Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 15 Apr 2012 (Sunday) 23:49
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Which L series lens should be my FIRST (and second)?

 
5W0L3
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
998 posts
Likes: 14
Joined Mar 2012
     
Apr 16, 2012 07:49 |  #16

Jman13 wrote in post #14273532 (external link)
I agree. You shouldn't get an L just to get an L. That's frankly a waste of money, and it will not improve your photography. My mantra for upgrading gear is this:

When you regularly want to do something with your photography, and find that you can't because of the limitations of your current gear, then get the equipment that will enable you to get the types of shots you're missing now. So, if you feel that you have a pressing need for a larger aperture at portrait focal lengths, either because you're shooting in lower light without flash or because you want shallower depth of field, then get a faster lens in the 85-135mm (effective) focal range. (With a crop body, the 50/1.4 or 85/1.8 is usually the best compromise in terms of image quality and price, depending on your preference in focal length.) Heck, the 85/1.8 is a much better event lens than the 85L due to its much faster autofocus. In this case, the 85L and 50L are really specialty lenses that in my opinion should only be purchased by those who truly have a NEED for f/1.2. Otherwise, you're just going to waste money.

If you find the compositions you want to have are limited by how wide you can go, then get an ultra-wide (which would NOT be an L in your case).

The point is not to blow money on lenses you don't need. If you have a need for an L, then by all means, go for it, but realize in many cases, it makes MUCH more sense to go for a non-L and save the money. It really depends on the person.

The biggest thing to realize is that better lenses won't make your photographic eye better...they can only improve the sharpness, color rendition, bokeh, etc. Lenses with better capabilities can allow you to get some shots you couldn't get without it, but it's a fine line. If you make great pictures now, then you might be able to do more with your camera with better gear, but if you make average stuff now, adding a better lens (especially if you don't have a real reason for upgrading in mind), will simply get you slightly sharper average stuff.

It sounds to me like you just want the 'L' badge on your lens, rather than you have a pressing need for the capabilities. Getting a 'pro' lens will not get you 'pro' pictures.

Thanks man! very good information in your post. I am getting better at photography slowly. I agree that a photographers technique plays the biggest role when it comes to taking good photographs. But it would be nice to have the best glass possible as well when shooting events / portraits for which you are getting paid for.

Also have you had any experience with using Sigma lenses?.. the one im talking about is 30mm 1.4. How does this lens compare to the L series 35mm 1.4 in terms of sharpness / IQ, especially since its 3rd the price of that lens.

Heard a lot of good things about this lens, apparently THE sharpest L series lens.. will definitely be on my list in the future, but that 135mm focal length will be very limited for my FIRST lens especially on a crop body (which makes this a 200mm+ length for me).

modchild wrote in post #14273749 (external link)
24-105 f4 IS L followed by 70-200 f4 IS L, both great lenses and both great for portraits. Probably not wide enough for your landscapes, but I'm guessing you already have a lens for those anyway.

How does this lens compare to 24-70mm 2.8?.. If I am shooting mostly with a flash at night, then I guess i don't really need 24-70 right? Especially since I have heard that this lens is extremely sharp all the way from f4, as where the 24-70 has some soft issues when shot at 2.8?


Manav
5D III x 2 (gripped) | 35L | 85L II | 100L | 24-70mm IIL | 70-200mm IIL | Some strobes & some speedlights.
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
KuroHouou
Member
114 posts
Joined Apr 2011
     
Apr 16, 2012 08:04 |  #17

My first lens for my TSi back in the day was a 70-200 F4 IS. It was and still is one of the sharpest lenses from Canon, although the 2.8 II is better now, but its also twice the price. The other best bet for a crop is the 17-55 2.8.

It really depends on what your shooting, but wither either of those two lenses you can't go wrong. I wouldn't get a 24-70 or 24-105 as its just not wide enough on a crop.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jimmy637
Member
Avatar
51 posts
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Ontario
     
Apr 16, 2012 08:06 |  #18

DITTO, 24-105 f4 IS L followed by 70-200 f4 IS L. If you need a lens for low light the 17-55 f2.8 IS Non L is very a very good lens.


T2i, 17-55, 24-105L, 70-200ISF4L, 400 f5.6L & a bunch of old MF lenses.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jman13
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,564 posts
Likes: 97
Joined Dec 2005
Location: Columbus, OH
     
Apr 16, 2012 08:11 |  #19

5W0L3 wrote in post #14273789 (external link)
Also have you had any experience with using Sigma lenses?.. the one im talking about is 30mm 1.4. How does this lens compare to the L series 35mm 1.4 in terms of sharpness / IQ, especially since its 3rd the price of that lens.

The 35L is the better lens, but I'm not sure it's worth the price premium and size difference on a crop body. (I loved my 35L when I had a 1D II). I had the Sigma 30, and it was a fantastic lens. If you get one that works properly (Sigma's quality control can be a bit all over the place on this lens...it took till my third one to get one that focused properly), it's fantastic. When I did get that third one, I loved it...it is very sharp from wide open, it's compact, has very nice bokeh. I only got rid of mine when I left APS-C.


Jordan Steele - http://www.jordansteel​e.com (external link)
Admiring Light - http://www.admiringlig​ht.com (external link)
---------------
Canon EOS R5 | R6 | RF 24-105mm f/4L IS | RF 35mm f/1.8 | RF 50mm f/1.8 | RF 85mm f/2 | RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS | Sigma 12-24mm f/4 | Sigma 135mm f/1.8 | Tamron 35mm f/1.4 | TTArtisan 11mm Fisheye

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
saintz
Senior Member
428 posts
Joined Mar 2012
     
Apr 16, 2012 09:07 |  #20

Most of the wide/normal L zooms don't work great on a crop sensor. A 10-22 will generally work better than a 17-40L for wide use. A 17-50/55 will work better than a 24-70/105L. You will get at least as good quality, with better focal range.

I would get a 70-200 f4 or f2.8 as a first L, whether on a FF or crop.


Sony A6000 | 18-55 | 16-50 | 50 f1.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
joeblack2022
Goldmember
3,005 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Sep 2011
Location: The Great White North
     
Apr 16, 2012 09:18 |  #21

5W0L3 wrote in post #14273789 (external link)
But it would be nice to have the best glass possible as well when shooting events / portraits for which you are getting paid for.

So what are you currently using? All the specific lens advice here doesn't really mean anything otherwise.


Joel

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nikesupremedunk
Goldmember
Avatar
1,131 posts
Joined Feb 2011
Location: ny
     
Apr 16, 2012 09:24 |  #22

Get a 17-55. This is coming from someone that bought the 24-70 over the 17-55. I didn't listen to anyone cuz I wanted an "L" so bad but now I realize a 17-5x would've made a whole lot more sense...trust us.


| Andrew | 5D Mark II | EOS-M | Canon 17-40mm f 4 L | Canon 35mm f 1.4 L | Canon 100mm f 2.8 L Macro | Canon 70-200mm f 4 L IS | Canon EF-M 22mm f 2.0 | Speedlite 430EX II|

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rick_reno
Cream of the Crop
44,642 posts
Likes: 134
Joined Dec 2010
     
Apr 16, 2012 10:50 |  #23

my first one was the 70-200 2.8 V1 (V2 wasn't out yet), I think the 85L II was next. Probably shouldn't have gotten the 85L, I never use it.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bu75
Member
45 posts
Joined Mar 2012
     
Apr 16, 2012 10:59 |  #24

nikesupremedunk wrote in post #14274161 (external link)
Get a 17-55. This is coming from someone that bought the 24-70 over the 17-55. I didn't listen to anyone cuz I wanted an "L" so bad but now I realize a 17-5x would've made a whole lot more sense...trust us.

This^. I just rented the 17-55 and was very impressed. It's fast and sharp. It is a bit pricey but a great lens in my opinion.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pilotsleep
Member
Avatar
81 posts
Joined Mar 2012
     
Apr 16, 2012 12:33 |  #25

Zurbaran1 wrote in post #14273705 (external link)
I would go with the 35L. It is a great lens. Then the 70-200F/4L.

35L is a great walk around lens as many have stated. I've found myself using it more than the others on my sig. I love my 85L for portraits & great result when i want to create something cool, 24-105mm wide shots or night shots.


Canon 5D Mark II|35mm /1.4L|85mm f/1.2L|24-105mm f/4L| 580EX II
flickr
| (external link)500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
facedodge
Goldmember
Avatar
1,193 posts
Likes: 15
Joined Feb 2012
Location: Silver Spring, MD (DC Suburb)
     
Apr 16, 2012 12:37 |  #26

+1 on the 35L.

I could get away with 90% of what I do with my 35L and 135L.


Gear List | Feedback | facebook (external link) | [URL="http://www.flick​r.com/photos/wmcy2/"]flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
facedodge
Goldmember
Avatar
1,193 posts
Likes: 15
Joined Feb 2012
Location: Silver Spring, MD (DC Suburb)
     
Apr 16, 2012 12:40 |  #27

The 35L is great for full body portraits or unique looking head shots (you'll be in their face when you take it)

The 135L is similar to the 85L portrait look. It's much faster and can't blur the background quite as easily.


Gear List | Feedback | facebook (external link) | [URL="http://www.flick​r.com/photos/wmcy2/"]flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hugues
Member
59 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2012
Location: Europe
     
Apr 16, 2012 12:50 |  #28

15-85 is a great all purpose lens for a crop




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
slickooz
Goldmember
Avatar
2,104 posts
Likes: 91
Joined Mar 2011
Location: Central NJ
     
Apr 16, 2012 23:50 |  #29

Are you planning on upgrading to FF anytime soon? If not I would look into Canon 17-55 2.8 IS. Its more on the expensive side without the L build, but optically on par with Canon 24-70 2.8.

I went with 17-55 because it made more sense as a walk around. You can find used ones for around 800. I got mine last week and love it.


Facebook: Gary Feng Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mannetti21
Goldmember
Avatar
3,231 posts
Gallery: 136 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 519
Joined Sep 2010
Location: Connecticut
     
Apr 17, 2012 00:21 |  #30

70-200L F4 IS...I personally think this is the best "bang for the buck" L lens that Canon has to offer.


---------------
5D4, 5D3, Sony ZV-1, Panasonic Lumix FX7, Nikon L35AF, Minolta SRT-102
35Art, 50 f1.8 STM, EF 85 f1.8, EF 16-35L f4, EF 100-400L II
My Buyer/Seller Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

9,268 views & 0 likes for this thread
Which L series lens should be my FIRST (and second)?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is lupecia
874 guests, 257 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.