I think we need to take up a collection box for Slyham. That or warn him never to touch one so he doesn't know what he's missing.Slyham said:
Upvote
0
What was your first L lens?
- Thread starter mackguyver
- Start date
The 17-40mm f/4 was the first and only L lens I purchased before switching from film to digital. Before that my widest lens was a 28mm, so the 17-40 opened up a lot of new opportunities. I've never been very impressed with the IQ and distortion of that lens though, and I'm sorely tempted by the new 16-35 f/4 IS. 
Next was the 24-105mm f/4 kit lens that came with my 5D2, the 300 f/4 IS and the 70-200 f/4 IS (a lovely tack-sharp zoom that is still reasonably affordable). Lately I've added the f/2.8 IS II version of the 70-200 along with the 24-70 f/2.8 II, which are both wonderful.
Definitely a slippery slope; aside from the 16-35 f/4, I'd really love to acquire a 300 f/2.8 IS II, but I have decided to try to earn it by improving my technique first. The same applies to the 5D3 - I'd love to have one, but my 5D2 can do everything I need for now if I learn to use it properly.
Next was the 24-105mm f/4 kit lens that came with my 5D2, the 300 f/4 IS and the 70-200 f/4 IS (a lovely tack-sharp zoom that is still reasonably affordable). Lately I've added the f/2.8 IS II version of the 70-200 along with the 24-70 f/2.8 II, which are both wonderful.
Definitely a slippery slope; aside from the 16-35 f/4, I'd really love to acquire a 300 f/2.8 IS II, but I have decided to try to earn it by improving my technique first. The same applies to the 5D3 - I'd love to have one, but my 5D2 can do everything I need for now if I learn to use it properly.
Upvote
0
17-40 /4 L and 70-200 /4 L IS. I bought them at the same time in 2007 as a student. Still use them. They were also my first Lenses in the EOS - system.
Upvote
0
My first L lens was the 70-300mm L USM IS. I bought it a few years ago to replace my 'quite average' 100-300mm USM, mainly for much improved IQ @ the tele end, and of course the IS. (I must say the 100-300mm's USM was very good!)
I didn't actually expect to get the 70-300mm L, it was recently released in shops - and I was looking between the Tamron 70-300mm and the Canon nonL 70-300mm, leaning toward the Tamron. Then I saw it on the shelf in the shop - and asked to try it on my 7D.
Took a few shots inside and more outside the store. I was surprised at how well balanced it was on my 7D, AND how compact it was. (I wanted a very portable lens to fit in my shoulder LowePro bag, to complement my Canon 15-85mm). I went home, looked at the photos on my PC and was sold - particularly at the great sharpness, contrast and general great IQ at 300mm f/5.6.
I went back to the store, and they offered me a great deal (really good price on a new lens, and gave me a pro 67mm multicoated Hoya UV filter). So I was 'sold' and bought it and have enjoyed using it lots since. My 7D's AF is good, and I have photographed much wildlife, including hundreds of birds, also BIF.
Cheers..... Paul
I didn't actually expect to get the 70-300mm L, it was recently released in shops - and I was looking between the Tamron 70-300mm and the Canon nonL 70-300mm, leaning toward the Tamron. Then I saw it on the shelf in the shop - and asked to try it on my 7D.
Took a few shots inside and more outside the store. I was surprised at how well balanced it was on my 7D, AND how compact it was. (I wanted a very portable lens to fit in my shoulder LowePro bag, to complement my Canon 15-85mm). I went home, looked at the photos on my PC and was sold - particularly at the great sharpness, contrast and general great IQ at 300mm f/5.6.
I went back to the store, and they offered me a great deal (really good price on a new lens, and gave me a pro 67mm multicoated Hoya UV filter).
So I was 'sold' and bought it and have enjoyed using it lots since. My 7D's AF is good, and I have photographed much wildlife, including hundreds of birds, also BIF. Cheers..... Paul
Upvote
0
My first, 70-200 F/4 IS. It was my second lens specifically for a DSLR (had an XTi with a 17-85). At the time, I thought that lens was big and heavy! Strange how our perception changes.
Years later, when I upgraded to FF, I got a "white box" 24-105 and a 17-40. These three lenses remain my "travel triumvirate" especially when trekking.
But to show you how weight and size are all relative, I've managed to get a 100-400, a 100L macro and a 70-200 F/2.8 ii. Then I made the terrible mistake of renting a 300 f/2.8 ii.........Enter the CPW buyer's group deal (and a loving spouse who told me to go for it) and I've got my "L" gathering covered.
Here's what is so interesting, after all of this, I still have my first L, and I still use that lens (when the 2.8 is just too big), to this day. But, when thinking about the redundancy of this bunch of glass, I am finding it hard to part with any of them.
Years later, when I upgraded to FF, I got a "white box" 24-105 and a 17-40. These three lenses remain my "travel triumvirate" especially when trekking.
But to show you how weight and size are all relative, I've managed to get a 100-400, a 100L macro and a 70-200 F/2.8 ii. Then I made the terrible mistake of renting a 300 f/2.8 ii.........Enter the CPW buyer's group deal (and a loving spouse who told me to go for it) and I've got my "L" gathering covered.
Here's what is so interesting, after all of this, I still have my first L, and I still use that lens (when the 2.8 is just too big), to this day. But, when thinking about the redundancy of this bunch of glass, I am finding it hard to part with any of them.
Upvote
0
1. 24-105 IS
2. 16-35 f/2.8 v1
3. 70-200 f/4 IS
4. 24-70 f/2.8 v1
5. 35 f/1.4
I'm not going any further. Those were the first couple years. Suffice to say I have about 4 more (new) that cost as much as all those cost me combined (used). I try to buy most of my stuff used but the newer stuff isn't enough of a discount to make it worth it.
2. 16-35 f/2.8 v1
3. 70-200 f/4 IS
4. 24-70 f/2.8 v1
5. 35 f/1.4
I'm not going any further. Those were the first couple years. Suffice to say I have about 4 more (new) that cost as much as all those cost me combined (used). I try to buy most of my stuff used but the newer stuff isn't enough of a discount to make it worth it.
Upvote
0
17-40L and 24-105L. They're my most loved lens (aside from the 100mm non-L USM macro F2.8 and the 50mm F1.8 II which I love more).
Upvote
0
dcm said:
I'll play
~2001/2002 Nikon Coolpix 885 -> 2009 T1i with 18-55kit -> christmas got a 70-300 IS USM and 270 flash -> a year later picked up a 60 macro and was amazed at how sharp it was -> started to read and follow canon rumors -> year later 430EX, 10-22 and 17-55-> 6 months later 85 1.8 -> 3 months later 70-200 Mk II and canon monopod-> 3 months later 50 1.8 moment of weakness - have no idea why I bought this lens) -> manfrotto tripod and giottos head -> 430 EX and ST-E2 (deal through work), rouge flash benders/softboxes and boom stand. Now I'm sitting on some cash waiting to see what all of these "big" announcements are about before deciding whether to clean house and go FF or stick with crop. I'm happy with crop so far, but if this new camera is crop and has iso quality in the 5D/1DS II range, then I probably will stay with crop. I don't really take pictures in the dark, so low light performance isn't as important to me. I would like a clean image around ISO 1600.
Upvote
0
70-200 f/2.8L IS (mk 1) about 9 years ago. It's still going strong!
I have largely managed to (just!!) resist the temptation to get lots of L lenses (well, financial considerations also help with the "resistance"!). I ran with a few Sigma lenses for a while because they seemed to offer good value, although since moving to full frame I've been re-jigging my lens collection and ended up swinging back towards Canon - although still not many Ls. As fantastic as the Ls (generally) are they tend to be expensive, heavy and big and I've discovered that for my shooting I simply make more use out of lenses which are smaller and lighter. Am currently evaluating a 24-70 f/4L IS as a possible replacement for my Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX HSM, in part because the Canon is lighter (the size is actually pretty similar) and because I like the idea of the semi-macro mode, but I'm still testing it out.
I have largely managed to (just!!) resist the temptation to get lots of L lenses (well, financial considerations also help with the "resistance"!). I ran with a few Sigma lenses for a while because they seemed to offer good value, although since moving to full frame I've been re-jigging my lens collection and ended up swinging back towards Canon - although still not many Ls. As fantastic as the Ls (generally) are they tend to be expensive, heavy and big and I've discovered that for my shooting I simply make more use out of lenses which are smaller and lighter. Am currently evaluating a 24-70 f/4L IS as a possible replacement for my Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX HSM, in part because the Canon is lighter (the size is actually pretty similar) and because I like the idea of the semi-macro mode, but I'm still testing it out.
Upvote
0
