First L Lens?

[toastboy]

Having just taken delivery of a shiny new Eos 40D, I'll start saving now for an upgraded lens.

I currently have EFS 10-22, Sigma 24-85 EX DG and a EF 70-300 IS USM and all get fairly equal usage.

There's a big choice of Canon L lenses but which would you guys recommend?

[Bee_Jay]

toastboy said:

Having just taken delivery of a shiny new Eos 40D, I'll start saving now for an upgraded lens.

I currently have EFS 10-22, Sigma 24-85 EX DG and a EF 70-300 IS USM and all get fairly equal usage.

There's a big choice of Canon L lenses but which would you guys recommend?

The 10-22 is bloody good, with no L equivalent.

Looking at the other 2, how about the 24-70 2.8 L ? A great starter into the world of L (which I followed up with the purchase of the 70-200 2.8 IS L) I've not heard of the 24-85 Sigma before, so don't know how much of an upgrade it would be.

[toastboy]

Just checked, Sigma is actually F2.8 24-70mm.

Nice lens but damn heavy.

[Bee_Jay]

In which case, I would look for one of the longer, L IS lenses, since that is a bit close to the Canon 24-70 2.8 L.

Maybe the 100-400 IS L?

[Andy M]

I've never understood these type of topics, as surely your style of photography will indicate which lens is best for you? And why limit yourself just to 'L' lenses?

My first 'L' was a 17-40L which I still use a lot today. It replaced my Sigma 18-125mm as I noticed I was shooting more wide angle than I was towards the 125 end.

What do you shoot? What do you want to shoot? What is your budget?

[Famous Graham]

Andy M said:

I've never understood these type of topics, as surely your style of photography will indicate which lens is best for you?

My first big purchase, lens-wise, after I got my 300D + 18-55 kit, was a 400mm L. Because I was into airshows at the time (still am, to be honest, just haven't managed to get to one for 2 years ). Had that for 3 years and joined it with a 24-105 L as I started getting a more "general" involvement in photography. Never did find anything that matched the 400, although to be fair, I had trouble getting used to the 100-400's push/pull - I've seen some comparable pictures (in terms of image quality) between the 400 5.6 and the 100-400 and there's not much in it at all.

Those two did me fine, although I did complement them with the Sig 10-20, Sig 105 macro and a Canon 50mm 1.4. All of which had specific applications (landscape, macro obviously and lowlight performance stuff).

Until I met the 70-200 But that was short lived unfortunately, as I needed to raise some cash.

[jagdpanther]

Style would normally depict that, but it depends on how new to it you are

I was given recommendations from a friend because, at the time, I didn't have any particular style as I was just starting out.

Now I've developed my own style, I know full well what I'm getting next

[toastboy]

Andy M said:

I've never understood these type of topics, as surely your style of photography will indicate which lens is best for you? And why limit yourself just to 'L' lenses?

My first 'L' was a 17-40L which I still use a lot today. It replaced my Sigma 18-125mm as I noticed I was shooting more wide angle than I was towards the 125 end.

What do you shoot? What do you want to shoot? What is your budget?

I hadn't thought of developing a style of photography. If anything I guess it would be travel. I share the lenses with my other half and so I generally take pictures according to the lens.

I did have a 50mm f1.8 for a while which I really liked playing around with the narrow depth of field. Unfortunately, I dropped it after only a couple of months of use and haven't got around to replacing it yet.

The possibilities I thought of so far were.
100-400mm
another fast prime with narrow DOF
tilt shift
macro
or a better quality walkabout lens.

Budget would have to be below £1000.

I just wondered what upmarket Canon fit lenses people liked and recommended.

[Famous Graham]

Sounds like the 24-105 is a shoe-in, to be honest. It's a brilliantly versatile (and consistently performing) lens.

[RobDickinson]

100-400L if you want a relativly slow but high quality longer zoom.

If you want a fast tele instead then a 70-200f2.8 will always be a good un to have. Love my (sigma) variant.

Does it have to be an L? if you liked the prime theres the 50F1.4, or sigmas 30 or 50 f1.4

[Famous Graham]

RobDickinson said:

100-400L if you want a relativly slow but high quality longer zoom.

If you want a fast tele instead then a 70-200f2.8 will always be a good un to have. Love my (sigma) variant.

Yeah but if he's focusing (hoho) on travel stuff, then it's a bit short on the wide front. So to speak. Brilliant lens, as is your Sig, but nonetheless. The 10-22 is a bit TOO wide (as is the Sig 10-20). So combine that with the "better walkabout lens" option and it's two birds, one cu...stone.

[RobDickinson]

I've never had a classic walkabout lens (closest I have is an old 28-80) and I dont miss it. This guy already has a 24-85.

If you want a 1 lens for holiday thing get canons 18-200IS.

[Famous Graham]

I miss my 24-105. Could you tell?

[RobDickinson]

Famous Graham said:

I miss my 24-105. Could you tell?

Just a bit !

If the OP uses the 10-22, 24-85 and 70-300 equally and looking for better quality (IQ or build or both?) rather than covering more focal lengths..

It has to be a 24-70f2.8L (or prehaps the 24-105) or 70-200f2.8L.


Theres a lot of debate between the 24-70 and 24-105, some have both some switch between them.

24-105 has IS but is F4, bokeh is poorer but its squarer at 24mm I think.

24-70 is huge and heavy without IS but you cant realy beat its IQ or bokeh in a canon (walkbout) zoom.

I'd put neither on a crop body though and go for the 17-55F2.8IS.

[4hero]

70-200 f2.8IS or 100-400, love mine

the 70-200 is a beautiful lens though, the favourite of my L collection so far..

[Famous Graham]

I guess if the 105 had a 2.8 copy, it'd be a no brainer. But then the price would be well out of budget anyway.

4hero - I loved my 70-200, but I'm still in denial. I only had it 4 months (and that was just the f4 IS, not the 2.8)

Edited by Famous Graham on Friday 12th December 00:08

[stigmundfreud]

as been said dont just get blinkered into thinking L. I have 2 L lenses both f4's and would now think perhaps the 2's would have been the way to go. I have the 17-40and the 24-105. Both excellent lenses and glad I have them. Use the latter for portraits but tbh when you see the quality in lesser (as in non-L) its sometimes hard to actually see the justification. I guess its down to what you want to shoot as to what you get.

For what its worth I have the 85 1.8 and the 50 1.8, both a lot cheaper and both excellent lenses. I guess being primes helps up the quality to some extent but the 85 1.8 is bloody fantastic. Just go into L ownership with open eyes that L doesnt equate to the best for budget (always)

Edited by stigmundfreud on Friday 12th December 02:34

[toastboy]

Thanks for the replies.

I guess the reason I mentioned L lenses is that a friend advised me it was the only way to get the best out of the camera. I'd be open to ideas for any decent lens within budget, it wouldn't necessarily have to be Canon either.

I won't have the money for a while but having something to aim for helps me save the pennies.

[stigmundfreud]

toastboy said:

Thanks for the replies.

I guess the reason I mentioned L lenses is that a friend advised me it was the only way to get the best out of the camera. I'd be open to ideas for any decent lens within budget, it wouldn't necessarily have to be Canon either.

I won't have the money for a while but having something to aim for helps me save the pennies.

if that is genuinely what tehy said then they are a fool and you should not listen to this person. They clearly have no clue.

[SamHH]

If you don't know what you want, then I'd wait until you do before spending £1000. There are loads of lenses that are better in one way or another than the lenses you have, but they're all worthless if they don't meet your particular needs.