Which L's are worth the price and which L's do you think are over priced?

Just a general question to all the L users out there. Which L do you think is worth the price? Which L do you think is over priced? and if you think its over priced which piece of glass regardless of brand would you think would match it IQ wise. I understand we all have different shooting styles so state which is your favorite style. I wont say which is my favorite as i have yet to own an L but will so in the future. Look forward to your answers! Even post a pic of your favorite L.

Personally, I think the 14L is overpriced. I'd rather have the Nikon 14-24.

200/2.8 worth the price. 200/2.0L IS overpriced

I think the 135L seems to be at a very nice price point given the quality of the images I've seen from it. I agree with Todd, the 14L seems to be priced a little extremely.

17-40L is well worth the money...

The 200 2L is not overpriced. Its probably one of the sharpest lenses in the Canon line up and with IS its 5 maybe 6 stops faster than the 2.8 and a sharper at 2 than the 2.8 is at 2.8. Good glass costs. It always has.

I'd say the 24L, 35L, 85L, 135L, 200 2L, 300 2.8L are all worth the price.

70-200 f4 Is (or non) is probably the best priced L lens for the quality images you get.

135l is nice too.

70-200 2.8L IS USM Well worth the price

The 24mkII seems to be a tad over priced compared to the mkI. When the 35L mkII hits the street that'll be another prime that would be priced similarly to the 24mkII. If you need them "you will" buy them.

The 135L is the best deal for a prime and the 17-40L is for a zoom. My 17-40L is a superb performer.

For portraits the 85L is worth the extra $$$$ compared to the 85 f/1.8. However for non L glass the f/1.8 version is a pretty darn good bokeh machine.

I'm going to say the 800/5.6L IS is overpriced. It contains less glass (by volume) and is lighter than the 400/2.8L IS, yet is $4400 more. Slap a 2x TC on the 400/2.8 and you almost have the same optical quality as the 800/5.6. Of course, you could put that 2x TC on the 800/5.6 and get a 1600mm lens but that's not the point--the point is that the materials and design of the 800/5.6 don't seem to be any more sophisticated than the 400/2.8 but the price is much higher.

Great Priced L's
17-40
135L
200L....2.8
Not sure any are overpriced, I know what "I" deem expensive though
With most L's you get what you pay for, solid, fast, silent, sharp, contrasty....Luxory

Personally, I think the T&S lenses are a bit overpriced.

I do agree that the TS lenses seem overpriced. I think Canon sees it as more of a niche item and can crank up the prices.

It can't cost them that much for the glass, the lathed metal body like every other lens, a few dials and no autofocus.

mikekelley wrote in post #8603174
I do agree that the TS lenses seem overpriced. I think Canon sees it as more of a niche item and can crank up the prices.

It can't cost them that much for the glass, the lathed metal body like every other lens, a few dials and no autofocus.

But Canon doesn't produce T/S lenses in anything even remotely approaching "mass quantities."

Specialty lenses made in relatively limited quantities = Costlier To Consumer.