Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
Member Login

Posted: 4/11/2007 2:31:00 PM EST
How much of a difference am I going to notice in picture quality, or quality of the lens.  Are they really worth the extra $$$. I dont take pics for a living, just another hobby. If any of you have pics with an L lense vs. cheaper canon lense that would be helpful too.   Thanks
Link Posted: 4/11/2007 2:48:23 PM EST
In a word...yes. But remember, the L series were designed for pro photographers that can blow thousands on lenses (i.e. think Sports Illustrated photographers that need to get good sports shots, National Geographic, etc.)
Link Posted: 4/11/2007 2:53:44 PM EST
With the L lenses I find the edge to edge sharpness is superior, brighter and the coatings are better.
Link Posted: 4/11/2007 3:35:46 PM EST
Every lens I own is a L lens. (with the exception of the Sigma 24-70 that I use on remote-mounted cameras)

Yes, they're worth the money.

But not if you don't make a living doing this.
Link Posted: 4/11/2007 7:58:23 PM EST
Link Posted: 4/12/2007 7:34:04 AM EST

Quoted:
While the quality of the glass itself is great, the super fast focusing is the big difference for me.
It means the difference between getting the shot, and not getting the shot.  Plus, you never have to buy a lense and worry about upgrading.
FWIW, I have the 17-55 2.8 EF-S
70-200 F4 L
50 1.8

I know that I will replace the 50, but the other two (which put me back abou $1550) will stay with me as long as I stay canon.  Even if I get a FF or the 1.3, I'll still keep the 30D as back up till the shutter dies.
L glass keeps is value very, very well.  Just in case the whole photography thing doesn't pan out.


If you like 50mm, get the 50mm f/1.2L.

I would if I could.  As it is, I make do with my Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D.
Link Posted: 4/12/2007 6:56:36 PM EST
Link Posted: 4/13/2007 6:11:02 AM EST
I'm currently lookint at Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8L USM
lens.

Does anyone have any experience with it?  
It has really good reviews, but was hoping someone here could enlighten me.

The other question I have would this be a "direct replacement" for my kit lens?  By that I mean if I buy this, would I no longer need my kit lens anymore?

My intention is to replace it with something better and in the same focal range and this seems to keep popping up.  Has anyone found a good deal on this lens?  If so, where and how much?

Thanks
Link Posted: 4/13/2007 6:24:54 AM EST
I use a 70-200 f2.8 L lens and I think its amazing.  I'm saving my $$$ to get a 24-70 next.  Just beautiful glass.

www.m-mason.smugmug.com

Most of the picts on this site are taken with the 70-200 mounted to a XT.


Mark.

Link Posted: 4/13/2007 6:36:27 AM EST

Quoted:
I'm currently lookint at Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8L USM
lens.

Does anyone have any experience with it?  
It has really good reviews, but was hoping someone here could enlighten me.

The other question I have would this be a "direct replacement" for my kit lens?  By that I mean if I buy this, would I no longer need my kit lens anymore?

My intention is to replace it with something better and in the same focal range and this seems to keep popping up.  Has anyone found a good deal on this lens?  If so, where and how much?

Thanks


1)Your best bet is to get the newer 24-70 f2.8L instead.  I don't believe the Canon warranty center even works on the 28-70 any more.
2)It's not a direct replacement for the kit lens because on a crop camera, 24=38.4, which is not wide enough for an all-purpose walkaround lens IMHO.
Link Posted: 4/13/2007 6:47:01 AM EST
Link Posted: 4/13/2007 6:56:29 AM EST

Quoted:
I'm very happy with my 17-55 EF-S 2.8
It also has IS, which can be handy.


The 17-55 would be a direct replacement for the kit lens, but it's expensive for an EF/S and can only be used on the Canon 1.6X crop cameras.
Link Posted: 4/13/2007 4:37:13 PM EST

Quoted:

Quoted:
I'm currently lookint at Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8L USM
lens.

Does anyone have any experience with it?  
It has really good reviews, but was hoping someone here could enlighten me.

The other question I have would this be a "direct replacement" for my kit lens?  By that I mean if I buy this, would I no longer need my kit lens anymore?

My intention is to replace it with something better and in the same focal range and this seems to keep popping up.  Has anyone found a good deal on this lens?  If so, where and how much?

Thanks


1)Your best bet is to get the newer 24-70 f2.8L instead.  I don't believe the Canon warranty center even works on the 28-70 any more.
2)It's not a direct replacement for the kit lens because on a crop camera, 24=38.4, which is not wide enough for an all-purpose walkaround lens IMHO.


I did see that one as well.  The price difference was a bit, but I'll be looking around.
Link Posted: 4/13/2007 5:21:40 PM EST
All but one of my lenses are "L" lenses and the picture quality is much better with them. Be sure to go with the excellent B+W MRC filters with these lenses and not the standard Hoya filters. They are expensive, but live up to the quality of the "L" series glass.

Also, the "L" series lenses are all waterproof, whereas the other Canon lenses are not. I shot a bunch in Antarctica in a sloppy mess of rain/freezing rain and I had no worries with the "L"
glass on my EOS 1D's. I was riding around on an ATV with cameras dangling in the wet.
Link Posted: 4/13/2007 5:29:52 PM EST

Quoted:
I'm currently lookint at Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8L USM
lens.

Does anyone have any experience with it?  
It has really good reviews, but was hoping someone here could enlighten me.

The other question I have would this be a "direct replacement" for my kit lens?  By that I mean if I buy this, would I no longer need my kit lens anymore?

My intention is to replace it with something better and in the same focal range and this seems to keep popping up.  Has anyone found a good deal on this lens?  If so, where and how much?

Thanks


I have the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM lens and it is my number one carry lens. It takes excellent images of whatever you point it at. I do not think they make the 28-70mm any more. What do you mean by kit lens, which one? It is a good all a round lens, I wish it went down to 20mm though, then I would not need to carry my Canon EF 16-35MM F2.8L USM lens as much. It is a very bright lens for a zoom.

You won't be disappointed if you get one.

ETA:
The 24-70mm is fine to carry alone with my EOS-1D Mark II cameras, but if I take one of my 20D's for light weight it lacks enough wide angle to cover all my needs. The 20D has a 1.6 to 1 focal length multiplier as compared to the EOS1D Mark II which has a 1.3 to 1 multiplier. I believe the Rebel cameras also have a 1.6 to 1 multiplier.
Link Posted: 4/13/2007 5:58:00 PM EST

Quoted:
All but one of my lenses are "L" lenses and the picture quality is much better with them. Be sure to go with the excellent B+W MRC filters with these lenses and not the standard Hoya filters. They are expensive, but live up to the quality of the "L" series glass.

Also, the "L" series lenses are all waterproof, whereas the other Canon lenses are not. I shot a bunch in Antarctica in a sloppy mess of rain/freezing rain and I had no worries with the "L"
glass on my EOS 1D's. I was riding around on an ATV with cameras dangling in the wet.


for the record, they're not waterproof, but they are highly water-resistant.
Link Posted: 4/13/2007 6:02:35 PM EST

Quoted:

Quoted:
I'm currently lookint at Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8L USM
lens.

Does anyone have any experience with it?  
It has really good reviews, but was hoping someone here could enlighten me.

The other question I have would this be a "direct replacement" for my kit lens?  By that I mean if I buy this, would I no longer need my kit lens anymore?

My intention is to replace it with something better and in the same focal range and this seems to keep popping up.  Has anyone found a good deal on this lens?  If so, where and how much?

Thanks


I have the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM lens and it is my number one carry lens. It takes excellent images of whatever you point it at. I do not think they make the 28-70mm any more. What do you mean by kit lens, which one? It is a good all a round lens, I wish it went down to 20mm though, then I would not need to carry my Canon EF 16-35MM F2.8L USM lens as much. It is a very bright lens for a zoom.

You won't be disappointed if you get one.

ETA:
The 24-70mm is fine to carry alone with my EOS-1D Mark II cameras, but if I take one of my 20D's for light weight it lacks enough wide angle to cover all my needs. The 20D has a 1.6 to 1 focal length multiplier as compared to the EOS1D Mark II which has a 1.3 to 1 multiplier. I believe the Rebel cameras also have a 1.6 to 1 multiplier.


The kit lens is the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.
While it doesn't go down to 18mm, I hardly use it at that range anyways.  I use the kit lense at the 24-55 range anyways.  Where did you pick it up at?
Link Posted: 4/13/2007 6:14:22 PM EST
I have the 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 IS. They're awesome. If you have these two lenses you'll have 99% of your "normal" shooting needs covered.

A 5D is next on my list.  

I shot this with my 24-70L

And this one with my 70-200L

Link Posted: 4/14/2007 3:36:52 AM EST
Very nice Jelly.

I'm probably sold on the 24-70L.  Just gotta acquire the funds.  
Link Posted: 4/14/2007 6:27:35 AM EST
Link Posted: 4/14/2007 8:37:22 AM EST

Quoted:
Very nice Jelly.

I'm probably sold on the 24-70L.  Just gotta acquire the funds.  


You may want to consider the 24-105 f4 IS L also.


Mark.

Link Posted: 4/14/2007 1:31:05 PM EST
I currently have a 70-300, so I'll probably go the 24-70mm route first.
Link Posted: 4/17/2007 8:22:29 PM EST

Quoted:
Every lens I own is a L lens. (with the exception of the Sigma 24-70 that I use on remote-mounted cameras)

Yes, they're worth the money.

But not if you don't make a living doing this.


same here...all L's ....just like Acogs and cheaper scopes...if you are not going to combat you can get away with cheaper ones...Mine earn my living..if it was just a hobby I would maybe have one...but probably would not spend that much on a lens

this is what me and my partner use (minus the one lens and body to take the shot) we are going to slim it down a bit though

I don't even want to think what they all cost...but they paid for themselves....


If I was just a hobby shooter I would have one of them 28-300mm or one of them new digital rangefinder cameras and one lense...
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 1:49:45 AM EST

Quoted:
Every lens I own is a L lens. (with the exception of the Sigma 24-70 that I use on remote-mounted cameras)

Yes, they're worth the money.

But not if you don't make a living doing this.


I disagree with that sentiment totally.  It's akin to saying "Yeah, the Wilson Combat 45 is worth the money, but not if you're not a professional."  They are worth the money if you want the best, whether you make a living at it or not.  They're worth the money if you are serious about photography and want to take the best shots you can.  
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 5:50:45 AM EST

Quoted:

Quoted:
Every lens I own is a L lens. (with the exception of the Sigma 24-70 that I use on remote-mounted cameras)

Yes, they're worth the money.

But not if you don't make a living doing this.


same here...all L's ....just like Acogs and cheaper scopes...if you are not going to combat you can get away with cheaper ones...Mine earn my living..if it was just a hobby I would maybe have one...but probably would not spend that much on a lens

this is what me and my partner use (minus the one lens and body to take the shot) we are going to slim it down a bit though
danielyaris.com/ar15web/gear.jpg
I don't even want to think what they all cost...but they paid for themselves....


If I was just a hobby shooter I would have one of them 28-300mm or one of them new digital rangefinder cameras and one lense...


Since you're going to "slim it down" could you please send me one of those 1D bodies and the 300 2.8 and the (what I think is a)400 2.8 please. Thank you.

Mark.

Link Posted: 4/18/2007 6:35:56 AM EST
height=8
Quoted:
I currently have a 70-300, so I'll probably go the 24-70mm route first.


If you're interested, here is a 24-70L thread with many photos posted:

Archive Post Your 24-70mm f2.8L USM Photos!
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 6:38:35 AM EST

Quoted:
If I was just a hobby shooter I would have one of them 28-300mm or one of them new digital rangefinder cameras and one lense...


And yet a whole lot of "just hobby shooters" totally disagree with this and are much more passionate about their hobby than most professionals are about their job.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 8:23:03 AM EST

Quoted:

Quoted:
If I was just a hobby shooter I would have one of them 28-300mm or one of them new digital rangefinder cameras and one lense...


And yet a whole lot of "just hobby shooters" totally disagree with this and are much more passionate about their hobby than most professionals are about their job.



I did say if "I" was
when I go to family functions and my own personal stuff I use a point and shoot digital...it's just easier for "me". throw it in my pocket and go...Ever so often I take some personal gun pics with my good stuff..but I use it all manly for work (and work is fun sometimes )

something important to shoot I bring the good kit. I will say though just like with anything if you want the best get the best. The average consumer can't tell the difference of a shot with an L lens or non L lens. A person either a hobbiest or pro that has attention to detail will notice a difference.

I will say this though too...when I started out years ago I got cheap lenses...and now wish I would have got the best from the start...
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 11:11:46 AM EST

Quoted:

Quoted:
If I was just a hobby shooter I would have one of them 28-300mm or one of them new digital rangefinder cameras and one lense...


And yet a whole lot of "just hobby shooters" totally disagree with this and are much more passionate about their hobby than most professionals are about their job.


I agree with that....if you really want to quit your hobby, make it into your profession.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 3:56:20 PM EST

Quoted:

Quoted:
I currently have a 70-300, so I'll probably go the 24-70mm route first.


If you're interested, here is a 24-70L thread with many photos posted:

Archive Post Your 24-70mm f2.8L USM Photos!


Thanks for the link.  Lots of great photos in there.
Link Posted: 4/21/2007 9:21:33 PM EST

Quoted:

Quoted:
Every lens I own is a L lens. (with the exception of the Sigma 24-70 that I use on remote-mounted cameras)

Yes, they're worth the money.

But not if you don't make a living doing this.


I disagree with that sentiment totally.  It's akin to saying "Yeah, the Wilson Combat 45 is worth the money, but not if you're not a professional."  They are worth the money if you want the best, whether you make a living at it or not.  They're worth the money if you are serious about photography and want to take the best shots you can.  


Yes, but there is a practicality angle to it as well.  I'd love to own all L glass but there are other things I like too and unfortunately I simply can't afford to lay out that kind of money on lenses.  There seems to be little doubt that if you want the best performance over the entire advertised range that L glass is what it takes.  The thing is there are choices that will get you 75 to 90% of that and they are significantly less expensive

Myself, I love the hobby and I like good photos but I can live with the trade-offs of some of the better third party lenses.  I think there are a few of the third party lenses that compete well and one does have to seriously ask how much money they want to spend to get an A+ over B+, A-.

One thing is for certain though.  The L's hold their value well.  So well, I often wonder what the point is in the used market?
Top Top