10:32:42 AM · #19

Originally posted by Diablito:

im thinking when i get the money, my lineup would be somewhere around 3 lenses.. 10-22 EF-S / 17-40 L and the 70-200 /4 L..

In that setup, the 17-40 would be a bit redundant on the wide end, and leaves quite a gap on the long end. Change the 17-40L to a 24-70 2.8L and you're covered all-around. It's a bit more than the 17-40, but one helluva lens.

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

08/17/2006 10:55:39 AM · #20

I second the suggestion that you work out what you want and need from your lenses before spending a lot of money on them.

I am not sure that I do recognise the monumental improvement that some posts here suggest between non-L and L lenses. Certain lenses overcome certain technical obstacles, but there is always a compromise. For example, when upgrading to f2.8 quality zoom lenses, you need to be prepared to carry around several heavy lenses: none of them have a comprehensive zoom range. If you find that flexibility in shooting over a broad zoom range in a single lens is important to you, then you may find that these L lenses are not the way for you to go.

If your shots are a little soft, and that is your main concern, can you work at narrower f-stops? Would, say, a 50mm f1.8 stopped down to f2.8 work for you?

While some here do recommend buying the best immediately (and for some that might be the best option), there is a risk that you will spend a lot of money and never appreciate the real difference between lenses. If you have the money to spare, then it matters very little. If you don't have money to burn, then I would recommend spending some time with your equipment and upgrade only as and when you need to overcome a technical limitation that you feel is holding you back.

Neil

Fujifilm X-T30

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

08/17/2006 10:56:17 AM · #21

I have the Sigma 18-125, and it's very sharp in my opinion. I've done comparisons to all my lenses (which includes one L lens and the 50mm 1.8), and it compares favorably in sharpness tests I've done.

Have you considered that

1) You may have a bad copy of that lens (including possibility automatic focus is off -- have you tried manual tests)

2) Perhaps you are not getting sharp pictures because your shutter speed is too low, ISO is too high, you are on the "dark" side of the histogram, etc.?

I know a number of people who have your lens and like it. I love my Sigma, you just can't beat having it on the camera as a walk around lens. You are prepared for all situations. Well, of course, mine only goes to 125.

You could try the DXO Optics Pro beta. It is designed to maximize results from lenses, and each camera/lens combination has a custom module so you optimize for the lens and your camera.

Another lens to look at (requires a new camera), would be the Nikon 18-200. It's presumably a fantastic lens, has wide range, and VR to boot. Alas, you must switch bodies to go that way, but it's $800, add a D50 or D80 to it, and you would still be below the price of an equivalent L lens.

C-Fox

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

08/17/2006 11:04:37 AM · #22

I have upgraded now too all L lens (well the 10-22 isn't offical an L because it doesn't fit on all the canon's) I figure with my skills I need all the help I can get. :-P

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

08/17/2006 11:11:14 AM · #23

If you are just taking photos for DPC or you don't print very much or you don't print over 8x10 you won't notice a huge difference with an L lens.

When you are making larger prints the difference is very easy to see.

tfaust

Canon EOS 80D

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

08/17/2006 11:17:15 AM · #24

I started with the Canon 75-300 USM and then rented the 400mm f/5.6L prime for an outing. I was stunned by the difference in the images. From that point on, I had the 'bug' and L is the only thing I buy now (unless it's a EF-S).

Louddog hit the nail on the head though - If you plan to sell your images and make larger prints you will notice a difference. He really likes his Sigma, but Louddog can still see the quality in the L lenses in comparison to the 3rd party.