Joined the "L" family

[021411]

Finally! Can't wait to go crazy outside with it. :grin:

http://images9.fotki.com/v173/photos/5/505848/1798817/70200-vi.jpg

[mrclark321]

Damn I'm jealous.....Enjoy

Dan

[weemannie]

Have fun!

[fetching]

post some pics!

[blue_max]

I got this lens recently and took some pics – here is a sample. It is very good and versatile. It's not hard to see why people rave about it.

Hope you enjoy it 021411 (as he's know to his friends).


:D

[sixshot]

Is drooling exceptable at my age? Have fun.

[raylks]

Welcome to L world. You are now one of the victims of "L disease".

[Dante King]

Is drooling exceptable at my age? Have fun.

not only exceptable, but at your age, its expected! ;)

Contratulation on the new toy! Not sure where they have the "L" coholics anom meetings, but rest asurred your name badge is in the mail. LOL

[condyk]

I got this lens recently and took some pics – here is a sample. It is very good and versatile. It's not hard to see why people rave about it.

Hey Graham, great to see you're using 'my' old lens :lol: is that the son you told me about who broke his arm last week? He looks happy enough now :lol:

My replacement Sigma's arrived BTW and very happy. I'll post some shots as soon as I download a few to my laptop.

[guitarman3]

Hey 021411,


You sure that's not just a red rubber band around a regular lens?:)
Just kidding... What a great looking lens! Someday....

[Michaelmjc]

I'm soo jealous now! Go have soem fun with that baby.

[021411]

Here's a quick test shot..

ISO 200, f/6.3, 1/1250, aperture mode, focal length 131mm

http://htt.smugmug.com/photos/20590342-L.jpg

100% crop

http://htt.smugmug.com/photos/20589984-L.jpg

[lancea]

I confess that I made my first "extra" lens the 17-40 f/4L. And you know what - I wish I'd got the 70-200 first (I plan to get one "soon"). I read so many tests that raved about how much better the 17-40 is than the 18-55 kit lens, but in no way do comparison shots with my new lens leap out at me and say "I'm a much more expensive lens". My firm recommendation to anyone who bought the camera with a kit lens is to go for the 70-200 or another tele zoom, or (if wide angle takes your fancy) get the 10-22 EF-S.

Good choice!

[blue_max]

Hey Graham, great to see you're using 'my' old lens :lol: is that the son you told me about who broke his arm last week? He looks happy enough now :lol:

My replacement Sigma's arrived BTW and very happy. I'll post some shots as soon as I download a few to my laptop.


It most certainly is thank you Dave – and young Elliot is taking it in his stride! They are very adaptable at that age. I broke my right arm a few years back and didn't cope half as well. Having two kids under 7 is enough of an excuse to buy this lens on it's own!

If you get this lens outside, it is great and the f4 is not an issue. The lens hood or 'bucket' as I like to call it, is certainly the thing that makes this lens a bit 'over the top'. However, pouring over the manual, I see that it can be fitted the wrong way round for storage and that makes a big difference! As my 'other' lens is the 85mm 1.8, it is certainly a big contrast and I have a feeling I would be happier with the much more discrete 135mm. Anyway, I will give it some time and see how I get on – unless someone knows of a 135mm for sensible money? I do wonder why it is so much more than the 200mm.

Glad to hear the Sigma's are as hoped (how well that worked out!) and look forward to seeing the pics.

Graham

[condyk]

Glad to hear the Sigma's are as hoped (how well that worked out!) and look forward to seeing the pics.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=70117

First effort ...

BTW, not essential you use the hood with the F4. Looks far less OVERT without it for general use.

[Dirty Shirt]

Congrats! It is a great lens.

[JMAS]

Congrats! You will never regret!




BTW, not essential you use the hood with the F4. Looks far less OVERT without it for general use.

I don't agree, sorry. IMO the hood is realy to be used as much as possible.
Reasons:
-lens protection
-reduction of unwanted light into the lens causing flare.

[mr.photoguy]

Indeed this lens is lovely.
I love shooting with it, and I use it for a lot of my portrait work....
here are some examples that I just processed, which were shot last week.

http://www.pbase.com/brucescott/image/42621967
http://www.pbase.com/brucescott/image/42622114
http://www.pbase.com/brucescott/image/42622213

[merrrrjig]

I hate you! I think that will be my next lens!

[Medic1]

Welcome to the family....I'm about to have another little L child myself.....lol

[rssfhs]

I'm having enough trouble laying off the booze. Don't think I need to start buying "L" lenses anytime soon...

[willg]

that is definitely my next lens purchase

[mr.photoguy]

This lens makes me wish my middle name was L, and red to..

[fetching]

I confess that I made my first "extra" lens the 17-40 f/4L. And you know what - I wish I'd got the 70-200 first (I plan to get one "soon"). I read so many tests that raved about how much better the 17-40 is than the 18-55 kit lens, but in no way do comparison shots with my new lens leap out at me and say "I'm a much more expensive lens". My firm recommendation to anyone who bought the camera with a kit lens is to go for the 70-200 or another tele zoom, or (if wide angle takes your fancy) get the 10-22 EF-S.

Good choice!


interesting to read that because i was actually planning to buy the 17-40L to replace my kit lens, then buy the 70-200L. i'm curious to hear/see more of your comparisons of the 17-40 to the kit lens.

[WepWaWep]

What a great place to start here as a newbie! I too recently purchased my first L series, the 100-400. What great fun I'm having with it and how it is changing the way I do photography.

[lancea]

interesting to read that because i was actually planning to buy the 17-40L to replace my kit lens, then buy the 70-200L. i'm curious to hear/see more of your comparisons of the 17-40 to the kit lens.
My comparison shots were not done in a technical way at all, so I don't think it would be useful to post them here. There's ample true tests around the web.

I'm not saying that the 17-40 isn't a very nice lens (it's got nice comments whereas no one ever comments on the 18-55!). But it's certainly not a case that I can look at a processed image and readily see which lens is which - but a pro might. The 17-40 feels great and focusing is so quick and silent. It's the kind of lens you buy for well into the future - and I very much was thinking of the day when a full-size sensor would be affordable because it will be wonderful to have a "true" 17mm then.

If I did it again though, I would certainly buy the 70-200 first because it gives me something I don't have already - a proper telephoto. If the 18-55 was a noticably bad lens then the 17-40 would still be my first choice. But the 18-55 is actually a pretty good lens and it's also very light and compact.

[fetching]

My comparison shots were not done in a technical way at all, so I don't think it would be useful to post them here. There's ample true tests around the web.



actually, i'd like to see them if you want to show them. i am not technical at all and it will probably be more useful to me than the other comparisons.

it's up to you, tho. :)