What was your first L lens?
- Thread starter mackguyver
- Start date
The first one was a 24-70L (MK I). I returned it after a few days. I eventually tried several of them, 5 or more, none of them were keepers. The first one I kept was the 24-105mm L.
Upvote
0
My first L lens was the 35L, bought it as an upgrade to my only fast prime at the time (the 50mm f1.4), as I needed a wider lens to be my all around lens. The 135L followed a month later as a result of watching dozens of amazing shots taken with that lens on flickr!
Upvote
0
My first was the 24-105 as a kit for the 5D II, then got a bunch, but recently find myself using it more and more.
Upvote
0
The 70-200 f/4 non-IS. For the price, I still think it's a good bet (though I'm used to IS now). It blew me away with the image quality (I'd only had a kit lens, some secondhand 20+ year old lenses, and a super cheap Tamron tele-zoom).
Upvote
0
My first L was the 17-40/4L, which I bought the same day as my first DSLR: the 10D, just 10 years ago now.
Later came the 70-200/4L (non-IS), which was sold for a 2nd hand 70-200/2.8L IS (MkI).
I still have the 17-40L, but the new 16-35/4L IS is fueling my GAS
Later came the 70-200/4L (non-IS), which was sold for a 2nd hand 70-200/2.8L IS (MkI).
I still have the 17-40L, but the new 16-35/4L IS is fueling my GAS
Upvote
0
Mine was a secondhand beat up 70-200 f2.8 non IS I picked up for $800 a couple of years ago. I was amazed how quick the af was and how sharp the image was but I didn't use it much because most of my shots were either side of its range. My second was a 24-105 that came with my 5D3 that I'm really happy with. Earlier this year I tried the 70-200 again and noticed there was water damage on the lens element. The short story is that insurance replaced that old beat up 70-200 with a nice new 70-200 f2.8 IS II ;D
Upvote
0
Mine was, as other members of the forum, the 70-200 f4L bought it in Nov 2011 in a trip to NY from Boston (where I initially went for a conference).
It completely amazed me, at the time I only had Sigmas and the 50 1.8II and an old 10D... Something like 6 months later I bought an used 5D Mark II with a 24-70 2.8L version I and this was a huge upgrade... to be able to shoot at ISO 800 and above!!! WOW!!!!
Still nowadays, almost 3 years later I still love the 70-200 f4L, versatile, lightweight for hiking and used a lot, always giving me very good results.
Since that I have decided that I won't buy any non L lenses, unless justified.
At the moment I am thinkingabout selling the 24-70 2.8L I and the 24 1.4L II that I bought 1.5 years ago to buy the 24-70 2.8L II, but I bet the 24 prime is not going to be easily sold here in Finland...
Cheers!!!
Victor
It completely amazed me, at the time I only had Sigmas and the 50 1.8II and an old 10D... Something like 6 months later I bought an used 5D Mark II with a 24-70 2.8L version I and this was a huge upgrade... to be able to shoot at ISO 800 and above!!! WOW!!!!
Still nowadays, almost 3 years later I still love the 70-200 f4L, versatile, lightweight for hiking and used a lot, always giving me very good results.
Since that I have decided that I won't buy any non L lenses, unless justified.
At the moment I am thinkingabout selling the 24-70 2.8L I and the 24 1.4L II that I bought 1.5 years ago to buy the 24-70 2.8L II, but I bet the 24 prime is not going to be easily sold here in Finland...
Cheers!!!
Victor
Upvote
0
My first L was the 24-105 f4. (Had used 16-35 2.8, 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 IS at work previously, but not owned any.)
Later I had the 70-200 4IS, now the 2.8(no IS).
Later I had the 70-200 4IS, now the 2.8(no IS).
Upvote
0
GMCPhotographics
Canon Rumors Premium
Mine was a 17-40L which replaced my 2nd broken Tamron 16-35 Dii lens. It was a lens which also taught me the true value of Canon L lenses....I later sold it for a profit 3 years later when I needed an f2.8 version. The 17-40L was heavily used but looked and functioned in mint condition. Canon L lenses are exraordinarily well built and resistant to casing scuffs. Unlike Tamron and Sigma.
Upvote
0
