I am a believer.
The difference in sharpness is absolutely incredible between my old lenses (17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS; 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS) and my new L glass (24-70mm f/2.8 L; 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS + 1.4x Extender). I went out on my first expedition with them today to see what they could do. I hit up a big train yard, which produced several good subjects. I couldn't get over how these lenses are!
#1
![]() | HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO |
#2
![]() | HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO |
#3
![]() | HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO |
#4
![]() | HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO |
#5
![]() | HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO |
#6
![]() | HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO |
#7
![]() | HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO |
#8
![]() | HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO |

.
One thing to realize, though, for your wallet's sake: There are a lot of lenses out there that have L-class image quality, but aren't Ls, and are a lot cheaper, so don't always feel that it has to be L to have that look to it. (Case in point...my Tamron 17-50 is incredible, and in direct comparisons, it's sharper than the 17-40L...it doesn't have the L's build or USM, but optically, it's better.) Also, my Sigma 105mm macro is as sharp as any lens in my kit, and has outstanding bokeh. Not quite as good in color rendition and contrast as my 135L, but then again, there are hardly any lenses in existence that have better IQ than the 135L.
