Once you go "L" can you ever go back?

[Toogy]

I am on the verge of ordering my first "L" glass, a 70-200 F4. I am wondering if after I use this lens for awhile will I be able to go back to my Sigma 18-125mm and be happy? or will I be disgusted with the feel and performance of this 'cheaper' lens.
My friend is trying to tell me that once I feel the 70-200 and see it's performance I will be FORCED into getting more L glass because everything else will seem second rate.

Does he speak the truth?? :cry:

[roanjohn]

Your friend speaks the truth!!

Turn back now!!! Or enter at your own risk!!!

:twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

..........don't say I didn't warn ya.

Ro1

[daveh]

I went primes and never went back. Some are Ls and some aren't. Most Canon primes are very good - "L-ness" mostly gets you extra speed while keeping the quality up. I do think it's fairly hard to go back to "adequate" lenses after you've spent time with good ones whether the good ones happen to be labeled "L" or not.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I have a bag of "L" lenses.. but I still have non L and Non Canon lenses I love...


But to be more specific...

No .. after the 70-200mm f/4L ... you will never want to use that 18-125mm lens again... :wink:

[gmen]

There's no way back. Rest assured.

[Toogy]

Ok, now I am getting scared :cry:

I can't afford any other lens at this time, but I am afraid that if I can't take the picture with the 70-200 I won't even want to use my camera now.

This is a direct quote from my friends email

"Jeff, I am telling you – for the LOVE OF GOD DO NOT get the 70-200mm first, it will F*** YOU UP and you will NEVER use your camera again UNTIL you get a NORMAL RANGE L lens"

:shock: :shock:

[CyberDyneSystems]

Well.. I disagree....

You can allways walk backwards a few steps and use that sweet 70mm setting as your "wide angle" solution :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

For this I highly recomend Reebok "DMX" sneekers... the gel filled soles act as a human IS platform... this gives you sharper pics with better contrast.

Once you go DMX you'll never go back... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[daveh]

"Jeff, I am telling you – for the LOVE OF GOD DO NOT get the 70-200mm first, it will F*** YOU UP and you will NEVER use your camera again UNTIL you get a NORMAL RANGE L lens"

That's silly. According to your signature you already have a normal range lens that matches or exceeds the 70-200.

[HJMinard]

Well, I see where they're coming from but there are certainly exceptions. I bought my 70-200/4L prior to getting the Tamron 28-75/2.8 and I have not been disappointed. My next lens - a super-wide angle - will not be an "L" unless something new comes along.

One thing is almost certain - you likely won't be happy with any consumer-grade cheapies (with the exception of a few primes) after an "L", but there are lenses in between.

[cmM]

I bought the 17-40 (my only L lens)..... How often do you think I used the 18-55 after that ? :P

[roanjohn]

Once you go DMX you'll never go back... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

.........Uhhhmm.........actually CDS, on his case, he'll be going back....WAY BACK!!!!

Ro1

[commando]

I second the "stand back further with a big lens" sentiment. The only problem is i've found F4 isn't good for depth of field work, so maybe you'll use the other lens for that.

[Cadwell]

I am on the verge of ordering my first "L" glass, a 70-200 F4. I am wondering if after I use this lens for awhile will I be able to go back to my Sigma 18-125mm and be happy? or will I be disgusted with the feel and performance of this 'cheaper' lens.
My friend is trying to tell me that once I feel the 70-200 and see it's performance I will be FORCED into getting more L glass because everything else will seem second rate.

Does he speak the truth?? :cry:

Fear not! There are alternatives (although few and far between). There's the the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 EX for example :twisted:

[davidwegs]

I have 3 L lenses and use the 16-35 all the time. I don't use the 24-70 that much since getting the 28-75 Tamron Di. The 70-200 gets limited use and I would like to use it more but its heavy and gets too much attention.

However, I am about to get the 70-300 DO as it presents less weight and attraction.

[DieselGirl]

Beware of the L Zone. I have entered and can't find my way out of it myself.

:lol:

70-200m F4 is a great lens as I found out when I bought it, but after getting my hands on the F2.8, I can't even see myself going back to the F4.0.

That's how bad the L Zone is fellas! LOL

[hogzilla]

My first L lens came today i got th 70-200 4L. I had it shipped to my wife's shop in conn. so i didn't have to pay tax. :twisted: I can't wait till she brings it home (what to shoot what to shoot)I think i have the L fever

[Longwatcher]

You are ONLY getting the 70-200/f4 L lens, It is the 70-200/2.8 L IS, which is the dreaded lens in terms of addiction :twisted:

The reality is that you may want to purchase L glass from then on, and you may be disappointed in your current glass after you go to L, but you will use it. I still use my 28-135 and more rarely my 75-300, but I do still use them (like when my arm gets real tired from holding up the L lenses) . Also if you occasionally shoot IR like I do, for some reason the L glass is not as good (I suspect the coating designed to minimize flare and chromatic aberations as the cause)

On the other hand I don't know you current lens very well and suspect it is fairly good already, if not it will sit on a shelf (like my Tamron piece of .....)

I went L out of necessity (There was no 10-22 or even 17-40/4L at the time, so I had to go 16-35/2.8L at the time) that was my mistake. After that it was off to L for me.

So think carefully what you will do if your current lens will no longer meet your expectations, can you afford a second L class lens.

Just my opinion,

[JAZZ D.P.G.]

The treatment for "L" is easy.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and kids :shock:

Have a child, you'll never be able to afford an "L" lens till they graduate :)

I use "L", "DO" and regular Canon lens. Each has their use and place in my bag.

Who is it said that gadgets don't make the photograher?

[Adam Hicks]

Go ahead with the 70-200 f4, and supplement it with a Tamron 28-75 2.8 and you'll be set for a good while. Untill you need a 100-400L :)

You don't have to always go L to get L'ish quality, but most of the time you do.

Adam

[defordphoto]

Once you go "L" can you ever go back?

Mmmmmm....Lemme think a bit on that one. . .

NO!

[Whaler]

That's right, your first L begats your second L then you attend meeting that start like this "Hi My name is Toogy I'm an L ahollic" and.......and they make you carry lens caps in your pocket at all times to remind you. BEWARE. :twisted:

[DocFrankenstein]

Well... why?

It's not L. The 50mm prime is gonna seem ok... I think

[chops]

Unless you have absolutely no willpower, you will be able to go back to your Sigma 18-125, not to mention you wont have any other choice BUT to use the Sigma for your wide angle shots.

You certainly can't stop just taking wide angle pictures, now can you?! :shock:

[ScottE]

I have a mixture of Canon L lenses, Canon non-L lenses, Sigma EX lenses and Tamron SP lenses. I have been doing photography for a long time and have formed a few opinions:

I love good lenses and hate poor lenses that are not capable of resolving fine detail.

Not all good lenses are L lenses. There are lots of other good lenses (but few better).

Even the best lens will take poor photos if the person holding the camera doesn't do their job. (A poor lens in the hands of a great photographer will produce better photos than a great lens in the hands of a poor photographer.)

In short, L lenses are great if they improve your photography, but they are not the only way to get better photos.

[Jesper]

L lenses are great, the difference is not only in the image quality, but also in build quality, etc.

But there are also a lot of non-L lenses that are great: the EF 100 f/2.8 Macro for example (the sharpest lens I have), and I also love my EF 28-135 IS.

With L lenses, you can be sure that the image quality is very good at any aperture and focal length - with some non-L lenses, there are often some combinations that you'd better avoid (for example, my 70-300 DO is not so good at the long end, wide open (f/5.6) - but if I stop it down to f/8, it's a lot sharper).

I don't find the image quality of my 17-40L dramatically better than my 28-135 when used properly (stopped down, etc.).