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

All the old pre-2002 L lenses are overpriced. They should be selling at a bargain price by now.

With the significantly inflated prices these days, I'm not sure what lens isn't overpriced.

That said, I've said all along that the best bang + most underappreciated L lens is the 200 f2.8 L II USM. What a ripper.

The 70-200 f4 L USM is behind in 2nd place with the 17-40 f4 L USM safely in 3rd.

Well anyways, a lot more could be said...

I'd like to say they're all overpriced. We'd all be happier if they were cheaper

Everyone wants everything cheaper. That's why WalMart does such a good business.
Quality is another matter. If you really think the value of a lens is determined by the worth of its raw materials then I would imagine you're willing to sell your prints for what the price of the paper and ink to produce them costs.

The 135L is a steal. The 70-200 F/4L nonIS is a LOT of lens for the money. The 17-40, residing in the most challenging category, wide, is also a bargain.

The super-fast primes. especially the newer versions of some, and a little spendy for my taste. On full frame, 135L gives me as shallow a depth of field as I ever need. I don't need 1.4. Some folks do like to work with a hair-thin DOF, so the big buck primes might be worth it to them.

all of the L primes,

Comparing the 70-200 2.8L IS and the non IS version, the IS version seems overpriced. You get over it when you start shooting at 1/20 and 200mm, though.

Stunning images - great low light performance and fantastic bokeh. Ditto on this one.

darosk wrote in post #8602719
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.

I've always felt this one is an excellent value; compact, lightweight and has a great range on a FF for the landscape and architectural photographer. I also like that it shares the same filter size as my 24-105 and 70-200.

Ultimate CC wrote in post #8602742
17-40L is well worth the money...

The best deal on an L would be the 200mm 2.8. My second choice would be the 400mm 5.6 which like the 200mm 2.8 is a lot of lens for the $$$.

The L lens that seems to me to be way overpriced is the 14mm 2.8. I know its a great lens, but when you can buy the Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 at a fraction of the 14mm 2.8's price, it seems very expensive.

All lenses are overpriced...just use pinhole camera.

All 70-200 are worth every penny.

35L is nice, also 135L. I think many other L's should be 25% cheaper

dolina wrote in post #8603285
All the old pre-2002 L lenses are overpriced. They should be selling at a bargain price by now.

Because 2002 was a clear turnaround in product quality and anything made before then will ultimately catch fire and make your camera explode.

For me all the IS lens are overprice:
Canon 70-200 f/4.0 USM L IS - 1200 euro
Canon 70 -200 / 4,0 USM L - 600-700 euro
It's impossible justify 2x price only for IS!

The same for many new fixed lens:
85 mm f/1.2 vs 85 mm f/1.8
50 mm f/1.4 vs 50 mm f/1.8
etc.

Yes they are more solid and more bright but sincerely you can't do shoot 3-4 times better only because someone is rich and can buy similar lens!

dolina wrote in post #8603285
All the old pre-2002 L lenses are overpriced. They should be selling at a bargain price by now.

i'll send the memo to canon. that 50mm f/1.0L that was released in 1989 should definitely be at bargain prices now. $200 sounds fair for such an old, useless lens right?

alessandro2009 wrote in post #8604208
Yes they are more solid and more bright but sincerely you can't do shoot 3-4 times better only because someone is rich and can buy similar lens!

nobody says better glass buys you better photos.