Is it every Canon user (pro, hobbyist ) want to own a white L lens?

[nf0rc3r]

Are they really the lens that can deliver divine quality? I wish to have a prime L but it is too expensive for me....whatever I have now are doing a very good job for me so will the L do a better job? And in fact I am wondering will it be a waste for an L to mounted on a cropped sensor...I think many will disagree with me.

I don't think so. In fact if u need the range u would wish u have a crop sensor to mount to instead of a FF.

 

[Snoweagle]

Good point.. Just a thought only. If i win toto tomorrow i will get the 100-400. If not most probably the 70-300

Haha.. Don't buy just becos u gian the lens, it's more of to yr needs then buy the most suitable lens to match it.

 

[Snoweagle]

how much did u bought your 70-300L?

do u have problem shooting in lowlight (church) condition?

$1930 from TK and $278 for the tripod mount from CP.

No probs in low-light conditions as the IS really performs very well even at 300mm, f/5.6, ISO 400.

 

[nathaniel]

Maybe when I have save enough for a L prime, I will probably say why not a get FF to create a bundle of joy...Haha...

one day, FF will be affordable. i think it's just a matter of time. for now, i'm tempted by the film FF, maybe the EOS Elan 7NE for the eye-controlled focus, which Canon doesn't do anymore.

 

[sinned79]

$1930 from TK and $278 for the tripod mount from CP.

No probs in low-light conditions as the IS really performs very well even at 300mm, f/5.6, ISO 400.

icic... i heard from my friend who got the same lens, this lens is pretty light. but the only thing i dun like is that it doesn't have internal focusing... so the lens extend as u zoom in.

 

[Snoweagle]

icic... i heard from my friend who got the same lens, this lens is pretty light. but the only thing i dun like is that it doesn't have internal focusing... so the lens extend as u zoom in.

It weight just over 1kg by itself and adding the tripod mount, only adds a little more weight. I think u mean internal zooming instead? cos focusing is still internal. To me doesn't really matter as it's still weather-sealed and is the shortest and most portable white L lens i've ever seen when retracted.

 

[sinned79]

It weight just over 1kg by itself and adding the tripod mount, only adds a little more weight. I think u mean internal zooming instead? cos focusing is still internal. To me doesn't really matter as it's still weather-sealed and is the shortest and most portable white L lens i've ever seen when retracted.

oops yah i mean internal zooming.

 

[Stratix]

seriously, its just a lens, not a status symbol. i mean, well, maybe to some, holding a white lens could elevate your self-concept, but hey, it's really just a metal tube with about 20 pieces of glass inside.

to be honest, i have L lenses, and i only have L glasses now. but no, it's just equipment i use for shoot. L or not, no biggy man.

 

[Stratix]

and oh ya, white lens = heavy. sometimes i do hope they dont make lenses this heavy!

 

[Snoweagle]

and oh ya, white lens = heavy. sometimes i do hope they dont make lenses this heavy!

The 70-200 f/4 non-IS is not heavy. I only find those over a kg then is considered heavy.

 

[akrapovic600]

shhh u stalk me ah! :x

Iḿ everywhere...

Anyway, 70-200 F4L USM non-IS weights 750gm..

 

[Snoweagle]

Iḿ everywhere...

Anyway, 70-200 F4L USM non-IS weights 750gm..

No lah, should be just a tad over 700g.

 

[akrapovic600]

No lah, should be just a tad over 700g.

From the review i found last time, they put it at 750..

A great lens too and was my first L lens..

 

[Snoweagle]

From the review i found last time, they put it at 750..

A great lens too and was my first L lens..

It's suppose to be 705g, not 750g. Source from thedigitalpicture.com and also Canon's website.

 

[trd2970]

100 2.8 is

 

[PeterKhoo]

Seeking opinion of seniors here. I have a 1D mk2N with 24-105L. Find the range wanting sometimes and am lazy to change lens. Am considering changing the 24-105L to a 28-300L. Your comments will be appreciated.

 

[Anson]

Seeking opinion of seniors here. I have a 1D mk2N with 24-105L. Find the range wanting sometimes and am lazy to change lens. Am considering changing the 24-105L to a 28-300L. Your comments will be appreciated.

28-300L is a heavy lens...

 

[PeterKhoo]

28-300L is a heavy lens...

LOL. You have a point there .With the 1D mk1N they will weigh a tonne.

 

[sinned79]

Seeking opinion of seniors here. I have a 1D mk2N with 24-105L. Find the range wanting sometimes and am lazy to change lens. Am considering changing the 24-105L to a 28-300L. Your comments will be appreciated.

cannot be lazy lah. changing lens is so simple, wun takes u more then 10 seconds.

 

[PeterKhoo]

cannot be lazy lah. changing lens is so simple, wun takes u more then 10 seconds.

Well I am the lazy sort and always just want to have one lens. I thought 28-300L will cover almost all I will ever need. Is there a review of that lens somewhere? How heavy would the lens with the 1D mk2N?