Advice re L-glass

[Ayahuasca]

I have decided that I wanted to loose my L-glass
virginity, and get my wallet ruptured by one of
these marvels. So I was looking for some advice
and opinions:

1) What is the best value on L glass for DSLRs?

2) And if one can only afford one of these
lenses, which one have you found to be the
most versatile, and which one is not getting
much use?

3) Any major operational drawbacks to the 17-40 4.0?

4) I'm leaning towards the 17-40, but is 40mm x 1.6
crop factor enough to shoot decent portraits? Can you
get decent bokeh with this lens? I like to shoot
landscapes and interiors also, so the wide end is nice

5) Or should I get the 24-70 instead? Is it a better lens?

Thanks much, Aya.

[Mike H]

The driver in the decision will be what you shoot, rather than which L lens is the best value in and of itself. Always start with what you shoot and work backwards into the lens selection, and don't be surprised if the lens that's best for you is a non-L lens. There are several teriffic lenses without the little red stripe.

The 17-40 is definitely a good lens, judging from all of the reviews that I have read. The Luminous-Landscape.com web site has a good review of it and a comparison of it to the more expensive 16-35/2.8L (which I use). Either lens is great as a "standard zoom" or "walk around lens," i.e., the lens you keep on the camera regularly.

Regarding portraits with the 17-40, whether it's good for that depends on your shooting style. If you like to shoot environmental portraits, where a good deal of background is included to tell about the subject (say a toymaker in his workshop), it will be terrific. If you intend to take head shots, you'll want something longer. The 85/1.8, a non-L lens, would be far superior for that, and cheaper, too. The longer lens will give better bokeh and better perspective for that application.

With those caveats in mind, the 17-40 is the least expensive L lens, and given the wide range of subjects it can cover, it makes a lot of sense as a first L lens. I hope this helps.

Mike

[karusel]

Not an expert, but I can provide answers nonetheless.
1. 70-200 f/4.0 L
2. 28-300 L
3. f/4.0
4. yes/yes/take a peek at sigma 12-24 for true wide angle
5. it is very hard - near to impossible to answer any of those questions

[CyberDyneSystems]

1) What is the best value on L glass for DSLRs?

17-40mm f/4L
70-200mm f/4L

and some none L;

50mm (either one)
85mm f/1.8

2) And if one can only afford one of these
lenses, which one have you found to be the
most versatile, and which one is not getting
much use?

This depends on YOUR shooting preference.. I shoot telephoto most often so of these I would want the 70-200mm f/4L.. but if landscapes and group shots were more my thing it would be the 17-40mm f/4L

3) Any major operational drawbacks to the 17-40 4.0?
Nope! :)

It's only drawback is the lens hood is virtually useless on a 10D or Digital Rebel..

4) I'm leaning towards the 17-40, but is 40mm x 1.6
crop factor enough to shoot decent portraits? Can you
get decent bokeh with this lens? I like to shoot
landscapes and interiors also, so the wide end is nice

You can get great portraits with it.. but it is not the best..

..now you are comparing it to the 24-70mm which is not on our "value" list.. (very pricey)


5) Or should I get the 24-70 instead? Is it a better lens?

Yes. :)
If I had the $$$ I'd definately go for the 24-70mm f/2.8L

[Canuck]

Hi! My answers are in blue...

I have decided that I wanted to loose my L-glass
virginity, and get my wallet ruptured by one of
these marvels. So I was looking for some advice
and opinions:

1) What is the best value on L glass for DSLRs?

Well I have to agree...the 17-40mm F4L is good for about $700-$800 as compared to the 24-70mm F2.8L that is about $1200!

2) And if one can only afford one of these
lenses, which one have you found to be the
most versatile, and which one is not getting
much use?

I have found the 24-70mm is probably the most used. However, I have been known to use the 16-35mm a lot as well as the Sigma 120-300 F2.8EX. It is all in what I am taking pics of on that day/situation.

3) Any major operational drawbacks to the 17-40 4.0?

You loose an fstop, and the rest I do believe have been covered.

4) I'm leaning towards the 17-40, but is 40mm x 1.6
crop factor enough to shoot decent portraits? Can you
get decent bokeh with this lens? I like to shoot
landscapes and interiors also, so the wide end is nice

I don't see why you can't do portrait work with that lens, it should only take some creative rearranging of the subjects.

5) Or should I get the 24-70 instead? Is it a better lens?

The 24-70 is an awesome lens...the big question is can you make do doing interiors starting at about 39mm (24x1.6), in 35mm terms? If not go for the 17-40. This is where the crop factor comes in. On the other hand, shooting landscapes it will be fine going with either lens.
Thanks much, Aya.