What was your first L lens?
- Thread starter mackguyver
- Start date
1st -- EF 70-200 f2.8L IS Mark II -- got hooked after an hour with a friend's Mark I. My most used lens by far.
2nd -- EF 24-105 f4 IS -- love this lens, especially the oversized body cap model 5D3 that came with it!
3rd -- EF 24-70 f2.8 Mark II -- love this lens, too. Wish it had IS, but it's tack sharp, great in low light, and a focus demon. Excellent match to the 70-200. With these two lenses, each on its own 5D3, I'm set for most everything that I shoot. (Most everything, not all. Still room for more glass on the wish list.)
2nd -- EF 24-105 f4 IS -- love this lens, especially the oversized body cap model 5D3 that came with it!
3rd -- EF 24-70 f2.8 Mark II -- love this lens, too. Wish it had IS, but it's tack sharp, great in low light, and a focus demon. Excellent match to the 70-200. With these two lenses, each on its own 5D3, I'm set for most everything that I shoot. (Most everything, not all. Still room for more glass on the wish list.)
Upvote
0
1st-24-105mm f/4L, I know that lens isn't the highest regarded "L" lens but once I got it I was hooked on L quality glass. I must have gotten one of the good ones.
2nd-70-200mm f/2.8L II, WOW what a lens, love it.
3rd-17-40mm f4L, needed a wider lens but not really f2.8 so went for this one. Might replace it with the new 16-35mm f/4 IS.
4th-100mm f/2.8L, primarily to mess around with macro.
Bought the 24-70mm f2.8L II but wasn't overly impressed, my 24-105mm is basically as sharp so I returned it to use the $'s hopefully soon on a lens on my wishlist.
Wishlist: 300mm f/2.8L II, 600mm f4L II.
2nd-70-200mm f/2.8L II, WOW what a lens, love it.
3rd-17-40mm f4L, needed a wider lens but not really f2.8 so went for this one. Might replace it with the new 16-35mm f/4 IS.
4th-100mm f/2.8L, primarily to mess around with macro.
Bought the 24-70mm f2.8L II but wasn't overly impressed, my 24-105mm is basically as sharp so I returned it to use the $'s hopefully soon on a lens on my wishlist.
Wishlist: 300mm f/2.8L II, 600mm f4L II.
Upvote
0
First L lens and first ever lens that I owned is 70-300L. Before that I borrowed my friends' lenses (yes I was surrounded by nice Canon users). The decision to get the lens was mostly influenced by the lens review here in CR when the lens first came out. Which was also the very first time I came across this site.
Upvote
0
The 70-200 f4 IS USM and a 1.4 ll Extender came first and after buying a 2X ll Extender I researched and bought the 100-400 L. The 70-200 hasn't seen any use and the 100-400 is mounted on my 7D when we go out to shoot BIF. My wife wants to try the 70-200 on her 70D, so I'm sure she will use it a lot. Maybe not with an Extender. My next L might be one of the 16-35's depending on the reviews the new f4 gets and if I go FF.
Upvote
0
My first L was the 100-400. My first DSLR was a T2i (550D) that I bought with the 18-55 kits lens and an EF-S 55-250 v1. I was happy with this set-up for about a year, but then replaced the kit lens with a EF-S 18-135 and the 55-250 with the 100-400 as I was looking to additional focal length. I purchased it used off eBay and it was a pretty good copy. After over a year of use, I found I was seldom using it much beyond 200mm and often wished I had a faster lens for lower light use and shallow DOF. So, I sold it to help fund the purchase of a 70-200 2.8 II, which I plan to hang onto forever!
My second L was the 24-105 followed closely by the 35 and 135.
My second L was the 24-105 followed closely by the 35 and 135.
Upvote
0
mackguyver said:
Woo. Second L was the 400 f.5.6 - the lens that taught me I needed a new body (for better high ISO; I upgraded from the 50 to the 5D3) and IS (which I'd never thought I needed before - I found it unusable on the 50D for dim light bird work, though the image quality was very good). Most recent is the 85 1.2 II - I salivated and dreamed from the first time I saw it. I was exactly what I was expecting - huge, tricky, stunning. My favourite is a tossup between the 100 macro - it always produces better image quality than I expect, however used to it I get - and my workhorse the 500 f/4 IS II - the super teles are really in a class of their own. Robust, reliable, with no image quality flaws (until you add a 2x extender).
Upvote
0
scyrene, my second L was 400mm f/5.6L no-IS as well. I can say that it was a difficult start to learn bird photography, but I was forced to learn technique, and can muddle along pretty well without IS. On occasion I have gotten sharp hand-held shots as low as 1/125 sec, although I try to shoot at 1/500 or more. I find the 400mm to be a very friendly carefree lens - I don't mind (barely notice) hiking with it. At some point I hope to get the 500 or 600mm f/4 II. I expect that my experience hand-holding a long non-IS lens will be helpful in using the much heavier f/4 lens. First, I plan to rent the lenses, to see if I can manage the 7 pound (or 8.5 pound) lens hand held.
Upvote
0
Mine was the 24-105 f4 in a kit with the 6D
it replaced my 350D and 17-55 f2.8 as "the base" and was an improvement in the way it feels (build quality) and range... I really like the combo
then came the 135 f2 (got that one used, on a trip to US) and of course its lovely, magical, etc... but maybe I wouldn't buy it if the nifty fifty wouldn't show me what a fast prime can do... I'm really gad I got that one years ago (hmm, now that I think of it, maybe Canon does those so they work for them as a cheap entry drug
)
it replaced my 350D and 17-55 f2.8 as "the base" and was an improvement in the way it feels (build quality) and range... I really like the combo
then came the 135 f2 (got that one used, on a trip to US) and of course its lovely, magical, etc... but maybe I wouldn't buy it if the nifty fifty wouldn't show me what a fast prime can do... I'm really gad I got that one years ago (hmm, now that I think of it, maybe Canon does those so they work for them as a cheap entry drug
)
Upvote
0
24-70 F2.8 L. It'a the first lens I got (3.5 years ago) and it's focal length on the 7D is actually a very nice focal length, its weight is also very nice. 
Upvote
0
mackguyver said:
My second L was a 24-105L bought along with the 17-55 for my 7D. Unfortunately this L too was sold pretty quickly as the 17-55 was a better range, sharper wide open, and faster on APS-C.
My third L was bought 2 years later, along with the 5DIII- the 24-70II. Ironically, I bought another 24-105L at the same time with the idea of keeping the one I like more. As you can guess from my signature, the second 24-105L was also sold.
I love all my lenses. If I don't, I get rid of them. But I think the lens that has given me most photos with consistent focusing and little to none PP is the 135L, even within the short time I've had it.
Upvote
0
NancyP said:
I'm sure you're right - I could have persevered but I decided to take the chance and move to pro-level gear, and it turned out to be the right one for me. I live in a particularly grey part of the world (northern Britain), so most of the time needing fast shutter speeds (1/500 or above) would have required higher ISO than my 50D could have managed (or would have restricted shooting to rare sunny days).
I heartily recommend the 500 (and the 600 is probably even better if you can afford the extra money/weight). It takes a bit of getting used to the extra size (it dwarfs the 400 5.6), but I can't fault it.
Upvote
0
I would love to compliment my first and only L (24-105mm) with the new 16-35mm f4L IS USM and 70-200mm f4L IS USM, but sadly, as a hobbist I simply can not justify $2500 in new lenses. Most of what I have has been upgraded over the past 4 years incrementally by purchasing broken equipment and fixing it myself for a fraction of the price of even used gear. I don't think that is going to happen with my two wants at this point.
Upvote
0
The first step is admitting you have a problem, the second step is...where's my credit card? There's a new L lens coming out...I'm sorry, what were you saying?johnf3f said:
;D
Upvote
0
Good question, I had to pull out my records to see which one was first. Looks like it was the EF 80-200 2.8L USM (not a typo, it really was an 80-200!) in May 1990. It cost $1296.00, which was a lot then! My second, was the EF 35-340 3.5-5.6L USM, in Apr 1995. Since then I've added nine others. The EF 300 2.8L II is on my short list for future purchases, although the 200-400L sure is appealing...just not in my budget plans!
Upvote
0
