Should I go "L"

mijbril wrote:
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

It's a lot to throw at a lens for me, too. I know I'll be sticking with photography and will be able to use the lens to full advantage down the pike, but it has been pointed out that equipment isn't a good investment. That bit of wisdom is borne out by my experience as a computer user.

MrChad wrote:
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?

This is a valid point. If the L would result in better enough quality shots, it's worth it. The question is what kind of bump over the other options the L would give me.

Well, Well ....

Perspective my friend. All I offer is perspective for another choice. Links below and apparently you have not held or used any of the Sigma EX stuff or you could see the build quality is quite good for the price.

http://www.fredmiranda​.com …owproduct.php?p​roduct=283

http://www.naturephoto​graphers.net/sigma3002​8.html

http://www.photography​review.com …a/PRD_335764_31​28crx.aspx

And of course a quick google will find you many more.

The question is not "L or non-L", but "what do I pay" versus "what do I get". There are more considerations (https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=97056) to keep in mind when buying glass...

I think it's perfectly normal to buy a decent, not-too-expensive lens then after a while upgrading to better and more expensive. Good quality lenses do keep their value quite well.

PeteR.

I went "L" with the 70-200mm f/2.8, and I couldn't be happier. It's a longer length than what you're looking for but, as far as the quality of shot is concerned, I don't think you'll be disappointed...

Steve

How heavy can a lens be before just letting it hang off the camera unsupported becomes problematic? For hand-held shots the 35mm L wouldn't be a problem, but would it need a special mount for tripod shots?