What was your first L lens?

[JohanCruyff]

I would have though almost everybody would have the same answer as me: the 24-105mm L!

+1

 

[Dylan777]

70-200 f2.8 IS mrk I - bought it used, got hooked from there. To me, this is still excellent lens on the market for those on tighter budget.

 

[COBRASoft]

The 24-105 was my second lens

 

[jdramirez]

I bought the 70-200f4L usm... I couldn't use it indoors... and it was basically going to replace all of my other lenses... at least that was the plan. I sent it back after less than a week... and I got some extra cash and got the 24-105... which was better...but I wouldn't say I feel in love with it.

 

[Dylan777]

Actually, I recently went into the next dimension 'above' L glass (somehow)... I purchased a Sigma 50mm F/1.4 ART. Amazing quality and design, but I have yet to see if they really beat L-glass on durability.
Nevertheless, it sits happily next to my current L-glass (16-35mm L f/2.8, 24-105mm L f/4.0, 100mm L f/2.8 and 70-200mm L II IS f/2.8).

GAS is my biggest problem though . Looking at the 300mm f/2.8 IS now, but the price is just too high to be justified.

One advice, DO NOT try this lens on your camera - unless you ready to pull trigger

 

[jasonsim]

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM...since sold and upgraded to the f/2.8L IS II version. Great lens! I thought I was crazy for spending that type of money on a lens ($1050.00, 5 years ago). Oh how things are very relative.

 

[Poolboy76]

My first L was a 135L f/2.0 on advice from a Flickr-friend. I now own four "L's" but the 135L remains my favourite as it is so incredibly good for many of my needs.

 

[bobby samat]

16-35 2.8 II. graduation present for my photojournalism degree.

 

[dhr90]

24-105L was my first L, and my first Canon, it was a real wake up from the 7 year old beginner level Sony kit I had been using. It is my go to lens (Although I prefer my 70-200L f2.8 II, its not as useful in so many situations IMO).

I'm not sure I could live with a 24-70 now despite how good it is meant to be. Not that I could afford one anyway, so my G.A.S is aimed elsewhere at the moment.

 

[RobertG.]

Hi, I can't really remember it anymore. I guess it was the EF 35L but it could also haven been the TS-E 24L.

 

[Viggo]

Actually, I recently went into the next dimension 'above' L glass (somehow)... I purchased a Sigma 50mm F/1.4 ART. Amazing quality and design, but I have yet to see if they really beat L-glass on durability.
Nevertheless, it sits happily next to my current L-glass (16-35mm L f/2.8, 24-105mm L f/4.0, 100mm L f/2.8 and 70-200mm L II IS f/2.8).

GAS is my biggest problem though . Looking at the 300mm f/2.8 IS now, but the price is just too high to be justified.

One advice, DO NOT try this lens on your camera - unless you ready to pull trigger

+1, for pretty much all L-lenses..

 

[longdrive70]

EF800 8)

 

[mackguyver]

EF800 8)

Really? I guess your username says it all. The 800mm was my first CPS loaner, though

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

My first was the non-IS version of the 70-200 f/4. It was quite a revelation in color and its bokeh replacing the 55-250mm. Eventually sold it to fund purchasing the 70-200 f/4 IS.

 

[BLFPhoto]

My first L was the "Magic Drainpipe" EF 80-200 f/2.8 L. It didn't have USM. It was 10mm less range than its current cousins. And it didn't have IS. But the images were quite magical. I bought, compared, and used the 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS when it came out, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS when it came out, and ultimately kept the 80-200 over those even when it became no longer officially supported by Canon. I only sold it a little over a year ago when I got the new 70-200 f/2.8 IS L II, which is the first of that series that really surpasses that old black lens for me. But, honestly, I wish I'd kept the 80-200 for portraits. The drainpipe was magical with portraits. Only the 85 and 135 Ls are better in my book.

After the 80-200, it was a long, steady ride to where I am today.

 

[rs]

70-200 f2.8 IS mrk I - bought it used, got hooked from there. To me, this is still excellent lens on the market for those on tighter budget.

Same here.

Sublime build quality, AF speed and handling, and while the colours and rendering were superior to my 10-22 and 17-55, it never delivered the detail or contrast I expected wide open.

Next up, the 100L, and I got a taste for what's possible. After much research I bit the bullet, sold up the 70-200 mk I to fund the mk II, and eventually followed up with a third stunning L - the 24-70 mk II.

I feel kind of spoiled now, and don't want to buy another lens that falls short of the standard set by those three.

 

[AE-1Burnham]

Was rather young, and foolish, at 16 years old: EF 100-300 5.6L (was a bargain at the time).
The revelation was the 135 2.0L -> 70-200 2.8L (for photo-journalism) -> 24 1.4L II -> 17-40 F4.0L -> 50 1.2L (to replace the poor build quality of the F1.4 which had already been replace x 3) -> 70-200 2.8L IS II.
Next I think is back to the 135 F2.0L or a 300/400 (F = savings-commitment ;-)

 

[cid]

I almost bought 70-200 f/4 IS, it's really incredible lens I had few opportunities to try, but I wanted macro lens so I ended with 100L - and I'm really happy with it and reasults I'm able to achieve with it ^^

 

[brad-man]

1st: 24-105...............Still use for travel
2nd: 17-40................Still use until 16-35 f/4L IS arrives
3rd: 70-200 f/4 IS......Will have to pry from my cold dead fingers (and I have the 2.8 v2)

 

[mb66energy]

The 4.0 70-200 L (non-IS) in 2005 for the 20D - still in use as an allround telephoto lens.
The 5.6 400 L followed some years later.

135 L was on my plan but I preferred the 2.0 100 due its smaller size and similar IQ.
100 L Macro was an option but 100 Macro had similar, sometimes better reviews in
terms of IQ and the L was twice the price - the non-L version won.