What first L Lens should i get?

i get my bonus at the end of this month and i'm spending it on an L lens. however, i dont wanna spend it all on a 70-200 2.8 IS so i'm trying to decide between a 17-40L or a 70-200 f4 L (dont wanna buy a 24-105 IS unless i see one 2nd hand)

has anyone come across the same problem? and which one did you go for?

It all depends on what you shoot more... Or better yet, get both + double rebates! Costs less than 70-200 2.8 IS combined.

Based on your gear list, you need a wide angle, so the 17-40L

When you ask questions in the gear forums you'll get answers from gearheads... if you just want an L for your ego or because you like toys, then here's a great place to ask. I know that's a generalisation so it's not true for everyone.

To answer your question I think we need to know:
- What do you shoot?
- Which of those do you shoot most?
- What's wrong with your existing lenses that makes you feel the need to upgrade?

calicokat wrote in post #2223440
Based on your gear list, you need a wide angle, so the 17-40L

I agree with Calicokat on a WA...but forget the "L" and go for the 10-22MM EF-S

tim wrote in post #2223563
When you ask questions in the gear forums you'll get answers from gearheads...

Hey, who you calling a gearhead

thanks for the comments.
i still don't know what i want to specialize in altho i shoot a lot of people portraits and candids (i shoot for night clubs). i like still life also and macro
if you've noticed my gear list - they're all standard lenses and i am in NEED of a proper lens (L) so i can fully utilise whatever skill i have

17-40 is top on my list (really wanted a 150 sigma macro but it'll have to wait for now) but i just thought i'd ask about the 70-200 f4 coz i shoot concerts sometimes and having a white lens just makes me look like a pro (vanity purposes more than practicality i think)
using a 20d at the moment but i am planning on getting a 5d sometime next year! so 10-22 is out of the question altho if i see one very cheap, i'd think about it

Muscleflex,

I have no place to say whether your desire for an L lens is right or wrong, but if I were you I'd take a step back and really analyze why you feel the need for it to be L, and in choosing a pro caliber lens take a cold hard look at your shooting needs before wasting your bonus. Try to make the best use of it no?

Shooting concerts and nightclubs the F/4 apertures of both the 17-40 and 70-200 L aren't going to serve you very well unless you always shoot with flash and on a tripod. I think some fast primes would serve you better, such as the Sigma 30 1.4 or the Canon 85 1.8. If you're looking for a zoom consider something like the Sigma 70-200 F/2.8

You mention that you want to shoot macro, if the Sigma 150 is what you really want then save your bonus and get that, I'd rather save twice as long and buy once if you know what I mean. As an alternative check out the excellent Canon 100mm F/2.8 Macro or Sigma 105 F/2.8 EX Macro

You're concerned that you need a PROPER lens, L has nothing to do with that, there are TONS of fantastic proper gorgeous sharp sexy awesome lenses out there without the L designation. If an L lens is truly what meets your needs/wants then go for it, just telling you to consider other options.

Cheers.

As Dorman stated the 70-200L F/4 is too slow for indoor concerts. I would recommend the 85 f/1.8 or the 135 f/2.0 if you want an L. You can buy some extension tubes to do macro.

17-40 or 70-200mm f/4, both super choices, both will show you why an L zoom is so highly regarded. However, if you can not decide based purely on focal range and your own shooting needs, for the most bang for your buck, I'd consider the 70-200mm. this is the one with it's inherently sharper telephoto optics that will blow you away.

Well you're obviously into toys for the sake of toys, that's fine, but don't fool yourself into thinking you need an L lens. Give someone like CharlesU a 300D and a 50mm F1.8 or kit lens, and take a 1DsMk2/24-70 yourself, guess who's going to take the better images?

For nightclubs i'd suggest the Sigma 30mm F1.4, a similar L costs 3 times more, the 35L F1.4. For portraits the Tamron 28-75 F2.8, you can probably add a closeup filter to do macro, or you can get the 24-70/17-55. Personally I use a 50mm F1.4 for portraits most of the time, otherwise the 17-55.

tim wrote in post #2226187
Well you're obviously into toys for the sake of toys, that's fine, but don't fool yourself into thinking you need an L lens. Give someone like CharlesU a 300D and a 50mm F1.8 or kit lens, and take a 1DsMk2/24-70 yourself, guess who's going to take the better images?

For nightclubs i'd suggest the Sigma 30mm F1.4, a similar L costs 3 times more, the 35L F1.4. For portraits the Tamron 28-75 F2.8, you can probably add a closeup filter to do macro, or you can get the 24-70/17-55. Personally I use a 50mm F1.4 for portraits most of the time, otherwise the 17-55.

i was just about to suggest the same thing. for shots at the club, the 30/1.4 will offer low-light and wide enough angle to get everyone (or the room) in your shot. maybe throw in a 50/1.8 with the money you save and set up a low-light combo.

Frankly, if you don't know what you need, you don't need anything.

The time to upgrade is when you feel your gear is limiting you in some specific way. If you find that your longest / widest lens isn't long / wide enough, or you feel that images taken with one lens aren't as sharp as they could be.

For example, I have 3 lenses on my wish list for when I have the money, in each case I have very specific reasons for wanting each one. In order of importance:

MP-E 65mm macro - because I don't have a proper macro lens.

24-105L IS - because I don't feel that my 28-135 is sharp enough.

70-200L IS f2.8 - because in low light my 100-400L (f4.5-5.6) can not get a fast enough shutter speed to freeze motion of animals and birds. This is low priority because it would only be for use whenh light levels are in a very narrow band.

In each case I have 'felt the need' for the lens, if you don't feel the need and KNOW what you need to buy, you are just spending money for the hell of it. Forget the new lens and blow the money on going out to photogenic places / events and taking more pics. You will probably get more great shots that way, rather than just bolting some different glass on the front, because it says 'L' on it.

I wouldn't get an L lens just for the sake of getting an L. Get the best lens for your needs. Figure out what focal range you're looking for, then ask for suggestions. There are quite few non-L lenses out there that are excellant optics in their own right, both Canon and 3rd party.

I disagree with the last few posts. It's easy to criticise people who want L lenses just because they are L lenses, but what this really means is that people want L lenses because they are better lenses, which is no bad thing.

tim wrote in post #2226187
Give someone like CharlesU a 300D and a 50mm F1.8 or kit lens, and take a 1DsMk2/24-70 yourself, guess who's going to take the better images?

But surely the comparison you should be making is: give the OP a consumer lens and an L lens. Guess what pictures are likely to be better.

I wanted to get the best images I could, so I replaced by 18-55 and old 75-300 with the L lenses in my sig and, although I'm not a great photographer, I have produced better images. Sure you still have to think a lot before you take the picture, but things like contrast and sharpness will almost undoubtedly be better with the L lenses.

My advice, therefore, is go for the L lenses if you can afford them. I did and I'll never look back. You don't need to be a pro.