Do you HAVE to Buy an L Lens?

[LeaderXXX]

So far only got 3 L.Think is enough for me.
Not a must to have but is good to have due to build,speed,IQ + $$$$.

 

[dan_1337]

yes! although my body isn't weather resistant, i just wipe it every so often and not worry about the lens.

 

[mrchua]

yes! although my body isn't weather resistant, i just wipe it every so often and not worry about the lens.

woohoo! that looks like a real confidence booster for me when i take my gear out for skiing later in the year! :thumbsup:

 

[xunjas]

woohoo! that looks like a real confidence booster for me when i take my gear out for skiing later in the year! :thumbsup:

just bring a cloth to wipe it during the shoot. canon gear can use in the drizzle. =)

 

[kencfk]

Oh yes, I love my first L lens after upgrading from an EF-S.

 

[Redkangoo]

still pending $$$ for my 1st L len....so far EF-S and EF is good enough for my 400D ;p

 

[Russ]

What I like about L lenses (not in any particular order):

1) Build
2) Feel
3) Colour and contrast
4) Sharpness (most of them are very decent)
5) The feeling when I look at pictures taken with them (the "wow, this is awesome" feeling)

What do I dislike

1) Price
2) Can be heavy (some exceptions like the 70-200 4/L)

Do I have to buy? NO, but I have 2 specimens. Same type of question as:

- Do you HAVE to eat at Lei Garden when you can pay much less at a cze char place?
- Do you HAVE to drive a BMW or Audi when a Hyundai gets you from A to B?
- Do you HAVE to wear Timberland when Bata protects your feet?
- Do you HAVE to get a new 42 inch LCD TV when a 32 inch CRT works as well?
- Do you HAVE to get a iPhone when you can make calls on a Nokia 3120?
- Do you HAVE to wear a TAG Heuer when a Casio watch tells the time as well?

Notice I didn't mention astronomically expensive items (Rolls Royce, Zegna, Patek Philippe) but moderate luxuries

The answer is often about desires and wants and not needs. If you really talk about needs, then all we need is food, water and some protection from the elements.

 

[Duinchlfc]

i just get whats the best bang for my buck,I got the 3rd party lens tamron 17-50mm 2.8 and telezoom ef 70-200 2.8.one is pretty cheap,the other not so

 

[Snoweagle]

yes! although my body isn't weather resistant, i just wipe it every so often and not worry about the lens.

Even if your lens is weather-sealed but body isn't, it's still not considered completely weather-sealed and chances are that moisture will still creep into the DSLR.

 

[engrmariano]

i choose "NO - I disagree". but why i still got 70-200 2.8L IS USM?

because theres no EF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM.:dunno::bsmilie:

 

[xunjas]

i choose "NO - I disagree". but why i still got 70-200 2.8L IS USM?

because theres no EF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM.:dunno::bsmilie:

:bsmilie::bsmilie: most probably they wont make that ef-s lens.

 

[StrifeYun]

i choose "NO - I disagree". but why i still got 70-200 2.8L IS USM?

because theres no EF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM.:dunno::bsmilie:

hmmm , EF-S 40-125 f 2.8 IS :bigeyes: ;p

 

[eosdigital]

I think Canon already thought so with the EF-S 55-250mm F/4-5.6.. albiet slower aperture

 

[SianZronG]

who dug up this thread? it was started in 2002 when people were still using D30 /D60 lol!

 

[Snoweagle]

who dug up this thread? it was started in 2002 when people were still using D30 /D60 lol!

Well, the Ls still fit these bodies mah. :bsmilie:

 

[nams]

Yes and no, depends on your intended usage and what you wanna shoot right? I mean, there is no non-L equivalent in the Canon line-up for long telephotos (400mm and above), specialised lenses (180 macro, 24 TS-E etc) . btw, I am keeping 3rd parties lenses out of the discussion here.

The only reason I keep my non-L prime is their portablilty (35,50,85 etc). Sometimes u just wanna enjoy the fun of taking pictures without being bogged down by heavy glass in your bag.

 

[zerartul]

Wah age old thread got dugged up again lol. I only have 1 L in my setup but thats cause Im using crop and the non Ls are kinda better for my purpose. Usually the longer telephotos are L as pointed out. Shorter lengths has many non L prime and good zooms to choose from that can par a L in optics but probably not build lol.

 

[Snoweagle]

IMO the strengths of Canon's Ls are in their teles.

 

[xunjas]

IMO the strengths of Canon's Ls are in their teles.

tt's where all the moola are coming from also~~:sweatsm:

 

[charlesleong]

however, not everybody "needs" a 1600mm tele