If it should be only one L lens

[Sendide]

Hi fellas,
this question has been asked more than once in this forum , I've been reading some of the comments. pb is , Ihad an Elan II , 28-105 USM , 75-300 IS USM and lately I got 100 mm USM Macro with the 10D.
to really take all advantage of D. photography, I want to put a hole in my pocket and go for "ONE" L lens. so please, with the lenses I mentioned above, which "L"lens will be the most helpful for me?
lanscapes .....
thanks in advance

[ssim]

Well if all you are after is something for landscapes I would go for the 24-70. It really depends on what you are intending on shooting. I also have the 16-35 and the 70-200 both L series and they are both excellent.

[kafene]

Hi fellas,
this question has been asked more than once in this forum , I've been reading some of the comments. pb is , Ihad an Elan II , 28-105 USM , 75-300 IS USM and lately I got 100 mm USM Macro with the 10D.
to really take all advantage of D. photography, I want to put a hole in my pocket and go for "ONE" L lens. so please, with the lenses I mentioned above, which "L"lens will be the most helpful for me?
lanscapes .....
thanks in advance

I'd look into getting the 17-40 L. It's got to be one of the best "general use" lenses you can get. Easy to shoot people, indoors, and wide enough to get all the glory of the outdoors.

kafene.

[Webster]

From personal experience, let me warn you that any L lens will make you dissatisfied with your current lenses. I used to love my 75-300 IS until I got a 17-40 L lens. Now I'm figuring out how to afford the new 70-300 DO IS - and hoping that when Canon says it rivals the performance of L-Series lenses they mean it.

If I was to buy only one L lens, regardless of price and weight, it would have to be the 28-300 mm F3.5-F5.6 L IS USM. Then I would not need any other lens at all.

[Canuck]

Hi fellas,
this question has been asked more than once in this forum , I've been reading some of the comments. pb is , Ihad an Elan II , 28-105 USM , 75-300 IS USM and lately I got 100 mm USM Macro with the 10D.
to really take all advantage of D. photography, I want to put a hole in my pocket and go for "ONE" L lens. so please, with the lenses I mentioned above, which "L"lens will be the most helpful for me?
lanscapes .....
thanks in advance

Hmmm...
You pose interesting question! Well, you say that the hole in the pocket is ok, well I have the $1370 (from B&H w/o filters) Canon 16-35 F2.8L and it rocks! I will have to post a pic taken w/ the Canon L glass aforementioned with it here. I am going to add it to the gallery I have already set up...stand by...

[marksw]

I have to say I agree with kafene. I am looking at the 17-40mm f/4L as a nice general purpose lens:

- It will be good for landscapes where I can stop it down for good DOF.
- It will be quite good for general travel photography because it is light weight and has a nice range.

In addition to this, the lens comes at a great price :)

It may not be as ideal indoors becasue it is an f/4, but then it is as bright as anything you have (give or take half a stop).

At the end of the day though, it depends what you want it for: and you've not really told us! You don't have any really wide angle lenses, but maybe you don't like them.

Do you actually want a zoom? The 135mm f/2L lens is also on my wish list. It is a good length (not too long, not too short), it is bright, and not too heavy. Again, it is a great price!

Some of the more expensive lenses are just sooooo heavy too! That is something you may like to think about before blowing loads of money....

Cheers,

Mark

[Canuck]

Mark,
Yes the 17-40 is good for those on the budget. As was mentioned, he wanted to burn a hole in his pocket which to mean means that he wants to spend a 4 digit number.

Ok, part 2...These were the first few pics taken when I first got the 16-35mm F2.8L taken at 1535 on late Oct running out of light really quick...

This is the front entrance to Ely Cathedral
http://images.fotopic.net/?id=2668022&nostamp=0

This is the back of Ely Cathedral and the Lady Chapel is on your right...
http://images.fotopic.net/?id=2668023&nostamp=0

Now to find some landscape pics. That will not be right now. Please check back in a few days.

Cheers from England,
Canuck

[chris.bailey]

To my mind the L glass has most impact at the Tele end so for me it would be the 100-400L. Its a very personal thing though!

[Andy_T]

I'd second the suggestions for the excellent and affordable 17-40 L lens.

It's the only missing area in your lens roundup.

You had the 28-300 range covered on your Elan, now on the 10D you have 45 - 480. The 17-40 gives you the 'missing' 27-45 wide angle.

This is true under the assumption that you would like to do the same with the 10D that you did with your Elan. If - however - you consider any of your other lenses inadequate on the 10D and would rather replace that than get the wide angle capability, then of course you would have to consider that.

The other way to go are primes.... like your 100 macro. I especially note the absence of one of the great 50 primes, the 1.8 or the 1.4 for available light and portrait work.

With the fast 1.8 and a similar optical quality to Canon's best L zooms, the 1.8 50 II is considered to be a steal at about 70$.

There are also great 20, 28 and 35 mm primes that might be worth considering. Great lenses don't always have to be white or have red rings....

Regards,
Andy

[Anders Östberg]

Depending on your budget and focal range needs...
16-35, 17-40, 24-70, 70-200, 100-400 - they are all great.
For landscapes, one of the wider two or three.

I am a proponent of zooms, but for landscapes you might want to look at (non-L) wide primes as well, much cheaper and arguably better picture quality.

[kraterz]

This is difficult without knowing what you shoot. I'm extremely happy with the 70-200/4L which is a superb lens. Of course if you like wides, then the 17-40/4L is another gem.

[maderito]

Is that "hole" big enough for 2 lenses. The price of the 17-40f/4 L + the 70-200/f4 L is about the same as the faster (and heavier) 2.8 wides and telephotos. Thus 2 for the price of 1. And then throw in the 50/1.8 as a bonus to yourself for picking wisely. :)

[roanjohn]

Is that "hole" big enough for 2 lenses. The price of the 17-40f/4 L + the 70-200/f4 L is about the same as the faster (and heavier) 2.8 wides and telephotos. Thus 2 for the price of 1. And then throw in the 50/1.8 as a bonus to yourself for picking wisely. :)

Exce"LL"ent!!!!!

Ro1

[Sendide]

thanks a lot guys, true it's never as simple as we expect it to be. the idea of two of the price of one is tempting (17-40 and 40-200), but considering more outdoors priority, how limiting is f4 ? is the price difference between f2.8 and f4 justified ?
thanks in advance
I'm really glad I found this forum (by chance first tim, than became first line in "favorites"
regards
Kh

[Sendide]

sorry 70-200 not 40-200

[marksw]

... but considering more outdoors priority, how limiting is f4 ? is the price difference between f2.8 and f4 justified ?


For outdoors the f/4 is not limiting at all. For landscapes you would normally stop the lens down anyway, and at the 40mm length you are looking at 1/45 second slowest handheld exposure which you will take you into quite dim light. This range will be great for loads of travel photography too (and the lens is really light too).

[Afterthought: What camera are you using it with? With digital you may be looking at 1/90 second slowest hand-held exposure.]

Anyway, I have been looking at this as an ideal travel/landscape lens. Maybe not everyone would agree with me here, but I really think it would be great. I nearly got the 24-70mm f/2.8L lens, but it is just so heavy! This is not a travel lens in my humble opinion! Yes, a bright f/2.8 lens would be nice for dim light and for those out-of-focus backgrounds, but I recon the f/4 lens will be just fine :-)

Cheers,

Mark

[Jim Larson]

If you need F2.8, you need F2.8 => and you will pay for it.

Otherwise, F4 is fine.

A few comments not mentioned by others:

(1) The 70-200/4L is literally half the diameter, weight, and cost of the 70-200/2.8L. both are optically excellent. The 2.8L is a big heavy high quality monster.

(2) I have mixed feelings about the 100-400/L-IS. It is a bit slower, and reportedly a bit soft on the 400 end. Also, a big expensive lens. but 400mm options are pricey (I think 70-200/4L + 300/4L-IS + 1.4 TC ugh)

(3) Everyone says "17-40/4L". BAH HUMBUG. How wide do you need? Really? I have a 10D. Every one said "17-40/4L". I bought a 24/2.8 instead. Know what? I *never* feel the need for anything wider than 24.

[getg3]

You said just one L lens, get the new 28-300 mm F3.5-F5.6 L IS USM!