Which L lens?

M

macmike

Messages
570
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm sorry for the very vague question, but I've decided it's time to get some real glass. Now if I were obsessed with street, I'd get a 17-40, if wildlife, then the 100-400, but I'm a bit of an all-rounder. A jack of all trades and master of none :bonk:

So, if you have the time and will, please convince me which L lens to get. It's been in my signature for months and in the New Year I'll do something about it. Cheers guys. (y)

Oh and I have a 40D.
 
28-300? Huge range...not too sure what the IQ is like but I'm sure there are plenty of examples out there :)
 
Well, I can highlight two pieces of L glass which are fantastic as walkabout lenses

Canon 24-70 F/2.8L
Canon 24-105 IS F/4L

Of the two I'd imagine the 24-105 would be better for you, the IS is fantastic and the extra range is useful. I have one and use it as my walkabout lens all the time.
 
I have the 2.8 24-70 love it! great lens,
 
hyakuhei said:
Well, I can highlight two pieces of L glass which are fantastic as walkabout lenses

Canon 24-70 F/2.8L
Canon 24-105 IS F/4L

Of the two I'd imagine the 24-105 would be better for you, the IS is fantastic and the extra range is useful. I have one and use it as my walkabout lens all the time.
Click to expand...

Apart from if i was you, i'd get the 24-70 f2.8L, and a 70-200 F2.8 also.
 
My all-time favorite walkabout lens has to be the 24-105mm f4 -5.6 L IS. It's not as fast as the 24-70mm f2.8 obviously, but the extra length and the IS makes it well worth the cost. I have used that lens (24-105mm) at ISO 3200 with good effect so it can be used for low light and the IS + the extra length makes it a champion, in my eyes anyway.

I have both, and hubby now has the 24-70mm f2.8 L almost permanently on, as his walkabout............so it's horses for courses!!
 
purpleclouds said:
I was going by the opinion there was no mention of a budget...so there was no limit ;) :LOL:
Click to expand...

Well if there is no budget limit I'd recommend the Canon EF 800mm f/5.6 L IS USM, not only will the OP have an L lens but bragging rights to be the first on here to get the 800 :LOL:
 
photostar_1 said:
My all-time favorite walkabout lens has to be the 24-105mm f4 -5.6 L IS :nono:. It's not as fast as the 24-70mm f2.8 obviously, but the extra length and the IS makes it well worth the cost. I have used that lens (24-105mm) at ISO 3200 with good effect so it can be used for low light and the IS + the extra length makes it a champion, in my eyes anyway.

I have both, and hubby now has the 24-70mm f2.8 L almost permanently on, as his walkabout............so it's horses for courses!!
Click to expand...

The 24-105L IS has a constant f4 across its range!
 
purpleclouds said:
I was going by the opinion there was no mention of a budget...so there was no limit ;) :LOL:
Click to expand...

Oh, there's definitely a budget I'm afraid. (There's always a bloody budget!) Just not quite sure what. Probably around £800.

whiteflyer said:
Well if there is no budget limit I'd recommend the Canon EF 800mm f/5.6 L IS USM, not only will the OP have an L lens but bragging rights to be the first on here to get the 800 :LOL:
Click to expand...

:love: That would be too good to be true. B&H have it in stock for just $11k.......... Santa? :help:

I think I'm swaying towards a 24-something. Thanks for the helpful comments folks (y)
 
First question I'd ask is what lens do you have at the moment and what do you think a L lens will bring to your photography. Plus, what's your budget. The reason I ask is to try and understand your thinking. Do you feel that the quality of your current lens is lacking. I'm guessing you have the normal kit lens with the camera. Which doesn't really do the the camera any favours, but can you see where its lacking ?

You may find that saving a lot of money and going for a 50mm prime lens may give you what you want. The question is by spending several hundred pounds are you going to see any improvement? I'd seriously suggest that you make a short list of the lenses you are interested in and see if you can try them on your camera.

The 24-70 and the 24-105 are both good products. I have the latter and am very pleased with it. I find the IS and the extra reach, for me , makes it a better choice than the 24-70. Other people may prefer the wider aperture of the 24-70. It's horses for courses.

Sorry there is no easy answer to your question
 
Chappers said:
First question I'd ask is.... /snip
Click to expand...

I appreciate your input. I have the 18-55mm IS, 55-250mm IS, 100mm Macro, 50mm 1.8 and a Sigma 10-20. So I'm not lacking range at all, just speed. I guess I'm after something in the sub-50mm range that's faster to focus than the 18-55. Also slightly faster aperture. I need speed!! :nuts: :LOL:

Thing with the 18-55 - say I'm out in town and someone's walking towards me, by the time it's focussed, they're closer than they were, and out of focus. D'oh! :bang:

:LOL:
 
Unfortunately, not an "L" at all but, the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS.

I own the great 24-70mm f/2.8L but, since getting the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens, I have not used the "L" for anything except studio work. I do prefer it in the studio over the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens but for just about all other general photography; the 17-55mm lens is my go-to glass.

I match the 17-55mm with the great 70-200mm f/4L IS lens and don't need to carry a third lens with a wider angle for most of my shooting. When I used the 24-70L; I always needed to bring a separate wide-angle lens along. The 38.4mm equivalent of the 24mm side was just not wide enough to do the job. However, I find the 27.2mm equivalent of the 17mm side just fine for most general shooting.
 
As an introduction to L'ism then your £800 should just about get you a 17-35/2.8 and a 28-70/2.8.....secondhand of course, but two fast zooms from wide to low end tele.

Bob
 
I'm sorry for the very vague question, but I've decided it's time to get some real glass.

Too be honest this sounds like its an aspirational question, and you want an "L" lens.. well because its "L" rather than any particular need!

Its best to make decisions with a clear head, and not be seduced by clever marketing.
 
rpcrowe said:
Unfortunately, not an "L" at all but, the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS.

I own the great 24-70mm f/2.8L but, since getting the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens, I have not used the "L" for anything except studio work. I do prefer it in the studio over the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens but for just about all other general photography; the 17-55mm lens is my go-to glass.

I match the 17-55mm with the great 70-200mm f/4L IS lens and don't need to carry a third lens with a wider angle for most of my shooting. /snip
Click to expand...

That's the wide I have matched with the 70-200 2.8 and a great combo it is too.
The 17-55 f/2.8 IS does have the optical quality of an L series lens, it's fast with image stabilization in a wide angle lens and is very well built, but the one big drawback is the EF-S format of the lens. It's in the same price range and an L but if you move to a 5 or 1 series body in the future it just will not fit.

So if you want the IQ and will be sticking to an **D or ***D body then the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS has it all, but if your aiming for a *D body then get and L series lens
 
puddleduck said:
Too be honest this sounds like its an aspirational question, and you want an "L" lens.. well because its "L" rather than any particular need!
Click to expand...

You're right, there's definitely something of that in my thinking, but it's not my main motive. As I mentioned in post 14, I'm after something with a faster aperture that's quicker to focus (something I associate in my mind with the L series).

I'm just realising some of the Ls don't come up for sale all too often anyway.

:bang: hate :bang: making :bang: decisions
 
macmike said:
Thing with the 18-55 - say I'm out in town and someone's walking towards me, by the time it's focussed, they're closer than they were, and out of focus. D'oh! :bang:

:LOL:
Click to expand...

You tried AI servo? That should fix that problem :)
 
dod said:
You tried AI servo? That should fix that problem :)
Click to expand...

Likewise AI Focus, it takes the decision for you and switches between oneshot and AI Servo automagically.
 
I have the 17-40 f4 L and I use it with a 20D. It's a very nice combination.
My long lens is the 70-200 f4 L - another cracking lens. I've had a play about with the 100-400 on a 5D and whilst it was very nice, I felt it was a bit of a handfull. It would probably be more so with a cropped sensor, as the magnification factor will make it a 160 - 640 .
 
macmike said:
I appreciate your input. I have the 18-55mm IS, 55-250mm IS, 100mm Macro, 50mm 1.8 and a Sigma 10-20. So I'm not lacking range at all, just speed. I guess I'm after something in the sub-50mm range that's faster to focus than the 18-55. Also slightly faster aperture. I need speed!! :nuts: :LOL:

Thing with the 18-55 - say I'm out in town and someone's walking towards me, by the time it's focussed, they're closer than they were, and out of focus. D'oh! :bang:

:LOL:
Click to expand...
Ok, having looked at your line up I've made a decision! :D

The way to do it is this: ask yourself, what's the weak link in my lens line up?

Well, looking at what you have, it's not the Sigma, not the nifty fifty and not the macro. So you don't need to mess about with L lenses in that range.

The "weak links" are the kit lens and the 55-250mm.

And the 55-250 is BARELY a weak link really.

Then you look at the options to replace the kit lens:

16-35L
17-40L
24-70L
24-105L

And to replace the 55-250:

70-200L x 4 (ie. the 2.8 and f4 and IS and non-IS versions).
100-400L

Then go through them one by one.

16-35L - very expensive, very wide, very fast.

Discounted because it's eating into the Sigma range (and the Sigma is not a weak link lens!)

17-40L - cheaper, wide, not that fast.

Discounted because, again, it eats into the Sigma range (and it's not especially fast).

24-70L

The lens to buy! Why? Because it doesn't cut into the Sigma's range and is faster than the 24-105.

24-105L

Almost the lens to buy, but it's not as fast as the above (and because... well - see below!)

Then we move onto the 55-250 and its replacement.

100-400L

Discounted - very expensive, slightly unwieldy and really for people who NEED it (ie. sports / bird fans). That's just my opinion, but I would discount it for now.

Then the 70-200L's.

To cut a long story short, I would go with the 70-200 f4 IS.

I have always found the need for speed is greater at shorter shutter speeds (ie. for street shooting). Especially with IS, I think f4 is plenty fast enough! The non-IS f4 would be another option, but I personally would miss having the IS.

Also... then you have the range between 24-200 covered (with L glass). You have a great lens (the Sigma) for extra-wide. You have a nifty fifty.. just because! And you have a macro for macro.


It's expensive. In fact, looking at Amazon prices, it's double your budget at the moment.

Given that the weaker of the two "weak link" lenses is the 18-55, I would replace it with the 24-70L.

Ta da! :D
 
I was " on the fence" as to whether a fast lens was better than IS, until last thursday, when I was asked to shoot a tv company recording a concert, underground, in a slate mine.
No flash allowed on the set and very little available light. I took 3 lenses, a 50 1.4, 24-105 is,70-200 2.8 is.
Both the is lenses outperformed the 50 1.4 by quite a bit, handheld, with iso at 1600 and shutterspeeds as low as 1/8 of a second, I binned about 80% taken with the 50mm, but only about 30% taken with the other two,.
I do not own the 24-70 2.8, so I can not really compare them, I know it is a cracking lens, but the 24-105 still impresses me, when I think I have pushed it beyond its limits, it still delivers.

Alwyn
 
sgotwr said:
........the 24-105 still impresses me, when I think I have pushed it beyond its limits, it still delivers.

Alwyn
Click to expand...

I agree here.....I pushed mine REALLY hard the other week, to ISO 3200, and at f4, 1/60th-1/125th was getting very acceptable results.

I do love my 24-70 f2.8 L, despite the weight, but the extra reach, the constant f4 and the ability of my 40D to handle noise means I now use the 24-105mm almost all the time.
 
After thinking about trading / selling my 24-105 for the 24-70 I decided to hire the 24-70 and give it a go.

First impressions are - not great. The 24-105 is so much more flexible in terms of shutter speed, focal length and macro abilities (You get a shallower, bigger picture 105@F4 than at 70@F2.8).

I've hired the 70 for a wedding this weekend so hopefully I'll get along well with it but one things for sure, it wont be replacing my 24-105. Perhaps when the 24-70 IS comes out I might reconsider :thinking:
 
hyakuhei said:
After thinking about trading / selling my 24-105 for the 24-70 I decided to hire the 24-70 and give it a go.

First impressions are - not great. The 24-105 is so much more flexible in terms of shutter speed, focal length and macro abilities (You get a shallower, bigger picture 105@F4 than at 70@F2.8).
Click to expand...

Thanks for this. If you feel able to, could you tell me which of the two is sharper in the 24-50mm range? Would be very useful.

(Or anyone for that matter :))

(y)
 
macmike said:
If you feel able to, could you tell me which of the two is sharper in the 24-50mm range?
Click to expand...
The 24-70 is sharper. See for yourself here.

My 2p worth, if you're interested:

If I wanted one of these as a walk-around all-purpose lens, I'd go for the 24-105 because of the focal length range and the IS. It would be a great "kit" lens for a full-frame body.

But if I wanted to shoot in the studio, or at weddings, I'd go for the 24-70. The limited focal length range wouldn't be such a problem in these situations. The f/2.8 is helpful in poor light, arguably more so than IS because IS won't freeze subject motion. The background blur is nicer with the 24-70 at f/2.8. And many people say that the 24-70 produces nicer colours, though I haven't used it enough to really understand what they mean.
 
I'm on the other side of the fence from stewart.

I'll get back to you on the sharpness issue. As far as the F/2.8 vs F/4 IS debate, I wonder about this:

With the F/2.8 you have no IS so you need to be at shutters of 1/80 or higher to be sure of no blur coming from camera shake.

For a lot of the wedding stuff I do indoors, I'm quite happy to shoot at 1/20 at F4 with my IS - this allows me to drop the ISO a bit and get a bit less noise in the shot.

As I said earlier, I just hired the 24-70 to try it out at a wedding I'm second shooting tomorrow, I'll get back with my impressions.
 
woooo hoooooo i got my new 5D today..:banana:

I have not got a lens to go on it but i'm happy...:coat:

p.s woooo hhoooooo did i already say that..ooops
 
Ok, so I have to send back my 24-70 F/2.8 tomorrow and I have to say, the lens is awesome.

Is it better than my 24-105 F/4 IS - No but the 24-105 isn't better either.

I had fantastic fun with the 24-70 and I've come to the following conclusions, for wedding photography.

If shooting with flash, I want to use the 24-70 - if flash isn't allowed, I'd want my 24-105 - the flexibility given by the IS can win back perhaps 200 ISO points.

In short, I'll be keeping my 24-105 and saving for the 24-70 :D

Heres a quick sample from Fridays wedding:

3068688904_f16b0d8dd1.jpg
 
Thanks again everyone for all your help. I went for a S/H 24-70 in the end, which arrived today. :woot:

Unfortunately, I have a whole load of work to do before going home for Christmas, so it'll be another two weeks before I can get my grubby mitts on it. :bonk: How will I survive!?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top