What is the most non-L L lens?

The 17-35 f2.8 was pretty underserving I was so not impressed I resold it in less then 24 hours of getting it. Guess that is why it was dicontinued.

Current one is probably the 28-300 L lens. Anyone who actually needs this kind of range I think is better saving more then one thousand dollars and buy a 3rd party lens of similarity. I suppose it does have its uses (and I would love to find out for myself ) but it is just too slow, too expensive and too big for its L status. At least for a walkabout L series lens. Tripod L series it might be better if used that way.

Yeah, pretty much everyone had it backwards. I agree on the 17-35L. Also, I think the 14L isn't up to L standards, other than build. I think most everthing else is alright.

Some old ones aren't up to standards, but back then, they were the standard, so what can you say, huh?

I wish somone would let me use the 14L so I could have an opinion on it..

Ronald S. Jr. wrote in post #2055229
Some old ones aren't up to standards, but back then, they were the standard, so what can you say, huh?

I don't know about that, the 28-80 L that I have is almost the same standard as the 24-70 L. Mind you it came out in 1989 and some things have changed, it is still worthy of being a L, the images it produces and the color make it still a very good L lens. Check out my samples in my "FS" link in my sig.

Ha! You guys forgot about the early L lenses! Isn't there an 80-200 L which is only as good as the current regular EF lens at best?

delhi wrote in post #2055331
Ha! You guys forgot about the early L lenses! Isn't there an 80-200 L which is only as good as the current regular EF lens at best?

The Magic Drainpipe? No way! Besides not being able to focus as close as its white children (70-200 L's) it is a GEM. I had one and although for a very short time I was blown away with how sharp and good it was. It being black even made it better in some ways over the white ones, being that it was black. It is very up to par with current L lenses except for some inovations made along the way since the early 90's.

Would it be a good idea to rent a lens before buying it just to check it out?

AGENT 99 wrote in post #2055364
Would it be a good idea to rent a lens before buying it just to check it out?

hell yeah.. I wish they have a place to rent out lenses in my area

AGENT 99 wrote in post #2055364
Would it be a good idea to rent a lens before buying it just to check it out?

i rented the 17-40, 24-70L and 85 1.8 before i bought them. so yeah i think it's a great idea .

ed rader

Luckie8 wrote in post #2055373
hell yeah.. I wish they have a place to rent out lenses in my area

if you are in the u.s. there are several internet stores that rent lenses.

ed rader

Per the question:
All the ones I have deserve it. I'll say the 24-70 was a bad experience initially and
requires a little finesse to use it but once you nail it she's well deserving of the red ring.

What deserves an "L":
50 f1.4 and 100 Macro

the holy trinity. heck, the 35mm f/2, 85mm f/1.8 and 135mm f/2.8 does such a respectable job for 1/5 of the price.

Jaetie wrote in post #2055700
the holy trinity. heck, the 35mm f/2, 85mm f/1.8 and 135mm f/2.8 does such a respectable job for 1/5 of the price.

Yeah I don't get the big deal between the Non Holy Trinity versions. Basically it comes down to build and a coating on the lens as far as I can figure out, the sharpness seems to be there in the NonL versions for the photographer that knows how to use primes.

I would say it's the 50mm f1.0L. I just hope that 50 1.2L won't follow suit.

ssitu wrote in post #2055747
I would say it's the 50mm f1.0L. I just hope that 50 1.2L won't follow suit.

From some of the shots I've seen from it I would say it has a good chance.