What was your first L lens?

[StudentOfLight]

Lot's of great replies - thank you all for sharing - and now I think I need another couple of posts - what was your second L, most recent L, favorite L, etc., etc. ;D.

Lots of Love for the L Lenses around here!

I have two lenses tied for top honors in my books, the 135L f/2 and the TS-E 24mm f/3.5 L II. Two gob-smackingly amazing lenses; one amazing value for money and the other just plain amazing albeit a bit pricey. Also I'd make a notable mention of the much-loved but imperfect 35mm f/1.4.

 

[Etienne]

The 24-105 f/4L IS came in the 5DII kit,
and I bought the 16-35 f/2.8L II at the same time

 

[Zv]

After being disappointed with the Tamron 70-300 VC, I decided to stick to Canon lenses and with a friends wedding coming up fast I went with the 70-200 f/4L IS. It arrived about one day before I had to fly out to Scotland for the wedding. First time I used it was there. Later on it clicked that I had just bought my first L! Still impressed with the quality of this lens.

Followed it up with the 17-40L after selling my much loved 10-22. Then I bought a used 135L, and finally sold my 17-55 for a used 24-105L (which usually people get first!). And the move from crop sensor / ef-s was completed yesterday when I sold my 7D!

My fave L has to be the 135L but the 70-200 f/4L IS comes a close second.

 

[MrFotoFool]

My first was the black 80-200 2.8L, which I bought used in mint condition for $600! (Got it from a coworker at the photo lab I work at). I recently sold it, after a decade of use, for about the same amount.

It was a great lens and I think I like the black better than white (I now have the 70-200 2.8 non IS). I only sold it because it does NOT take teleconverters and it was too heavy carrying both that and the 300 f4L (which I also got cheap used). So now I use the 70-200 with 1.4x extender. Another thing I like about the old black version is the tripod collar was hinged and could be removed without removing the lens from the camera. The new version has a solid ring which is a step backwards IMO.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

First was the 100-400, then 17-40. However it was just the start of a slippery slope!
I am currently running the following "L" lenses 17-40, 24-105, 70-200 F2.8 IS, 300 F2.8 IS and 800 F5.6 IS, no wonder I am skint!

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?
;D

I don't have a problem - I am just an addict who does not want a cure! The credit card is fine, I have no debts but a 600 Mk2 - possibly a 300 F2.8 Mk2 and loose the 17-40 + 24-105 for a 16-35 F4 and 24-70 Mk2.......
well maybe I won't be out of debt for long!

 

[notapro]

My first was the 50mm f/1.2.

 

[jhpeterson]

My first L lens, in fact my first lens in an EF mount, was the 300mm f:2.8. This was more than 20 years ago.
And, I guess I jumped in pretty hard as I bought it with an EF 2x extender and EOS-1 body.

 

[Hillsilly]

My first was a 400/5.6, followed shortly after by a 17-40 and a 70-200/4. The 135 is my only other L lens.

 

[KyleSTL]

I must be the weirdest person on this thread cos my first L was the TS-E 24mm.

I don't think that's weird, I think it's awesome.

 

[FEBS]

My first L lenses were the 17-40L and 24-105L that I bought together for my 7D. I did found the 24-105 OK, but expected more of it. The 17-40 was another case, not wide enough and the IQ was even worse compared to my 10-22. I even thought to sell it.

Because of the noise of the 7D, I added a 5Diii. What a difference for both lenses on this body. I am very happy I didn't sell them. Now the road to more L lenses was opened, and you know what that means for your wallet.

Never the less, I'm very happy when I see the results now, compared to 2 years ago with a 7D and a tamron 18-270.

 

[Cariboucoach]

The 70-200 f/4L USM with out IS. I bought it in conjunction with a refurbished EOS 40D. I have upgraded my camera to a EOS 6D, but I haven't purchased any more "L" lenses. I am looking though and I am leaning towards the EF 24-70 f/4 or the Tamron 24-70 f2.8.

They are both around the same cost, but I don't know if the reliability of the Tamron, given some of the reviews of inconsistent QC, is worth the extra f stop.

 

[tq0cr5i]

I bought my first L on September 25, 2010. It is my favorite lens from then.

 

[DRR]

My first L was a 24-70 f/2.8, close to 10 years ago now. Was my go-to do-everything lens for a long time, until I started moving away from zooms and towards primes. My tendency was to shoot either wide at about 30mm or all the way at 70mm. It was a great do-it-all lens but I started to feel like it didn't do any one thing particularly well.

Sold to fund an 85mm f/1.2 II. Can't say I regret it. I also won't say I "outgrew" the lens but my needs and priorities changed.

 

[arjay27]

I'm still looking to buy my first Canon L lens and i saw some L lens on sale here at Don's Photo flyer http://www.flyertown.ca/flyers/donsphoto?type=3#!/flyers/donsphoto-flyer?flyer_run_id=27292

Any advice which one to get? its a big investment so i want to purchase the right one for starters like me.

Thanks

 

[mackguyver]

I'm still looking to buy my first Canon L lens and i saw some L lens on sale here at Don's Photo flyer http://www.flyertown.ca/flyers/donsphoto?type=3#!/flyers/donsphoto-flyer?flyer_run_id=27292

Any advice which one to get? its a big investment so i want to purchase the right one for starters like me.

Thanks

arjay, welcome to CR. I'm sure we can help you, but we need to know what type of shooting you do (general, weddings, wildlife, etc.) and we can advise you from there.

 

[arjay27]

I'm still looking to buy my first Canon L lens and i saw some L lens on sale here at Don's Photo flyer http://www.flyertown.ca/flyers/donsphoto?type=3#!/flyers/donsphoto-flyer?flyer_run_id=27292

Any advice which one to get? its a big investment so i want to purchase the right one for starters like me.

Thanks

arjay, welcome to CR. I'm sure we can help you, but we need to know what type of shooting you do (general, weddings, wildlife, etc.) and we can advise you from there.

I want to shoot weddings and portraits. Right now i only have a 50mm on a Canon 5d. I'm just starting so i want to take the right path.

 

[mackguyver]

I'm still looking to buy my first Canon L lens and i saw some L lens on sale here at Don's Photo flyer http://www.flyertown.ca/flyers/donsphoto?type=3#!/flyers/donsphoto-flyer?flyer_run_id=27292

Any advice which one to get? its a big investment so i want to purchase the right one for starters like me.

Thanks

arjay, welcome to CR. I'm sure we can help you, but we need to know what type of shooting you do (general, weddings, wildlife, etc.) and we can advise you from there.

I want to shoot weddings and portraits. Right now i only have a 50mm on a Canon 5d. I'm just starting so i want to take the right path.

I think your best bet would be the 24-70 f/2.8 II, if you can afford it, as that would cover everything from wide shots to group shots, to tighter portraits than the 50mm. That and a 70-200 f/2.8 IS II sometime in the future would cover 90% or more of normal wedding work. If that's too expensive, you might consider the 135 f/2 or 85 f/1.8 for head shots, 24, 28, or 35 f/2 IS for wider shots, or perhaps the 17-40 for the same.

 

[arjay27]

I'm still looking to buy my first Canon L lens and i saw some L lens on sale here at Don's Photo flyer http://www.flyertown.ca/flyers/donsphoto?type=3#!/flyers/donsphoto-flyer?flyer_run_id=27292

Any advice which one to get? its a big investment so i want to purchase the right one for starters like me.

Thanks

arjay, welcome to CR. I'm sure we can help you, but we need to know what type of shooting you do (general, weddings, wildlife, etc.) and we can advise you from there.

I want to shoot weddings and portraits. Right now i only have a 50mm on a Canon 5d. I'm just starting so i want to take the right path.

I think your best bet would be the 24-70 f/2.8 II, if you can afford it, as that would cover everything from wide shots to group shots, to tighter portraits than the 50mm. That and a 70-200 f/2.8 IS II sometime in the future would cover 90% or more of normal wedding work. If that's too expensive, you might consider the 135 f/2 or 85 f/1.8 for head shots, 24, 28, or 35 f/2 IS for wider shots, or perhaps the 17-40 for the same.

Thank you for the advice!

 

[lightthief]

My first L was the 100-400. I love it. The 70-300 IS was too soft at the long end.

The next one was EF 70-200 2.8 L IS. When i switched from 400D to 50D the weaknesses of the 70-200 became visible - it was "soft" and had less contrast at the long end. I tried both F4 versions and both were better at f4 than the big one at 4.5. I sold it after one year of collecting dust.

The next was the 100 L Macro. At the same day, i gave the 70-200 2.8 II a chance - and was blown away. Bought both, followed by the 35 L.

When i bought the 5DIII i sold my sigma fisheye and got the 8-15 L - again at the same day.
The last one was the 17-40. It is one year old now and i will trade it and the 17-55 to fund the 16-35 IS.
I used the 85 L II for four days. It is great - but too expensive for a fun-lens. I hope, there will be a 85 2.x IS some day... my first non-L

 

[EOS rebel]

My first L was a tie for both the 100mm macro and the 70-300mm in 2012. I was still new to photography and wanted a large range for telephoto but didn't like the push-pull zoom of the 100-400. The reason for the macro is self-explanatory.

Still love the IQ from both the lenses although I find I'm using the macro more than I thought I ever would since it is fun to shoot with a prime and it has wonderful sharpness and bokeh. The 70-300 only sees occasional use when I know I need the reach and because it's just too heavy to always justify carrying it.