YOUR first L lens?

Killjoy wrote in post #6873803
Unfortunately, it may still lead to death. My wife said she'd kill me if I bought another lens.

Mine was the same, but amazingly quiet when I picked up the 100-400 yesterday - perhaps because I bought it used. Hmmm, maybe I'm on to something!

200L on a 350D (which became a 30D about a year later) about 4-5 months after I got the 350D. It was a great lens that I didn't use a lot at the time so I sold it. I'm currently looking at getting a 5d and I've changed a bit with my shooting, so I'm thinking about a 70-200, 135L or another 200. First I've gotta get the 5d though! Out of the 7 or 8 lenses I previously owned it was my only L.

When I first got into DSLR photography I had Nikon stuff, but switched to Canon back in June. My first L lens, a 400mm f5.6 was bought in July this year and I have just bought (today) a 70-200mm f4 L.

My first L was the EF 17-40L.
I just bought my second L this morning (EF 70-200 F4 IS) and it will be here tomorrow!

I got my 70-200 f/4L after about 3 months of shooting. The f/4 really didn't thrill me, so I replaced it with an 85 f/1.8, which suited my purposes better.

oh. do you still have the lens and use it for anything else?

I actually just picked up a 24-70 f2.8L USM, what an awesome "brick"

My fisrt (only) the popular 70-200 f4 -- very nice

mine was a 70-200 f4 guess the most 'affordable' l on the used market, still have it and i still love it

s_smith001 wrote in post #6903565
still have it and i still love it

ditto

My first L lens was a medium zoom (80-200?) in FD mount, before the L was publicized, and LONG before the red stripe. That was, maybe, 1978, to go with my F-1, and in the early 80's with a T-90.

But I departed small format and spent my money on commercial and large-format stuff in the years that followed.

I returned to small format with an Elan II, but that was just for fun, and I bought "just for fun" lenses.

Then, I got a 10D. Seeing those images at 100% resolution did me in. After rejecting a 75-300 cheapie as too ergonomically challenged to be usable, I, like so many others, purchased the 70-200/4L, plus the 1.4x converter. I haven't been tempted to replace it with the newer IS version or the much heavier 2.8 version, because the one I have is just stunning, and I love how easy it is to tote around.

But I'm no L snob--if a lens works, I don't care what the color of the stripe is. As I rebuilt my EOS lens collection, I ended up keeping the 14mm Sigma and 28-70/2.8 sigma (which I rarely use), and then acquired a 12-24 Sigma (still unmatched in Canon's lineup), 16mm Zenitar, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, and adapters to make a range of other lenses possible, including a Zeiss Jena 135/3.5, etc., ad infinitum.

A 24-105L came with my 5D, and I figured I would sell it--I just didn't expect a 4:1 zoom to work very well even as an L. But I was pleasantly surprised with the lens, and for many purposes it works a treat. And recently I got the 24 T/S L, which didn't used to be an L, but it is now just because people buying expect to see a red stripe for that chunk of change.

Rick "who might someday be tempted by the 17-40" Denney

17-40L here, and couldn't be happier. I've been lent and used lots of the nice red lenses, but for landscapes on a crop sensor, I wouldn't have chosen anything else.

70-200 F4. Made my 300D look like a toy.

I just ordered a Canon EF 100 400 L. I'm going to pick it up monday. Can't wait till it's monday. Just hope i get a good one, no soft edges.

I got a 135mm f2L from a store on Ebay from Hong Kong for about two thirds of what it would cost over here.
I know people bow down and worship the "L", and obviously they are the top lenses, but getting my first DSLR was a much bigger occasion and that's when I really started to get into my photography.