the jump to L

Just curious what everyone's thoughts are on what you think was the best single lens upgrade you made. example: (50mm 1.4 -> 50mm 1.2 , 70-200 f4 -> 70-200 2.8 II) but any L lens. Was it everything you expected it to be, did it take you to the next level. Give you that special feeling again? or did it let you down?

Jumps to L only? Any jump? Very broad question. What jump did yyou have in mind, are you thinking about?

Bought a 135mm lens a few weeks ago, was pretty worth it. But to remember, the 135L is one of the nicest L lenses around...

it kinda of depends on what you have and what you do.

I'm pretty fond of the 24-105L as a walk around lens

gasrocks wrote in post #15992485
Jumps to L only? Any jump? Very broad question. What jump did yyou have in mind, are you thinking about?

Just L, only because its such a large difference in price and usually quality.

I'm curious if jumping from 85 f1.8 to 85 f1.2 II is worth the money in terms of image quality.

DanFrank wrote in post #15992474
Just curious what everyone's thoughts are on what you think was the best single lens upgrade for you. ex: (50mm 1.4 -> 50mm 1.2 , 70-200 f4 -> 70-200 2.8 II) but any lens though. Was it everything you expected it to be, did it take you to the next level. Give you the special felling again? or did it let you down?

200mm II 2.8. Awesome tele that totally blew away the 70-300mm I used to have.
And the 24-70mm II 2.8, it's better than the 24-105mm f4 for just about everything.

Sigma 50mm macro to Canon 100L macro. That's a bit of a jump but, in my opinion, completely worth it.

Mornnb wrote in post #15992594
24-70mm II 2.8, it's better than the 24-105mm f4 for just about everything.

Interesting. Always posts about people saying the 24-105 is just as good.

DanFrank wrote in post #15992785
Interesting. Always posts about people saying the 24-105 is just as good.

I don't think I have ever heard that when compared to the MkII

I know right. I would think/hope the II would be better all around than the 24-105.

70-200 f4 (owned for 6 months) ->
70-200 2.8 non-is (owned for 10 months) ->
70-200 2.8 IS II (owned for 4 days).

I am very happy at the moment. haha.

I thought my jump from the 70-200 f/4 to 70-200 f/2.8 IS (mk1) was significant, until I jumped from the 70-200 f/2.8 IS mk1 to the 70-200 f/2.8 IS mk2 version. This is the best lens in my stable.

I'll chime in with my probably un-popular view In most cases, going from a "non-L" lens to the "L" counterpart is usually pretty un-eventful as far as IQ goes....of course, there are some exceptions. In most cases, the difference in image quality is far less than many people would think. IMO, the advantage lies in the better build quality....."L' lenses are far more prepared to take a beating day after day while still performing at their desired level.
My job is photography and just about every Canon lens I own is an "L" lens and all of them have been grinding out my product for many years while taking a general beating throughout the process. My reason for buying "L" lenses doesn't have so much to do with IQ as it has to do with reliability.

Like many things that last 10% of quality adds a big step to the cost. I have some L zooms, but also have a few consumer lenses and had others in the past. In the middle of the lens, in the middle of the zoom range at a medium aperture, say f,8 you will probably notice only a tiny increase in quality. At the edges or when fully zoomed or at a wide aperture the difference in quality should be more apparent. Even so I don't think you would necessarily be disappointed with a non L lens if you just looked at the picture and didn't analyse it in fine detail. But if you took the same shot with both lenses under the conditions I mentioned then the detail and sharpness improvement would be apparent in a side by side comparison. There are of course other factors that affect quality so changing to an L lens won't necessarily make any difference at all. But technically there is certainly an improvement to be had, whether it is worth the money is a matter of personal opinion and circumstances. But also remember that L lenses are almost always larger and heavier than their consumer equivalents and you do have to carry them.