cheapest L lens?

Why is it important to have L though.
Surely you should say what focal length you need, then what is the best quality/cheapest/value for money?
 
coldpenguin said:
Why is it important to have L though.
Surely you should say what focal length you need, then what is the best quality/cheapest/value for money?
Click to expand...
you managed to put what I was just about to post without coming over as rude :p

buy the lens you need/want, rather than for its red ring :)
 
Back in the dim and distant past Canon made some odd Ls, like the 100-300mm F5.6 L that I bought cheaply a few years back. But I agree, of the modern Ls the pre-IS 70-200 F4 is a beaut. I have the IS now, but I still remember the old design with affection, not least for its lovely colour.

Best

Richard
 
there are almost L glass that aren't...lacking full frame mounting or weather proofing, etc
like the 70-300 IS that people think is great (I merely like mine) and the 17-55 IS EF-s which is as good as some L glass for image quality in some tests.

i'll buy L glass when I can. it won't be for a long time though as I like f2.8 glass
 
itsdavedotnet said:
you managed to put what I was just about to post without coming over as rude :p

buy the lens you need/want, rather than for its red ring :)
Click to expand...

yes but money is a factor in my life and yes I dont want to spend on something I don't need, but I never know what I need I just fancy a piece of 'L' amd the missus keeps going on about xmas..

although I would think that if I am looking at spending that kind of money I would like something with a walkabout sort of range, not just a one trick pony..

and EF-s lenses are out as its for a 10d
 
the lowest L glass is
Canon EF 70-200mm F4.0L USM SLR Lens -67mm............... 465
Canon EF 17-40mm F4.0 L USM SLR Lens -77mm................519
Than a
Canon EF 200mm F2.8L II USM SLR Lens -72mm.................529
From Kerso
last price I had from him
 
strumstrum said:
what would be the cheapest L lens of the range? I am getting all kaffudled looking on t'web..

Ta
Click to expand...

It all depends on what you want the lens for and what your budget is.I have two L lenses and whilst they were expensive,the images from them are stunning. I also have the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and whilst not an L lens it's as good as...(y)
 
coldpenguin said:
Why is it important to have L though.
Surely you should say what focal length you need, then what is the best quality/cheapest/value for money?
Click to expand...

just what I was thinking... :thinking:

The 70-200 f4 is clearly one of the cheapest new and it is a really good lens - AF is fast enough and the IQ is superb. It makes for a nice walkabout lens, I use mine for candid portraits and also for landscapes. The cheapest L I've bought was an old 28-70 f2.8, it's an amazing lens and gets used most days. It's worth looking at some of the older models as there are bargains to be had. Like others have said work out what you want to shoot, then work out your budget, then buy the lens that fits both best.
 
For walkabout lenses, I usually use the 28-135. I have seen some stunning shots from it, but it isn't L. Is relatively cheap too.

Other people on this forum have asked for ideas, and the 24-105 (non L), and the 24-70 L have been highly recommended

Those are (mrsp from the canon website):
28-135 - £529
24 - 70 L - £1449
28 - 105 - £339
17 - 40 L - £889

Quite a difference going to L in terms of cost.
I have the 70-300 IS, which I used for quite some time for back-garden birds. MRSP on that is £609. I recently got the 100-400 L, and it is better, but would it really be work the extra £1200 for that lens if it were the same focal length?

Now obviously here I am just quoting the MRSP, as it is all in one place, rather than hunting around for it. But, a good lens, is not going to be a cheap relatively, against a bad lens compared with the MRSP.
All of the above should be EF (the 17-55 is EF-S)

What do you currently have on the 10d? I found it difficult to justify to myself getting lenses which covered the same range that I already had. (the 100-400 L was a difficult decision)
 
The build and IQ of most L lenses means they retain extremely good second hand value. Most retain 80-90% of purchase value, even after the warranty has expired.

Sure my EF-S 17-55mm F/2.8 lens can equal or exceed the IQ of most L lenses, but I doubt it will last as long or feel as tight as my L's after a years hard graft.
 
In short... If you buy L glass its all because you need the quality and performance ...

For some "the all the gear... but no idea" types there is status on it... and there will always be those who will spend for the status not because they demand the performance!

I upgarded because I wanted the optical performance... and the build quality... I do a lot of travel and landscape and am hard on my gear... my 28-135mm was a fine lens but it was not up to the job... but at the same time if you are not demanding as much as I am... you dont need it... work within your budget to get the best range of lenses you can... but dont just think an L lens will offer beter pics... It wont... no gear will... it only offers the oportunity to take them...

Look what you need and if L's for you go for it... but looking for the cheapest L is no way to look... look for the focal range and min apature you require... then set a budget and look at whats on offer... forget the red line!
 
DizMatt said:
....... and the 17-55 IS EF-s which is as good as some L glass for image quality in some tests.
Click to expand...
This lens does have L glass in it!

Quote from The Digital Picture.com
"Canon already had a superset of the 17-55mm focal length range covered with the Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens. This lens has a higher build quality, image quality and feature set than the EF-S 18-55 - adding Ring USM and 3 stop image stabilization to the feature set. What the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens adds to the 17-85's feature set is a fixed f/2.8 aperture and L-Series grade UD (Ultra-Low Dispersion glass) lens elements. Of course, price, size, weight and a reduced focal length range are the downsides of the 17-55 compared to the 17-85."

I think this is my next purchase!
 
I tried the 17-55mm F2.8 and was less than impressed....so unimpressed....it was SOLD!

As for the 70-200mm F4 L...cracking lens and went to buy one until I picked up my Sigma 70-200mm F2.8....absolute stonker of a lens and in my opinion a better lens than the Canon L.
 
vectraturbo said:
I tried the 17-55mm F2.8 and was less than impressed....so unimpressed....it was SOLD!

As for the 70-200mm F4 L...cracking lens and went to buy one until I picked up my Sigma 70-200mm F2.8....absolute stonker of a lens and in my opinion a better lens than the Canon L.
Click to expand...

I find this reply quite interesting. I'm NOT knocking your views at all but interested why you didn't like the 17-55 f2.8. From the pages and pages of image examples i have seen that lens is tack sharp! So good i am thinking of getting one as a all round permanent fixture to my 450d.

I looked at loads of image examples of the Tamron 17-50mm and when i bought one i wasn't that impressed so is it just down to bad copies?

One lens i used to have was the Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-f4.5 and now looking back at some of my pics it was a really sharp lens giving great detail and at £250 a bit of a bargain!

I really want the Canon 24-105 f4 L but i don't think the f4 will work for me. I have looked back at loads of my pics and the f range on my 'Auto' setting pics is from f3.5 upwards, mostly around f4 at various low ISO settings. Also i need IS as i'm a little shaky hand held and need a wide aperture to get high shutter speeds.

Why is choosing a lens SO bloomin hard?:shrug::thinking::D
 
I tried the 17-55mm IS on my 40D and the resulting images were way less than tack sharp....stick on my 24-105mm F4 L and it blew it out the water.

I also had someone with a 450D try my 17-55mm out and they found the same thing...maybe it was just a bad copy, but when paying that money for a lens...should there be a bad copy?????

The 24-105mm F4 L is a stonker of a lens and one of my favourites...and the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 I got for a steal...it's a MKI which is supposedly optically better than the MKII and this lens is unreal sharp.....just love it.
 
vectraturbo said:
I tried the 17-55mm IS on my 40D and the resulting images were way less than tack sharp....stick on my 24-105mm F4 L and it blew it out the water.

I also had someone with a 450D try my 17-55mm out and they found the same thing...maybe it was just a bad copy, but when paying that money for a lens...should there be a bad copy?????

The 24-105mm F4 L is a stonker of a lens and one of my favourites...and the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 I got for a steal...it's a MKI which is supposedly optically better than the MKII and this lens is unreal sharp.....just love it.
Click to expand...
How do you cope with the f4 on the 24-105? does having IS help? I'm not sure the f4 will be fast enough although most of my images are between f2.8 and f5.6 at ISO no higher than 400. The 24-105 has a great focal length and if i miss the 17mm end i can always get something that end at a later date.
 
Having IS definately helps...and I can't say I notice the F4 being annoying. Although I can ramp up the 40D to ISO1600 and above without any major issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top