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

All second Generation lenses are overpriced although they offer better IQ then the first one.

50L is overpriced.

17-40, 70-200, 135L, 35L, 300 f2.8L are well priced to my eyes.

alessandro2009 wrote in post #8604208
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!

Some old Leica M glass costs more now used than it did when it was new.

DennisW1 wrote in post #8603360
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.

Dennis.
Well said.

As another poster said, the 800mm f/5.6L is overpriced compared to the 600mm f/4L and 400mm f/2.8L. Those 3 lenses should cost similarly - 600/4 + 1.4xTC = 840/5.6 and 400/2.8 + 2xTC = 800/5.6.

I'd say that the 17-40 and the 70-200/4 non-IS are real bargains - as is the 200/2.8L USM.

1move wrote in post #8602790
70-200 2.8L IS USM Well worth the price

I Disagree. If you look at the price difference between this and the f4.0L IS then I would say the 2.8IS is over-priced. Don't think I could justify spending the extra ~£600 for one stop (and twice the weight!)

If I were to base it on the current prices here in my place...

Overpriced:

14 2.8L MkII
28 1.8
85 1.2L
200 2.0L IS
16-35 2.8L

True - I built one in 1971 for about 79 cents. Couldn't find the cardboard on sale so it ran more than I'd planned.....

maverick678 wrote in post #8604169
All lenses are overpriced...just use pinhole camera.

I do agree with this statement..... they add, what - about $400 extra to a lens?

But that being said, they have vastly increased my keeper rate over the past, in low light conditions. In my case I've recouped that extra price in increased sales and exhibitable prints.

alessandro2009 wrote in post #8604208
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......

thatkatmat wrote in post #8602908
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

This would be my three also.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #8604290
Some old Leica M glass costs more now used than it did when it was new.

They are many example of prices meaningless (not only Canon).

I say the L's that are worth the price are the ones I have
17-40L, 70-200 f4L and 135L.
I also have the 24-105L.. I reckon slightly over-priced on it's own, but worth it with the 5D2 kit especially since it's got such a useful focal range.
Most of the others are over-priced :P
I REALLY want the 24mm TS-E II and 50mm 1.2L, but damn, they cost a lot... need to save up.

Hi Mike - I'm glad you brought up the 24-105 which is a TREMENDOUSLY convenient lens. On a 5D it is too versatile for me to ignore with my shooting style.

It's not the best or sharpest in the world, but it's my favorite all purpose walk-around. I bought mine in 2006 for about $1049 and have probably taken about 20K+ shots with it. It's been worth every nickle to me as it covers the range of about four lens I'd used when I shot medium format film.

mikechong wrote in post #8604379
I say the L's that are worth the price are the ones I have
17-40L, 70-200 f4L and 135L.
I also have the 24-105L.. I reckon slightly over-priced on it's own, but worth it with the 5D2 kit especially since it's got such a useful focal range.......

alessandro2009 wrote in post #8604377
They are many example of prices meaningless (not only Canon).

The market will usually set the price. I remember I paid I think right at $600 for a Canon 85 1.2 aspherical. I saw one sold for $1100 on e-bay not long ago. Good glass has always and will always be expensive.

Hasselblad Zeiss, Nikons better lenses, Leica and Canon Ls are expensive. I see some find no problem in putting 2-8K in a body but complain when a lens costs more than a few hundred bucks. The glass is ever bit as important as the body maybe more.

I'm certainly not rich. My photography pays for all of my equipment, house, car, everything but I buy only gear that I really need instead of everything.

If you can't see a difference or see the benifit in say a 200 2L over a 200 2.8 or a 70-200 2.8 then the 200 2L is not a lens for you. But as I stated with IS its 5 maybe 6 stops faster than the 200 2.8 and sharper at f/2 than the 2.8 is at 2.8. Thats worth the extra $ to some.

28 1.8 has a good price imo... Maybe 50$ less it should be...

New TS lenses are overpriced

70-200mm f4L IS, 200mm f2.8 & 135mm f2 are amazing lenses for the price

The 16-35mm f2.8 is over priced! so is the 14mm f2.8