What was your first L lens?

[mackguyver]

My first L was the 135 f/2, which I purchased with the plan to use it for headshots to make some money from my photography. I did that, but actually ended up using it with the 1.4x as a poor man's wildlife lens . It's been downhill from there in terms of spending way too much money on these beautiful lenses....

What was your first?

 

[2n10]

I consider the EF-s 17-55 my first due to the IQ. ;D By designation the 100-400L. I bought it for birding and am very pleased. It has changed my perception on the "need" for L lenses with its IQ. All of the EF-s lenses I have and have had are no slouches in IQ though.

 

[climber]

24-70/2.8 II and 70-200/2.8 II at the same time

 

[mackguyver]

24-70/2.8 II and 70-200/2.8 II at the same time

That must've been an exciting day! I love those lenses.

 

[sagittariansrock]

My first was the 17-40 f/4. Bought just before my 2010 Grand Canyon trip, sold just after. I wasn't happy with its performance on my 50D and thought the 17-85 IS did much better.

 

[Loswr]

My 'gateway lens' was the EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS. The 100L backfocused slightly on my T1i/500D, which led to the 7D, which had lots of noise and led to the 5DII, which was slow with weak AF and led to the 1D X. Oh, and I shot a bird with the 100L, which led to the 600/4L IS II.

 

[tomscott]

Mine was the EF 70-200mm F2.8 L 17 years old and still perfect.

Then 24-105mm L and 100mm L which I bought with my 5DIII then most recently Ef 24-70mm F2.8 L MKI and EF 16-35mm F2.8 L MKII bought them in march mint from a guy switching to Nikon…

Then a week ago bought the EF 70-200mm F2.8 L IS MKII

 

[Besisika]

My first L was the 135 f/2, which I purchased with the plan to use it for headshots to make some money from my photography. I did that, but actually ended up using it with the 1.4x as a poor man's wildlife lens . It's been downhill from there in terms of spending way too much money on these beautiful lenses....

What was your first?

I pre-ordered the 70-200 MK II but I sold it very quickly. It was too professionnal for me back then. Everybody expected miracles out of my T1i.
Sold it and bought used 135 f2, 200 2.8 and 300 f4. Now using them on pro bodies.
Miss it a bit but all went well for me; I am no longer afraid of being treated as "professionnal" anymore, after almost 3 years.

 

[canon1dxman]

100-400 in 2005, 1 day before the final day of the Ashes at The Oval. Only sold it last year when I bought a Sigma 120-300 Sport.

 

[SoullessPolack]

Mine was the 24-70 first version, which was...wow, 6 years ago already. It's dealt with all the punishment I've thrown at it and still keeps on going. I even bought the 24-70 II about a year ago, returned it and got another one, and then returned that one because there was no increase in sharpness or performance but a lovely $1000 increase in price. And over the years I bought more and more L lenses. Stupid gateway lens

 

[RLPhoto]

My first L was the 135 f/2, which I purchased with the plan to use it for headshots to make some money from my photography. I did that, but actually ended up using it with the 1.4x as a poor man's wildlife lens . It's been downhill from there in terms of spending way too much money on these beautiful lenses....

What was your first?

The same here. The 135L was the lens that showed me what good glass was about. I still use it alot.

 

[lion rock]

My first L was 100mm f/2.8
Thought to finish with 200-400, but just wasn't strong enough to wield it. Now, I target the 300mm f/2.8
-r

 

[Pieces Of E]

The 300mm f4 L IS. Super lens for a walkaround nature photographer on a budget.

 

[mackguyver]

The same here. The 135L was the lens that showed me what good glass was about. I still use it alot.

It's a sweet lens. I sold it to fund my 300 f/2.8 IS II, but I miss the small size and weight compared to my 70-200 f/2.8 IS II.

Now, I target the 300mm f/2.8
-r

I don't think you'll regret it.

The 300mm f4 L IS. Super lens for a walkaround nature photographer on a budget.

I've never tried that lens, but the 400 f/5.6 was my second L and is responsible for the vast majority of my best photos

 

[wsmith96]

My first L was the 70-200 2.8 Mk II. I wasn't happy with the fuzzy pictures I was getting from my 70-300 IS USM at the long end and I borrowed my friend's 70-200 Mk i and fell in love with how sharp and fast it was. . I was sold - and a few months later I had enough to make the purchase. It's my favorite lens and does pretty well on my T1i. I don't really miss the extra 100mm of the other lens

Next on my list is upgrading my 60mm macro to the 100L. Somewhere in there I'll update my camera body to something newer. Then I'll need to upgrade my 10-22 and 17-55. Of course, I'd like to add a few more primes....

you get the picture.

 

[tron]

My first L was the EF300mm f/4L (NON IS). I still have it. It is very sharp.

 

[philam65]

Mine was the 100mm f/2.8L macro. It still amazes me with the images it produces.

 

[NancyP]

60D my first DSLR, EF-S 15-85mm my first lens, EF-S 60 f/2.8 Macro my second lens (both are great choices, and "L"-worthy if L status was conferred on EF-S, the 15-85 in particular being better for APS-C than the 24-105 for FF).
First L lens was 70-200 f/4 L IS. Great! #2, 400 f/5.6L, #3, 180mm f/3.5L Macro. Now I am moving into full frame and the 70-200 and 180 are used for that too. The 400 stays on my 60D, for the extra reach provided by APS-C format. All are great lenses.

 

[CANONisOK]

I would have though almost everybody would have the same answer as me: the 24-105mm L! I wasn't blown away with it; having used a good 17-55mm on crop for a while before that lens. But my second L: the 70-200mm L ii really showed me the light.

 

[daemorhedron]

Also the 100mm Macro L. =) not sure what my next choice will be, but pretty easy to get addicted!