What first L Lens should i get?

Let the guy get an L lens if thats what he wants. We all have squandered our $ on purchases that we can not justify which serve an inner need.

The 70-200 2.8 will serve you well and offers you the most flexibility.

curiousgeorge wrote in post #2228731
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.

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.

I have another viewpoint. People buy a camera with some cheap lenses, started reading about photography, buy some L lenses, and get better. They associate getting better with buying better lenses, which isn't always correct. I'd bet that without the L lenses people still get better just because of the effort they put in. Sure L lenses might give you slightly better sharpness and contrast, but honestly I don't notice a huge difference between my "non L" lenses and my L lens. I directly compared a 24-70 F2.8 L and a Tamron 28-75 F2.8 and found no significant differences.

tim wrote in post #2228788
I have another viewpoint. People buy a camera with some cheap lenses, started reading about photography, buy some L lenses, and get better. They associate getting better with buying better lenses, which isn't always correct. I'd bet that without the L lenses people still get better just because of the effort they put in. Sure L lenses might give you slightly better sharpness and contrast, but honestly I don't notice a huge difference between my "non L" lenses and my L lens. I directly compared a 24-70 F2.8 L and a Tamron 28-75 F2.8 and found no significant differences.

I agree with Tim's position and I will admit to getting caught up in the "L" acquisition game in the hopes of achieving better photos. After two years of DSLR photography I do believe I have greatly improved my skills...but this is due to taking 1,000's of photos and learning from them all...good and bad; and not to "L" glass.

My favorite lenses from my kit (in order) are: 17-55MM EF-S IS, 30MM f/1.4, 85MM f/1.8, and the 10-22 EF-S f/3.5-4.5. These all can produce stunning results when used properly (and skillfully). Note: my two "L" lenses are not included in my favorite list.

I do use the 24-70MM L for portriats and the 70-200MM L for my grand daughter's soccer games...but these are occasional uses. The 100MM MACRO is a specialty lens and I use it when I need it for its intended purpose. The 50MM is sorely neglected these days and I am thinking that I will give it to my daughter to go with the dRebel XT I gave her earlier along with my kit lens and my 28-105MM EF Mark II.

Anyhow, this is my 2 cents worth,

thank you all for the comments. and sorry if this became a debate...i've decided to replace the kit lens and get the 17-40 seeing as it'll be the most used lens for me.

now - another question: cheapest place in the US to get this? altho i am working in London, UK - i am from NY...so i can just get my parents to mail it to me (prices in the UK are SO SO high!)

Muscleflex,

I'm located in Canada but I buy all my gear that's purchased new through B&H (www.bhphoto.com). The 17-40 is a fine choice, it's what I upgraded to from my kit lens as I primarilly do landscapes.