Which L Lens to start with?

[Northstar]

If you are looking for IQ and versatility, then the 70-200 2.8 ii is the lens that will have you seeing a difference compared to your current lenses.

 

[alexanderferdinand]

To start: most used 24-70/II.
Then, close second 70-200/2.8 II.
Primes: 35L and 135L.

 

[Mendolera]

I third or fourth the 70-300L ($1300) as the the lens that might cover a lot what your looking for.

However, I would seriously consider the 70-200L F/4 ($550) for the price if you dont need IS or the wider aperture. Its defintely going to be sharper the 18-200 and not that much less then the 2.8 II.

When and if the newer 100-400L gets replaced expect it do be at least $2500.. The current version is great and I got mine like new on CL for $900 so there are deals to be found on this lens currently.

 

[zim]

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...

Don't know if you helped the OP's but you sure made me think
I'm gonna print this out!

Thank you for taking the time

 

[cid]

My first L lens was (and still is) 100mm L IS - it's a great lens and I have to say it was my first prime too. I have to say, that having fixed focal length made me think more about composition then using zoom where it was very comfortable to just zoom in to "get closer" or zoom out to "fit everything in". It is also very very very sharp lens and it's very easy to get used to it.

So my advice? If you want L, then buy L, invest in some nice prime to start (100/135mm?), but first rent some of them, test them and then get most of the one you chose

 

[Marsu42]

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.

You will see the difference when the L quality lens goes on shooting when your ef-s breaks down :->

But the 17-40L isn't made for crop, I use it anyway and it's "good enough" at closed aperture f8 and "good" at f16, but this is a ff lens. It's is an unfortunate fact that Canon doesn't build ef-s L quality with sealing, but there you are. For the price, the 17-40L is good at what it is supposed to do: landscape with minimal flare, round bokeh lights, nice sunstars and a gel filter holder at the back.

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?

Also note the size and weight of this thing, you should really consider that if you're an amateur and want to carry it around and/or shoot a prolonged time.

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.

Converters are just a fix for temporary use - the 70-300L (I have it) works fine with the Kenko, or with the Canon but the latter only @300mm. Just like any zooms in the medium price range the sharpness degrades with a tc- so the general advice always is: Don't chose these lenses because you intend to use them with a tc, reserve that to the 300L-600L

My advice is also the 70-300L, good quality, excellent IS, ok sharpness unless you want 100% crop sharpness like usually only primes deliver, still a strong background blur depending on subject distance. Anything Canon releases next in the tele range will be a *lot* more expensive than this, it's an excellent first choice and a good iq-size-weight-price package.

 

[sandymandy]

24mm 1.4

 

[mrsfotografie]

I would get a telezoom. The standard and wide angle zooms make little sense on a crop body, and the 35 L is outperformed by the Sigma.

 

[Sella174]

I (appear to) do the same type of photography and have gone through quite a repertoire of lenses until I've finally settled on those I current own. So my recommendation would be (first) the EF 400mm f/5.6 L USM, for wildlife; and then (second) the EF 24mm f/2.8 USM IS, which gives roughly 35~40mm equivalent on APS-C, for general travel.

 

[DRR]

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)

(edit)

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

Based on these varied shooting requirements and your crop sensor cameras, I recommend a set of 3 or 4 mid level, fast primes versus a single L lens.

Perhaps something like
20mm 2.8 USM
50mm 1.4 USM
85mm 1.8 USM
100mm 2.0 USM

If you want a single lens I don't think you can go wrong with the 70-200 2.8 IS mkII. But consider primes also.

 

[j0epayne]

Get the 70-200 II and the 2x converter.

 

[chasinglight]

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.

This is my experience exactly. I shoot with the 7D and out of all my lenses the 70-200 is the least used. As said before it is either too long inside or too short outside (really awkward to use); however, when the focal length is just right it is a magical lens. The ONLY reason I haven't sold it is because I intend to to upgrade to FF relatively soon...but for the time being it mostly stays at home in its protective case.

In my experience, my first lens was the 18-135 (non STM). This was a good lens, but I did see a very noticeable improvement in IQ when I upgraded it to the 15-85. The 15-85 is my most used lens for everything but birding. The 50 1.8 as cheap as it is is great for low light photography. And the 100-400 is pretty good for birding.

so my recommendation would be a 15-85 for general photography (people, places, and things) and if you want to take your wildlife photography to the next level look at the 100-400 or the 400 5.6.

 

[magnum]

Thanks folks for your efforts and replies. I am overwhelmed by the responses. This is the first time I have posted like this on this forum and the responses have exceeded all my expectations. This is simply one of the most informative forums I have encountered. On other forums, not that I have post this issue there, i don't get much response. Thanks a million. You have given me much to think about and I am not in a hurry to make a purchase.

O'Neill thanks for your long reply. In reading it, I thought you have been reading my mail. My wife an I are recent enthusiasts photographers, only been a member of a camera club for our second year but it has really stretched us. This is the first year of seriously entering monthly club competitions (which are judged by Photographic Society of Queensland [PSQ] accredited judges, not club members) and I have already picked up seven awards (mainly merits but one highly commended) in 6 competitions. So this has spurred me on to want to achieve more with my photography. Hence the reason for looking at better glass. When I got our first 18-200mm EF-S lens I was impressed with the first outing (having had only kit lenses before). It's just a great walk around lens too and gives a great focal length range. We've photographed a few events in the last last year or two and this is such a great lens for these sorts of things where you need a good focal length range.

However, I want to start thinking about getting lenses that are more targeted to particular needs/types of photography (rather than the all rounders we have). The input I have received on this thread has been simply awesome, has helped a lot and is greatly appreciated. Keep it coming.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Thanks folks for your efforts and replies. I am overwhelmed by the responses. This is the first time I have posted like this on this forum and the responses have exceeded all my expectations. This is simply one of the most informative forums I have encountered. On other forums, not that I have post this issue there, i don't get much response. Thanks a million. You have given me much to think about and I am not in a hurry to make a purchase.

O'Neill thanks for your long reply. In reading it, I thought you have been reading my mail. My wife an I are recent enthusiasts photographers, only been a member of a camera club for our second year but it has really stretched us. This is the first year of seriously entering monthly club competitions (which are judged by Photographic Society of Queensland [PSQ] accredited judges, not club members) and I have already picked up seven awards (mainly merits but one highly commended) in 6 competitions. So this has spurred me on to want to achieve more with my photography. Hence the reason for looking at better glass. When I got our first 18-200mm EF-S lens I was impressed with the first outing (having had only kit lenses before). It's just a great walk around lens too and gives a great focal length range. We've photographed a few events in the last last year or two and this is such a great lens for these sorts of things where you need a good focal length range.

However, I want to start thinking about getting lenses that are more targeted to particular needs/types of photography (rather than the all rounders we have). The input I have received on this thread has been simply awesome, has helped a lot and is greatly appreciated. Keep it coming.

At the beginning of the post, it seemed like you just wanted a lens L which is equivalent to 18-200mm, and in fact there is no such lens. How are you getting more serious in photography, the way is to replace the 18-200mm for a set of lenses. I do not know how much you are willing to spend, but follows a short list of lenses which serve several purposes.
EF-S17-55mm F2.8 IS
EF70-200mm F4L IS
EF50mm F1.4
EF100mm F2

 

[Axilrod]

What focal length do you shoot at most often? I'd seriously consider the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8, I was absolutely floored when I used in on an FS700 and I've owned pretty much every L lens under 200mm. It's the fastest zoom you can buy, reasonably priced, well-built, and sharp as a tack, plus it's made to be used with APS-C sensors. If you want something with a bit more range I'd go with the 17-55 f/2.8 IS.

 

[Marsu42]

Thanks folks for your efforts and replies. I am overwhelmed by the responses. This is the first time I have posted like this on this forum and the responses have exceeded all my expectations. This is simply one of the most informative forums I have encountered.

Spending other people's money is my (our?) favorite pastime :-> ... and here are a lot of enthusiasts around who understand that shelling out thousands of $$$ should be not done easily, I also got great help here as to what lenses are best for me.

 

[Tabor Warren Photography]

We have a 7D & 60D and we almost always have the 35 1.4L on one of them at all times. I know its focal range is covered by your other lens, but I have been extremely pleased with the quality that comes from this lens, plus, being a 1.4, you can handle some low light situations as well.

Cheers,
-Tabor

 

[adebrophy]

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.

I echo that 100%! I think this rivals some of my Ls in quality - sharp wide open and lovely contrast and colour. The limitations of a prime are really good at forcing you to step up creatively. I think that lens and the 135L make an astounding pairing.

Also, I'd recommend trying the super cheap 70-200 f4 L. The non-IS model was my first L lens and it blew away my consumer 70-300 - nice and sharp and very fast at focusing. It's also light which makes it a lens you'll be happy to take hiking. Best of all you can get them secondhand for £400, which is insane.

 

[magnum]

Ok over the last couple of days I've ha a bit of think about this after all the great advice, comments and experiences. Thanks a million. This is a great forum.

I am now thinking of a toss between two non-L lenses both the EF-S. They are:

10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM; or
17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

I am leaning towards the 10-22m as this gives us a range we don't current have and would make a nice ultra wide lense on 7D and 600D for landscape.

Once again seeking comments, views and experiences especially from members who have used this lens.

 

[bjale]

Get the 70-200 II and the 2x converter.

I have this and after 2 years of usage the 70-200 II is my most use lens and when searching for birds I use the 2x, love it on my 7D.