Of all the "L" lenses..........

Well, another 20D purchaser here. Went and made the mistake of holding one and I knew immediately that the Digital Rebel had to go. Had my rebel for a year and had tons of fun with it. Wanted to see if the photography hobby would last for me and it sure has. I race cars at the dragstrip every year but got so wrapped up with photography, didnt even bother building a car this year.
I just had the kit lense and a canon ef 75-300mm lense I played around with and learned through trial and error. With much delight, I came up with amazing results. So, that brings me to the question....
What would be the general consensus of the best "all around" L lense for my 20D? My interests are pretty much everything...skylines, sports/racing/action, dusk/dawn/tripod scenarios, objects far away and near, etc. I guess I would be mostly concerned about handheld dimlight scenarios W/O flash. I am sure I would want one with image stabalization but, I will admit, I am not an expert on apretures and other info on lenses. Like I said, I work through trial and error when I should learn the proper way.
It might sound crazy to go invest that kind of money into an expensive lense like that for a novice person like myself but I would rather invest the money now and "grow into" the lense than be stuck with a cheaper lense, trying to sell it in the near future for an L lense.
Hope I didnt thouroughly confuse everyone

Thanks,
Steve

Hi, Welcome to the Forum

Check the "-=Top 10=- lens recommendation" list at the top of the forum,.
This pretty much covers this with extreme detail and the suggestions come from dozens of people.

The two most often recommended L lenses are the 70-200mm f/4 and the 17-40mm f/4

While your up at the top of the forum threads,. check out the rest of the "sticky" posts,. they have a lot of information that may answer many of you questions.

I think the "General purpose" L lens is the 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS This gives you every single range in one pacakge. All the other L are specifically ranged for certain things.

http://consumer.usa.ca​non.com …tegoryid=149&mo​delid=9802

Yes,. but,. a $2,300.00 lens that does not have he image quality of lenses that cost 1/10th the price is a sad way to introduce oneself to "L" lenses

The "one lens to do it all" is never the best solution IMHO,. whether we are discussing the $2K plus "L" option or the $219.00 Sigma 28-300mm option. Especially when a pair of lenses can cover so much of that same range for so much less money and so much higher image quality.

Didn't say anything about image quality in the post....

If it was a snake, it would've bit me...didn't see that list. Thanks! You have to put up with my newbie questions for alittle while but I will "come around"
I was hoping you wouldn't say the 28-300mm Canon. I think that bad boy is a touch out of my price range.
That does raise a question for me. I see the Tamron 28-300mm lense has the same apreture range as the Canon. I believe that lense to be glass, also? Now, this might sound silly comparing Canon to Tamron.......but, what is actually the difference?? Is it QUALITY of glass? I see enough intials in the title of that Tamron lense to make an alphabet! Would make you think it has quite a bit of technology in it, as well


Thanks for the help, guys and the warm welcome!

Steve

You've got a kit lens and the 75-300mm.... ?

If you get the 70-200mm f/4L or another highly recomended "L" lens,. you will see the difference immediately

At the same time,. you should look at that recommended lists primes,. there are some very affordable primes, "L" and Non-L that have image quality that will blow you away at very very affordable prices

LOL....I know my old crapola I was using with the rebel would not EVEN compare to the L lenses

I was wondering about the 28-300mm Tamron vs. the 28-300mm CanonL. They both are glass and have the same apreture range. What would make the difference? Canon just use a better QUALITY of glass?

Also, that thread is VERY informative on lenses...THANKS!

Steve

Yes, the 17-40 and 70-200 f/4 are the most popular because they are great quality lenses and dont cost as much as your body. As CDS said, there are some primes out there that are sub $1000.

Stick with the afforable stuff for now, and since lens prices dont fluctuate that much, you can upgrade later. You can get a 70-200 f/2.8 or the F/4 version and a 17-40 for the same price.

I know you are looking to grow into your lenses, but if you are a 30" pant, you dont buy a 46" pant, you buy 38" then 46".

Cheers

The Tamron and Canon L... Well. Usually from what I have seen is that the "other" manufacture lens are very soft on the corners. In the center, it probably will be a bit soft compared to any L lens. Out of the blue, from time to time, they have compatibility problem with new body that Canon comes out with. But these manufacture are quick to update their firmware in the lens.

I personally haven't own anything outside of Canon, so I am not the best to judge them. you might be able to find some people on the forum that might have the 28-300 Tamron.

I read a review comparing the Tamron 28-300 with the Canon L super zoom(28-350L).The reported said that wide open, the canon was better in the corners but by f8, there was not much difference. In fact, he said that the Tamron was quite good considering the price differential and the writer of the article decided to buy the tamron for his own use. I think it was a shutterbug magazine review.