Should I go "L"

DocFrankenstein wrote:
Just have to ask:
Is this why you have 50/1.8 and 70-300?

Man... you just enjoy hitting below the belt!!!

I had those lenses for something like 15 years.... At one time I thought of selling them, but the amount I could command just wasn't worth selling my good memories with them.... sigh....so I'm going to let them last longer than my flesh on this earth with me....

SYS wrote:
Man... you just enjoy hitting below the belt!!!

Yeah, I know.

You won't get much for 70-300. But the 50/1.8 you can get about 130-140 bucks if it's the Mark I with metal mount!

Well of course you should..... go for it.

DocFrankenstein wrote:
Yeah, I know.

You won't get much for 70-300. But the 50/1.8 you can get about 130-140 bucks if it's the Mark I with metal mount!

Uh uh... I'm determined to take both lenses to my grave... I even instructed my wife to do just that.... and throw in some dirt after them....

If my memory serves me right, I think I got both of these lenses right after Canon came up with the EOS lens family....?

Over priced ...

That's what they're selling for.

Eh Eh.... They're priced just about right when you take them to your grave?

I think what you need to consider is this question:

Does the lens have the focal length, f-number, sharpness, etc. that you need for the type of photos you want to shoot?

Then find a lens(es) that matches that need.

Then consider price.

You've got a rebel, so you must take be taking your photography seriously. I don't imply that you must go L as ther are very good non-L lenses, but I recommend you consider your needs. Otherwise it'll be poking at you if you're disappointed with not getting what you needed.

The reviews prove Sigma EX is tack on with Canon L in most cases and cost much less

It is that buying philosophy that makes the home fitness industry as big as it is, yet every year, more & more treadmills, weight racks etc are becoming very expensive towel racks around the planet....

There are some consumer lenses about that cover quite a range of capabilities. None of them expertly but inexpensively.

I would not throw $1000+ at a lens until I was sure that I needed that lens & that I could make full use of all it's capabilities.

Then again, some people have deeper pockets & longer arms than me

Any doubts I may have had about my gear spoiling the last shot are put away. L lenses prove to me that I am an idiot

I didn't buy L to own L, I simply wanted some f2.8 zooms and for me Canon lenses appeared the way to go. If the non-L prime will meet all your needs, why waste the money?

Well, he didn't ask about the Sigma EX, did he? And, your entitled to your opinion, but it's always good to have the data to back it up. How about some links - especially as how they refer to build quality.

Mark

mijbril wrote:
Then again, some people have deeper pockets & longer arms than me

In my case, just a long credit card debt....

I've checked the reviews of the Sigma 30 and this seems to be an excellent lens. With the money I'd be saving I could get another lens or a light meter. OTOH, the L is like getting two lenses in one as it can be used with any digital or film Canon body. Tough decision, to be sure.

Andythaler wrote:
If I could afford the 35/1.4 L ....

... I'd still continue using my exceptional Sigma 30/1.4 and use the rest of the money as a downpayment on the 85/1.2L

Best regards,
Andy

I'll probably get the Sigma; at my level the L would be a safety net but I won't get the most out of it. If I can find a used one I'll consider it.

If any of the other Canon EF prime 1.6cf "normal" candidates (like the EF 28-f/1.8) were as good or close to the Sigma's performance I'd go with them, but these lenses (including the 35-f/2) all had performance issues wide open. Since my main use for the lens will be low light or indoor shooting with ambient light, the Sigma seems the better choice. I don't like buying a lens without a full sized image circle, so I'm not completely decided.