which L lens?

bigmonster

bigmonster

Messages
26
Edit My Images
No
Well, some people mentioned that if you don't know why you need upgrading, the you don't need to upgrade. But I want to set myself a target on saving money. :D

So, my question is, which L series lens should I get first? I know there's a lot of L lenses out there but if you get the opportunity to have just ONE L lens, which lens it would be? Please mentioned the price also. So I can start saving :D


p/s: I mostly looking for an L lens suitable for portrait/landscape photography.
 
Probably a 24-105 F4L Is would be a good starting point, and cover both your bases.

Around £650 ? new
 
portrait then 24-70 2.8 or the 24-105.

24-70 pin sharp and the 2.8 is great!

Ive heard people getting great results with the 24-105 in the studio.
 
I agree with Les. 24-105 f4 L

Versatile and not *too* expensive :)

EDIT: Camera Price Buster are showing it currently at between £760 & the high £800's :eek:
 
Thanks for the reply :D

"me write down 24-105mm f4 L.."

Keep the suggestions going.. ;D
 
The 17-40 f/4 would be pretty ideal for landscapes, but you might find it a bit short for portraits? And possibly not fast enough for portaits if you want to be using a shallow depth of field, but it's not the most expensive L by a long way! About £530 new. I would say the 24-105, but 24mm on a cropped-sensor camera might be a bit long for some landscapes, unless you've also got something in the 10-20 range?

Chris
 
Strange cus if I was doing a portrait I would put the nifty fifty on before my 24-70L
 
chris321 said:
The 17-40 f/4 would be pretty ideal for landscapes, but you might find it a bit short for portraits? And possibly not fast enough for portaits if you want to be using a shallow depth of field, but it's not the most expensive L by a long way! About £530 new. I would say the 24-105, but 24mm on a cropped-sensor camera might be a bit long for some landscapes, unless you've also got something in the 10-20 range?

Chris
Click to expand...

Well, for now I don't have any specific lens for landscape. :/

I would like to get one of those ultra wide angle but still can't made up my mind which lens to choose..
 
For the cost of one L lens you can get a couple, if not 3, cracking non-L lenses.

Instead of a 24-105 you could get 50mm f/1.8 (bargain for the price), 85mm 1.8 and possibly a sigma 30mm f/1.4 (might need to go through a few to find a sharp copy) - alternativey for a bit more you could change the 50mm 1.8 for a 1.4. There's also the 10-22mm to consider, is more than the other lenses I've suggested so would possibly cost as much as some L's in the current climate but it is worth looking at

Don't get caught up on buying L glass - it is good, but there are plenty of other amazing lenses
 
bigmonster said:
Well, for now I don't have any specific lens for landscape. :/

I would like to get one of those ultra wide angle but still can't made up my mind which lens to choose..
Click to expand...

Be careful about getting an ultra-wide lens, if you're thinking of moving to full-frame any time soon, your options are quite limited. If you're wanting portraits and landscapes, then maybe either the 17-40mm L and a nifty fifty, or the Canon 10-22mm (or the sigma/tokina equivalent) and 24-105mm L. There's also a huge range of really good fast L primes that'll be great for portraits to consider!

Chris
 
If I could only have one, it'd be my 24-70 without a doubt. The extra length of the 24-105 would be nice, but I couldn't live with f4.

What kind of portraits do you do? Individuals / groups, studio? I do a fair bit of natural light portraiture (and despise studios, but that's by the by) so the 2.8 is a nice option to have. If you're in the studio, then it's probably not going to come in to play too often.
 
Taking photography as a hobby so no studio work for me. Basically, on wedding photography. And yes, usually I do low light portrait..
 
I would go for the 17-40L, great landscape lens and you have the 50f1.8 you could use for portraits.
 
As others have said there are plenty of other great non L lenses out there, where for 750 you could get a 24-105 you could also get a 85 1.8, 50 1.8 (great portrait lenses) and Tamron 17-50 2.8 for landscapes.



However if it had to be a L lens then for what you are asking the 24-70 or 24-105 are ideal, as a general walk about lens.
 
Love my 24-70 F2.8L

I've got a 70-200 F2.8L IS and have to say the 24-70 gets used most of the time (though I'm looking to get another body soon)
 
I swapped my 24-105 for the 24-70 don`t regret it for one moment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top