Which L Lens to start with?

[magnum]

I have a Canon 7D and my wife has a 600D. We have on both the EF-S 18-200mm 1:3.5-5.6 IS lenses and find these pretty satisfactory general walk around lens (with the obvious compromise for the large focal length range).

I have been thinking of late of getting our first "L" lens. As enthusiast rather than professional photographers without a endless budget and the price of these lenses, we really don't want to waste money getting the wrong lens.

Our interests in photography are (not in any particular order):
1. Landscape and travel
2. Nature, animal, birds (not macro)
3. People (not portrait)

With this in mind I recently hired a EF 17-40mm f4.0L USM (as a potential landscape lens) but was underwhelmed when I compared it side-by-side with our 18-200mm using equivalent focal lengths and exposures. I was expecting this L lens (Canon's cheapest and most popular, so I read) to stand head and shoulders above the 18-200mm in image quality, color saturation, brightness, etc. But my (admittedly) amateur eye could not see the difference.

So my thinking now is towards the opposite (focal length) end and I am thinking of a telephoto zoom. I like the focal length available on 100-400mm L lens but as the rumors are that this is likely to be updated soon, I don't want to buy old technology for my first L lens. I also hear good reports about the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens but the maximum focal length is a bit shy of what I would/might want for a serious nature lens.

Any thoughts, experiences and/or advice are welcome and sought.

 

[Aaron78]

My first L lens was the 70-200 2.8 II, and it remains my most used lens.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The L lenses like the 17-40mm L will be much better on FF.

I'd suggest the 15-85mm or the 17-55mm for your crop camera, they are a much better match to the APS-C sensor. If you don't mind changing lenses, a combination of the 10-22mm EF-s and the 24-105mmL would work.

The 18-135mm STM is also said to be pretty good.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

For visible improvement in picture quality, not all L lenses are wonderful. Canon 15-85mm or 17-55mm can really expand your way of photographing. I do not see much advantage in STM 18-135 though.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Consider the 70-300L. Excellent IQ, useful range on crop and FF, great travel lens.

 

[magnum]

Aaron, I hear really good reports on the Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Telephoto Zoom Lens. Of course, it is one of Canon's most expensive zoom L's. I take this is due to the fast (f2.8) characteristics combined with the L quality?

Neuro, it is the Canon EF 70-300mm F4-5.6L IS USM to which you are referring? I hear good things about this too. But one downside is that it doesn't taken the Canon converters.

 

[jdramirez]

the 17-40 really needs to be stopped down a good bit before it starts to shine. landscape and bidding are usually two different lenses entirely. if you are looking for some remarkable improvement and you have two grand to spare, I'd suggest maybe a 35mm sigma which it's a very useful focal length for people, and a 400mm L f5.6. two very different lenses for two very different subjects.

maybe you have a bit more cash, throw in a 10-22 or a tokina 11-16.

 

[batotman]

You're probably not going to see a massive difference or at least enough to satisfy you. If it were me I'd look at a prime like a 35/2 or 50/1.4 for some creative options or the 40/2.8 for street photography.

 

[takesome1]

Magnum,

You learned a valuable lesson from the 17-40, while the price of L lenses is 3 times that of non L lenses the improvement in IQ is fractional.

I would go with the 70-200mm F/2.8 as well.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Aaron, I hear really good reports on the Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Telephoto Zoom Lens. Of course, it is one of Canon's most expensive zoom L's. I take this is due to the fast (f2.8) characteristics combined with the L quality?

Neuro, it is the Canon EF 70-300mm F4-5.6L IS USM to which you are referring? I hear good things about this too. But one downside is that it doesn't taken the Canon converters.

Yes, that's the lens to which I was referring. I have both the 70-200/2.8L IS II and the 70-300L. Personally, I found the 70-200 range a bit awkward on APS-C - too long indoors, not long enough outdoors. I didn't use it much on my 7D, but after getting a FF camera it became my second most-used lens.

 

[7Dneilan]

Hi there,

As a keen amateur, I have just taken the plunge and ordered a 70-200 f2.8 - I am beside myself with excitement! I've had a play with the 70-200 f4 and loved the versatility, so I am really looking forward to the wider aperture. If focal length is a concern, an extender will help you out.

You would not regret it and as long as you treat it nice, it will hold a great deal of its value for potential resale, should you decide to upgrade to a longer lens.

Good luck!

 

[crasher8]

wider L zooms aren't so great on crops imho and offer not usually desirable focal lengths but YMMV. I say look into the medium telephoto primes. 100L Macro, 135 f/2. Now those are lenses that shine on all bodies.

 

[Cory]

Sigma 30 1.4 Art and
Canon 100-400

 

[ONeill]

You've reached the stage where you recognize that you can improve your photography, and you're wondering how to go about it. This is an exciting place to be, but also one fraught with confusion. The mistake that a lot of new SLR photographers make is to think that an ultra-sharp lens will, somehow, magically improve their photography and make their pictures look 'professional'. Actually, this is the wrong way to approach things. May I suggest that what you should do right now is think about how you can change your approach to how you take pictures? How can you make your pictures different from the crowd? Can you look at things in a different way? As a so-called professional, this is the question that I ask myself every day on the drive in to work.

L lenses won't inherently give you this - what they will give you is a robust and reliable tool that you can use every day without having to worry about it and that you can realistically expect will still be earning you money in three years time. Most of all, what you're going to get from an L lens is robustness, reliability, solidity and a tool that will do the job in adverse conditions, amidst a scrum of other photographers when, quite frankly, all you want to do is go home. Sharpness and color rendition comes a long second to all this. An L lens is just a working tool. Yes, generally, they will be slightly better than consumer lenses in sharpness terms (though not always), but there is a limit to this. It's not that L lenses are bad, more that these days, consumer lenses are really good, and good value to boot. Just not reliable or tough enough for day-in, day-out professional use. That's what you're paying for. Believe me, I'm much more concerned that my lens/camera will stand up to a bash against a wall than how sharp the lens is. When I want to make a memorable photograph, sharpness is a very minor consideration. Composition, perspective, content and subject interest and dynamics are what I'm looking for. I take accurate focus and an acceptably sharp result for granted, and even focus is a tool in itself. And you're probably going to be looking at most of your pics on a computer screen at best. Come on, guys, how many of you regularly print photos to 20x30?

So you want to spend some money. That's fine. First of all, go and get yourself a copy of Adobe Lightroom and learn how to use it. This will make more difference to your photographs than any lens ever will. Check out Lyndadotcom - it's a great educational resource. Learn how to use your camera in aperture priority mode and in full manual. Then, as JDRamirez suggests, get yourself a good prime lens and a polarizing filter. The new Sigma 35mm is a very good place to start. If I only had one lens, it would be a 35 prime (and my second would be a 135L). This will teach you to make yourself think before you release the shutter. It'll stop you being lazy and make you more aware than you believed possible of what's in front of you. Put your zoom lens away for a month or two and dream up some projects with specific themes that you'll use your new lens exclusively for. Rust. Specific colors. Water. Close up. Monochrome. Motion blur - whatever - anything that your imagination can come up with, but be strict with your self and don't goof off, because at the end of the day, the only person you'll be fooling will be yourself. Walk out of the door with a purpose and don't get side-tracked. Down the line, you can pick up a 300L f/4 or 400L f/5.6 or similar for your wildlife, etc. Same theory as the 35. For travel, you've already got a great lens. Personally, I'm not a great fan of ultra-wides (e.g. 10-22) until you've got a lot more mileage under your belt. They're novelty lenses in most people's hands, although that particular lens is very good on a crop camera. Whilst the 70-200 f/2.8 v2 is a magical lens on full frame, somehow, as someone else mentioned, it doesn't really gel on a crop body. Furthermore, you've already covered its range. If you really have to get a zoom, the 70-300L will work better for you.

Not sure that this is what you wanted to hear, but I remember when I had the same questions as you (back in 1978). I wish I knew then what I know now...

 

[scottkinfw]

The 70-200 2.8 II is is awesome. Of course it is big, heavy, and white (attention grabber, if that matters). It takes wonderfully crisp photos, have one, love it. I had the 17-40, didn't like it- gave it away free to a friend.
On the closer in range, I love the 24-70 2.8 II It has been putting out the sharpest pics of all of my lenses lately. It is small, black, easy to carry, and is great. You obviously don't get reach, but wow, what an image.

I also have the 24-105 with is, and this also has been a wonderful lens for me. It is slower at f4, but has is. I have read that a lot of people complain of bad copies, but I guess I got lucky.

You only mentioned zooms, so that is all I will comment on. One thing to consider is that the 70-200 works very nicely with a tc for increased reach!

Neuro swears by his 70-300L with variable f stop. Lighter than the 70-200 2.8 and has excellent iq and better range. Of course you may want to look into some older lenses like the 400 f5.6 or the 300 f4 is, as cheaper prime alternatives.

Don't forget to consider refurbs from Canon too

[quote

author=magnum link=topic=16624.msg306256#msg306256 date=1377481042]
I have a Canon 7D and my wife has a 600D. We have on both the EF-S 18-200mm 1:3.5-5.6 IS lenses and find these pretty satisfactory general walk around lens (with the obvious compromise for the large focal length range).

I have been thinking of late of getting our first "L" lens. As enthusiast rather than professional photographers without a endless budget and the price of these lenses, we really don't want to waste money getting the wrong lens.

Our interests in photography are (not in any particular order):
1. Landscape and travel
2. Nature, animal, birds (not macro)
3. People (not portrait)

With this in mind I recently hired a EF 17-40mm f4.0L USM (as a potential landscape lens) but was underwhelmed when I compared it side-by-side with our 18-200mm using equivalent focal lengths and exposures. I was expecting this L lens (Canon's cheapest and most popular, so I read) to stand head and shoulders above the 18-200mm in image quality, color saturation, brightness, etc. But my (admittedly) amateur eye could not see the difference.

So my thinking now is towards the opposite (focal length) end and I am thinking of a telephoto zoom. I like the focal length available on 100-400mm L lens but as the rumors are that this is likely to be updated soon, I don't want to buy old technology for my first L lens. I also hear good reports about the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens but the maximum focal length is a bit shy of what I would/might want for a serious nature lens.

Any thoughts, experiences and/or advice are welcome and sought.
[/quote]

 

[timmy_650]

My vote would be EF-s 17-55 f2.8 (if you go full frame later you can sell it without much lost, if any) And 70-300L or the 100-400. I love the 70-200 F2.8 mkII but the price is hard to get pass for your first L lens. I would rather have you good L lens than one Great one.

 

[aroo]

It's not a telephoto, so forgive me if this is off-topic, but I'm often really excited about images from my 40mm pancake lens. It's a huge step up in clarity and sharpness from the lens you have, and it doesn't cost much at all. Also consider picking up a nifty fifty (50mm f/1.8) to see if wide apertures do anything for you. It feels good to know for sure why you want a particular lens before buying it.

 

[The Bad Duck]

Oo shiny upgrades!
What is it that you want your new lens to do? Better low-light shooting? More shallow DoF? More focal length? Less focal length?

1. Landscape = good tripod and a stopped down lens. @ f/11 most lenses are pretty good. Of course the 10-22 is great, you might want to think about that lens, but personally I seldom use ultra wide angle for lanscapes.
travel = your 18-200 AND a low light lens like the 28 /1.8, 30 /1.4, 35 /1.4 for nightshots on the go. the 10-22 can give cool images in narrow places.

2. Nature, animal, birds (not macro) = as long a lens as you can get. You can never have too much focal length for birds. 100-400 may be a good choise. The 400 /5.6 lacks IS but has a little bit more contrast. Sigma 120-300 /2.8 Sport is a favourite, but expensive and heavy. 70-200 /2.8 II and a extenders is another way to go. Long lenses are either expensive or not very good. And you really should only buy the good lenses. Do it right the first time or regret it and buy the good lens later (and waste money).

3. People (not portrait) = your 18-200. Personaly I prefer primes for shooting people but that´s just me. If you don´t want the short DoF of fast lenses, then there is not much need to get something new. perhaps you would feel different about portraits with a nice portrait lens as the 85 /1.8 or 50 /1.4 and go that way with your people photography?

It´s not easy to choose, that´s why I need a larger camera backpack nowadays...
Good luck!

 

[BrandonKing96]

perhaps a basic 24-105L? maybe coupled with a 70-300L or 100-400L?

 

[Haydn1971]

My first question would be do you shoot in raw and do you have Lightroom ?

If you don't, try this first, including buying a book on Lightroom... Next up, check at what focal lengths you shoot at most, this is easy in Lightroom... I'd first consider a better APS-C lens, i had the 15-85mm, but the 17-55mm might work for you, my photos kinda looked a bit better, next up I'd consider a low f stop prime, I got the 50mm f1.4 new and a secondhand 135mm f2.0 L prime, my photos started to buzz with these. I added the 10-22mm which was fun to use and gave me some great images... I also got into using ND grads, polarising filters and black glass.

My story drifts from here, as I took the plunge with a 6D when it was launched, bought a 16-35mm soon after, then a 24-70 f2.8 II soon after that.... I sold my 450D which ended up costing me £50 per year of use, bargain ! Sold my 15-85mm which had cost me about £60 per year of use.... Still need to get shut of the 10-22mm and although I'm pondering swapping my 70-300 non L for something better, I'm still getting good images from it, just annoyed with the buzzy AF it has and slight loss of image quality beyond 200mm (pixel creeping necessary to see)

Moral for me is don't jump in at first, learn what you need through Lightroom, play with light using filters and once you get to know your photos, use that knowledge to improve your kit sensibly.