Warning! Do NOT buy L Glass

[Webster]

I was perfectly happy with my 75-300 and my 28-135, but I needed just a little more wide angle. The ol' 1.6 blues, you know? Not knowing what was in store for me I went and bought a 17-40. Now I've lost my family and my job, and find myself wandering the street muttering "must...have...more...L". I tried to sell my kids into slavery, but they're bigger and stronger than me, and I barely escaped with my life. I mugged a mafia numbers runner, but even though he was just finishing his rounds he still didn't have enough cash. The local drug dealer is just around the corner. He'd better beware.

My perfectly happy life has been ruined, just by the unthinking purchase of a single lens. I'm surprised Canon doesn't give away the first one free.

Must...have...more...L!!!

[sdommin]

webster wrote:
I'm surprised Canon doesn't give away the first one free.


Hmmm... Maybe we can run this one by Canon's marketing people. I like that idea!

[hickory]

webster,

that was great! have you considered a membership in "L glass anonymous"??

[Longwatcher]

At least you did not get one of the f2.8 zooms, you can still be saved (or at least your pocket book can).

The 17-40 was not available when I went looking so I got the 16-35/2.8L, then the 50/1.4. I was hooked on aperture as well as "L".

only $55,244* and the 1200mm left to spend ;) :)

I was thinking I had a problem when I bought the 70-200/2.8L IS, but it takes great pictures (as opposed to the photographer).

On the good side with a full set of 2.8 zooms from 16-200, my addiction is satisfied for the moment (at least until a FF camera I want/can afford comes out)

Just my addiction,

*trivia: based on latest BH prices for US version.

[Belmondo]

sdommin wrote:
webster wrote:
I'm surprised Canon doesn't give away the first one free.


Hmmm... Maybe we can run this one by Canon's marketing people. I like that idea!

Dell Computers took a run at it and started a stampede just by offering the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS at roughly a third off the street price.

My solution to the L lens expense has worked pretty well. Do it all at once. It's too easy for the spouse to extract a promise to 'never do it again.' Then, when you do it again (and you will), you have to start all over with the abuse and guilt. If you have to go through this each and every time you buy a lens, you will evenually go completley mad.

No, just do it. Put a second mortgage on the house, sell the children into slavery, have the wife take in laundry, and do whatever else it takes, but do it now! Get the pain and suffering with over in one fell swoop!

You'll thank me for this someday.

Tom

[HeatherJL]

http://geoparent.com/graphics/emoticons/rofl3.gif You're funny.

I like the idea of Canon giving away the first one for free. http://geoparent.com/community/icons/thumbgrin.gif

Although I'm gonna pretend like I didn't see this post... http://geoparent.com/graphics/emoticons/noevil.gif I'm about to purchase the 70-200 2.8.

[johneo]

Webster, My story is exactly like yours right down to the lenses you have and the 17-40L that started your addiction.

One question though ... How did you get rid of the family? I've got a grown son that keeps coming back and my wife refuses to leave :-)

Seriously ... There is a different twist to my story. My plan was to build (or have my son build me) an up to date computer back in July. Then I would go for the 10D and the few accessories and lenses I might need.

Decided to get the 10D first, went with the 28-135IS and 75-300IS and still had the bankroll to build an OK computer but soon found out I needed a wider lens ... enter my addiction ... went with the 17-40L.

No new computer ... can't even shoot Or try to shoot RAW because this thing is so slow (300Mhz) that just opening the file I'm done. Hard drive is full and half the time my computer is on I'm burning the jpegs to CD. I'm even filling my HD on my computer at work!

So now I'm ready to build that new computer and I have this compulsion to keep going to the website that shows my new 100-400 L IS ... It's calling my name and it's driving me nuts, I tell you!!!

computer ... lens ... computer ... lens ... I need sleep!

[RichardtheSane]

L addiction is serious.
Very serious.
I started my collection with a 100-400 L IS. Lovely, finally I could get the quality I craved, the smooth operation, the silent fast focusing, and of coure it looks great too!
Now, as I am itching to get up early tomorow morning to pick up my 17-40L I am planning my next purchase....
need a standard lens like maybe a 24-70 (is that my credit card I hear running away!!!!)
Must buy decent tripod first...Must buy decent tripod first...Must buy decent tripod first...Must buy decent tripod first...Must buy decent tripod first...Must buy decent tripod first...Must buy decent tripod first...Must buy decent tripod first...Must buy decent tripod first...Must buy decent tripod first... :D :D :D :D :D :D
Priorities

L sends you nuts. My fiancee has got the right idea - whatever I don't use for the bills is my money, do with it as I please. And the Hound is not really that valuable in cash terms. He has funny ears though.

[MountainBiker]

I'm glad others have this problem - I thought I was the only one. I started with the 17-40 L, I'm off to America shortly and I'm going to get the 100-400 IS while I'm there but then there's the problem of what to get to fill the 40-100 gap............

My girlfriend is very tolerant, but she doesn't know the price of 'L' glass. I wonder if I could sneak a 24-70 into my camera bag without her noticing?

Will a cure be found? Do I need curing?

[teddynet]

johneo wrote:
How did you get rid of the family? I've got a grown son that keeps coming back ...

You need to fit the front door with a son screen!

[CyberDyneSystems]

It gets worse than "L Mania"....

It even surpasses "Apeture Envy"

.... after that comes "Prime Paranoia"!!!!!!

All those "L" Zooms are moot!!!!


...Oh the humanity!!!!

[Longwatcher]

The only known primary cure for all three symptoms of "L" glassitis will cost you about $60,000 with some people needing the 1200mm secondary injection treatment at about $72,000. After that small injections on a semi-annual basis of about $2000 should keep your addiction down to a reasonable level.

Unfortunately the only known insurance that will cover this treatment is supplied by only a few companies (SI and NG come to mind). Otherwise you are left to pay for the treatment on your own.

Good luck,

[Jyoti]

Thank god I'm not alone...

...my name is Jyoti and I'm an L Glass Addict...

I was perfectly happy with my 50/1.8, 28-135 and 75-300IS. Then I tried out the 17-40L in a London Camera Exchange shop. Mmmm...

So I bought it! It's soooo sharp, it's now become my fave portrait lens :

http://www.bzangy.net/Galleries/Blargle/image/nees2.jpg

Scratch that, it's become my favourite everything lens:

http://www.bzangygroink.co.uk/Galleries/OakwoodSept/image/sepwalk1.jpg

I'm now drooling at the thought of the 70-200, 24-70 and all those other seductive imps.

Save me!

[CyberDyneSystems]

Thats some link you got there;


Hello, (ip deleted)
using Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows 95; DigExt)


You appear to have generated a 403 FORBIDDEN! error


What were you trying to do, ya little tinker?

[D60DIETER]

Hi CDS,

try to get the 2.0/135 "L" and you will find out what the "L" means. This lens will drive you crazy - for shure.

Dieter

[Spinners]

i dont have any "L" or "IS" series lenses. so im a bit unfamiliar with products. a little clarification please.

does the "IS" series use "L" glass? can you buy just "L" or "IS" or do they make combo products like the "L/IS" series?

can anyone show me pics comparing the quality? is it outright noticable?

[Gibmeister]

You guys are scaring me. I just got my 17-40L in the mail today. Maybe I should send it back before I try it out.

Gib

[rdenney]

spinners wrote:
i dont have any "L" or "IS" series lenses. so im a bit unfamiliar with products. a little clarification please.

does the "IS" series use "L" glass? can you buy just "L" or "IS" or do they make combo products like the "L/IS" series?

can anyone show me pics comparing the quality? is it outright noticable?



"L" is the designation Canon uses to denote lenses that use special technology, such as their low-dispersion and flourite glass. They only use that expensive technology on lenses that are worth the money, so L lenses have come to be known as Canon's premium line.

But many non-L lenses are just as good, even if they are a bit slower or a bit less rugged. My 135 soft-focus prime performs as good as (or better) than my 70-200L, though new it isn't a lot cheaper. And even the $65 50/1.8 will make images as well as any L zoom. But it won't have that red stripe.

"IS" stands for "image stabilization", which is available on both L and non-L lenses. It uses a motor-driven correcting element to track and correct for small camera movements, which reduces hand-held camera vibration.

To the original poster:

Canon really has three lens grades, or perhaps even four. My 20-35 is not an L, but it is a fine lens that produces excellent results. It is cheaper than the lens you bought, but also has a narrower zoom range and a slower aperture. The L lenses don't always outperform non-L lenses, but they add a capability not available on non-L lenses in the same categorys. Your lens is wider, and the more expensive 16-35L is both wider and faster than my 20-35. I put the 20-35 in the "serious amateur" quality range, one grade below L. But I would put, say, the 50/1.4 at the same quality level as the L lenses--it just doesn't have the special technology (or the red stripe). Canon also makes purely consumer-quality lenses. I have a 35-80 that has lightness as its only redeeming quality. I use it when taking closeups of slobbery dogs, perhaps, but not when image quality is paramount.

Having been afflicted by Lens Envy for many years, I can say that L lenses are only expensive compared to other Canon lenses. Compared to Leitz or Zeiss lenses for Leica and Contax cameras, the L lenses don't seem so expensive.

For me, though, quantity has always been more satisfying than quality. I have 14, 16, 20-35, 50 macro, 28-70, 135 soft focus, and 70-200 lenses that I'm not embarassed to use, and only one is an L. All the others combined cost about the same as one of the 2.8L's.

Rick "who has 17 lenses for medium format and 5 lenses for large format, not to mention 6 lenses for the FD mount, and who feels your pain" Denney

[ashforth]

Joneo-

Check out Apex:

http://www.gotapex.com/deals.php

Also techbargains.com

They have some great deals posted for PC's and other goodies.

Herb

[danphoto1]

I am a faithfull member of the club. of L addiction. I agree it never is enough. I love the 24-70 It is great for portraits and just general all around shooting2.8 and I use the 100-400 for shooting soccer and baseball. and the 2.8 70-200 2.8 for basket ball and volleyball. I am afraid that I just can't afford some of the other glasss and may be forced to settlw for the sigma 120-300 2.8. I still know that I won't be happy or satisfied untill I get an IS 2.8 400. Maybe I'll sell my house and car and be able to get more and even the 1200mm


Dan

[Jyoti]

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
Thats some link you got there;


Whoops! Sorry, mate - I forgot I'd disabled hotlinking (as a result of some pesky bandwidth leeches).

As for the error message, I got bored of the error haikus I nicked from BeOs... ;)

Back on topic...

What should my very next L glass purchase be? The 24-70? Is all the great stuff I've heard about this lens justified?

[CyberDyneSystems]

Dan,

I love my L lenses too,.

but I wnated to say I love my Sigma 500mm f/4.5 even more. I'm sure if I could afford a Canon 500mm I might change my tune, (never tried one :( ) but I can tell you this Sigma is every bit as good as the Nikon I once used.

I say this as you mention the 120-300mm Sigma,. it too is supposed to be a stellar peice of glass,.. but I wonder wil it be quite as sharp ass the also very well respected Sigma 300mm f/2.8 Prime?

I only say this as I have "seen the light" of the "Prime Directive" having used thies amazing 500mm,.. and will be looking only at primes for a while. The Sigma 300mm is built very much like this 500m,. and I imagine it may be in my future,.. (some time offf though I'm afraid.)

[danphoto1]

I used the Sigma 300mm prime great peice of glass. I shot at Boston Bruins training camp a couple of years ago. the light was terrible but not the lens. I am lucky that one of the photo shops actually rents it out. I looked at the 120 to 300 on a !v but I want to see it on the 1D that I own. it is light for 2.8 and small and rather compact. I might just put my house up for sale and see if I can rent a tent or live in a cardboard box. I own the sigma 50-500 and it is what it is. It has it's good points and bad points. the prime 300 f2 is less suited to what I will use it for. I shoot all of the sports action for RI Community College and the zoom affords me more ability to shoot the action because sometime it is difficult to move around and catch all the angles and fill frames If I was working for SI (but not this week )I could afford what I need/want.I own the Sigma 1.8 20mm and the 2.8 14 mm both are great lenses. Your point is well taken and I understand the concept. It is just that my abilty to purchase well I'm only a few thousand short for what I would like to have sotrade offs for now.

[defordphoto]

I remember the day when I only had the 28-135IS and a Sigma 70-300. I was getting some good shots from both those lenses. Great shots as a matter of fact.

And then I bought the 100-400L IS.

The difference is amazing. Breathtaking. Color, brightness, contrast and sharpness explode with L glass. I have the best photos of my life with my 100-400IS.

And then I bought the 70-200L IS.

Many call this Canon's finest zoom. With second-generation IS, this lens is as near to perfect as perfection can be. The zoom mechanism is a smooth as butter. AF is instant and silent.

And then I....Well, story to be continued. I will be buying more L-glass in the near future. A super-wide angle is next on my list.

[johneo]

Dan, Nice to see a fellow Rhode Islander here! I'm in North Kingstown.

[Canuck]

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
Dan,

I love my L lenses too,.

but I wnated to say I love my Sigma 500mm f/4.5 even more. I'm sure if I could afford a Canon 500mm I might change my tune, (never tried one :( ) but I can tell you this Sigma is every bit as good as the Nikon I once used.

I say this as you mention the 120-300mm Sigma,. it too is supposed to be a stellar peice of glass,.. but I wonder wil it be quite as sharp ass the also very well respected Sigma 300mm f/2.8 Prime?

I only say this as I have "seen the light" of the "Prime Directive" having used thies amazing 500mm,.. and will be looking only at primes for a while. The Sigma 300mm is built very much like this 500m,. and I imagine it may be in my future,.. (some time offf though I'm afraid.)

In regards to the Sigma 120-300 F2.8 lens could we refer them to the post we made, and/or you're website. Need more proof? IMHO, it is a stunning piece of 5.75 lb glass! I have a few more to prove it. I took some more pics of the moon last night, 1st Nov, and I can't get over this lens! I will try later today to nab a few of Ely Cathedral and send them to you and we can have another go at that post we did. If you go to CDS' website and click on Land, Sea, and Sky, there are 2 pics I took, one in Tenby, Wales that is compressed about 20 or 25:1 and one of the moon as taken and both are JPEGs! I only cropped out the rest of the night sky from the moon pic.
I would post this one of Concorde I took last Friday, but I'm gonna see about making some dosh on it first. It is nothing short of amazing! I was stunned! I have one that I jacked up, and split it thru some street post lights that I might send for posting. I have to double check and make sure it really reflects the quality of the 120-300 lens I have. I don't know how it compares to the 300 prime, but there is a limit for the human eye that we can perceive and if it isn't there, on the 120-300 it must be insanely close I would think.
This is my opinion only.

In the other hand, I have a Canon 16-35L lens that I have been using and I'm stunned! Now the job is to bridge the gap from 35-120mm. I need some dosh first, and am thinking that the Christmas sales might be the time to get another lens or 2. Now the million pound question, Sigma EX or Canon L glass. I too have L Glass envy. Life, sleep, eat, breathe L glass 24/7, the rest is just details! :)

The debate continues, Canon L glass or Sigma EX.

Add on 2nd Nov 03:
I have pics of Ely Cathedral that I am looking thru. I have taken them RAW for the reason which has been beaten to death and then some on this forum. I should have them ready to send inside the week, I hope. It will be based on what kind of time I have. Ely Cathedral was completed in 1189 and is a stunning Gothic Cathedral over here. It happens to be somewhat close and I go to Ely a fair bit for misc stuff. I'm in a weird spot as this is the only decent sized town within 30 minutes of driving. Those that have driven over here know that a 30 mile trip can take an hour just cuz of the roads over here. It is hard to explain. Maybe I need to use a lifeline and enquire with some British people why that is. It isn't a problem, it's just one bit I noticed and am pointing out.

Cheers from England,
Canuck

[hawg]

I thought it was just me. Now I can feel better the next time i sell blood.

[ron chappel]

I only have one awsome lens-not an L but it deserves the title!!
It's the 100 macro (non usm).What an absolute honker

Of course all shots don't turn out magically great---but the percentage of good shots is much higher than lesser lenses and a small percentage are stageringly good,unbelievable,allmost lifelike effect,like you could step into the shot.

[droosan]

Gibmeister wrote:
You guys are scaring me. I just got my 17-40L in the mail today. Maybe I should send it back before I try it out.

Gib

No, send it to me. If I don't like it, I'll send it back to you and you'll know it is safe to use. If I get so attached to it that I can't send it back, you'll be saved from having to buy a new camera bag of L lenses.

[RichardtheSane]

[quote]Canuck wrote:
Those that have driven over here know that a 30 mile trip can take an hour just cuz of the roads over here.[quote]
Ah, the Uk roads. Making driving truly fun :) you see if we used as much tarmac on the roads as they do over the atlantic then the UK would have run out of countryside by now, bad for photographers :D

[Belmondo]

When I bought my 10D, I still had my EOS 650 with a 35-70 Canon lens on it. That lens was acceptable for about a day and a half before I realized it was not the hot setup on a 10D.

In fairly rapid succession, I bought the 28-135 IS, and then the 75-300 IS. I was quite satisfied with those lenses for a few months, but longed for more wide angle. After an unhappy experience with a Sigma 17-35 EX, I bought the Canon 17-40L and was really impressed with the picture quality. Then, I bought the 400 f/5.6 L after being offered a deal I couldn't pass up. Within hours, I'd taken some of the best pictures of my life, and I was absolutely hooked on 'L' lenses.

Since then, I've bought the 24-70L, the 70-200 f/4 L, and the 100-400L IS. I'll consider the job finished when I get the 70-200 f/2.8L IS, hopefully before next spring. The odd thing is, I have focal length duplications, and that will be even greater when I get the 70-200 f/2.8, but I can't bring myself to get rid of any of them. I suspect the first three lenses will end up on ebay, but it will be like selling family members. (which, in certain cases, is not a totally bad idea.)

Tom

[dwbrant]

As for the error message, I got bored of the error haikus I nicked from BeOs... ;)



Oh wow somebody else who knows BeOS? Gotta admit, I miss it somewhat. It was so "cute".

sorry for the off-topic post. I'll stop now.