I have "L" fever and it might be terminal

Ignorance is bliss.

For years, I have been happily running around with my Sigma and Tamron lenses, taking pictures and thinking my glass was pretty good. I mean, they're a little soft wide open, but every lens is like that, right? Why pay more for the fancy Canon name brand and the red ring when this aftermarket glass makes perfectly fine pictures? L glass is a waste of money, I say!

Then my wife bought a 100-400L. And I used it a little. And I quickly came to an undeniable conclusion:

L glass kicks ass.

Detail, color, contrast... holy MTF charts, batman! This thing is in a different league than Sigma & Tamron. And image stabilization opens up new possibilities, too.

I went through the process of calibrating all my lenses with the AF microadjustment feature of the 1D Mk III. The Sigma & Tamrons all needed some tweaking (little wonder the Sigma 70-200 rarely focused correctly on my 20D). The 100-400L was bang-on. No tweaking required.

Now recently my wife nagged me until I relented and approved the purchase of a 24-70L (She says it's her lens. She's in for a rude awaking on that.). First thing I did was take some comparison shots using it and my Tamron 28-75. Which confirmed my earlier conclusion:

L glass kicks ass.

So now I'm looking at the picture of the EF 70-200 F2.8L IS on the B&H website, drooling like some kid with his nose pressed against the toy store window, wondering how I'm going to resist the urge to drop another $1,700 and put my Sigma days behind me.

The problem is, that won't be the end of it. Next, I'll "need" a 17-40 too. And God knows what else. Maybe an 85L or the whole blessed holy trinity of primes. Or maybe something long and fast like a 300 f/2.8

Pity me. I have ventured down a path with no return that will suck me dry. I will die broke, and my kin will have to sell my gear to pay for my funeral.

Nahh, sell your relatives to buy the lenses

Well we might as well help the man out and encourage him in his new found passions:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

Hey, I need new desktop wallpaper...

Hello, and welcome to the Lcoholic club.

ToddR wrote in post #8376823
Hey, I need new desktop wallpaper...

Well there you go.

Reminds me of the Queen song............."Anot​her One Bites The Dust".........Happy Buying.

Lol! SWMBO would have a fit if I had one of those as wallpaper!!

But, yeah, how CAN you go back once you've tried an "L"?!

LightRules wrote in post #8376815
Well we might as well help the man out and encourage him in his new found passions:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

In the second shot, why it the one lens (85L?) orange while the two big ones are green?

And what's up with the green ring on one of the lenses (left side) in the first shot?

Green ring = DO.

As for the colour - perhaps it's due to the different refractive properties of the respective lenses - or perhaps it's added in after? IDK - perhaps an expert can enlighten us!

Curtis N wrote in post #8376766
Ignorance is bliss.

For years, I have been happily running around with my Sigma and Tamron lenses, taking pictures and thinking my glass was pretty good. I mean, they're a little soft wide open, but every lens is like that, right? Why pay more for the fancy Canon name brand and the red ring when this aftermarket glass makes perfectly fine pictures? L glass is a waste of money, I say!

Then my wife bought a 100-400L. And I used it a little. And I quickly came to an undeniable conclusion:

L glass kicks ass.

Detail, color, contrast... holy MTF charts, batman! This thing is in a different league than Sigma & Tamron. And image stabilization opens up new possibilities, too.

I went through the process of calibrating all my lenses with the AF microadjustment feature of the 1D Mk III. The Sigma & Tamrons all needed some tweaking (little wonder the Sigma 70-200 rarely focused correctly on my 20D). The 100-400L was bang-on. No tweaking required.

Now recently my wife nagged me until I relented and approved the purchase of a 24-70L (She says it's her lens. She's in for a rude awaking on that.). First thing I did was take some comparison shots using it and my Tamron 28-75. Which confirmed my earlier conclusion:

L glass kicks ass.

So now I'm looking at the picture of the EF 70-200 F2.8L IS on the B&H website, drooling like some kid with his nose pressed against the toy store window, wondering how I'm going to resist the urge to drop another $1,700 and put my Sigma days behind me.

The problem is, that won't be the end of it. Next, I'll "need" a 17-40 too. And God knows what else. Maybe an 85L or the whole blessed holy trinity of primes. Or maybe something long and fast like a 300 f/2.8

Pity me. I have ventured down a path with no return that will suck me dry. I will die broke, and my kin will have to sell my gear to pay for my funeral.

Curtis don't even go near the 200 2L.

Curtis N wrote in post #8376955
In the second shot, why it the one lens (85L?) orange while the two big ones are green?

And what's up with the green ring on one of the lenses (left side) in the first shot?

It's the 70-300 DO IS

Some more L porn

You just have to try L Primes. So much better than L zooms.

LOL! Nice work posting the lens porn for the poor man. Or should I say soon to be poor man. :P