L lens worth it?

[nightwolf75]

I think the Nikon Trinity lenses are the 17-35 F2.8, 28-70 F2.8 and the 80-200 F2.8...

the so-called canon trinity would be 16-35mm/f2.8L, 24-70mm/f2.8L and the 70-200mm/f2.8L IS USM (or the non-IS). this combi will set u back, oh, $5k? :sweat:

wat i would call a 'duo-nity' is the 17-40mm/f4L and 70-200mm/f4L. most people will have this combi, and in fact this is the recommended combi for travelling as stated in the canon lens book.

there are other variations to this theme for prime lens. but, trust me... u dun wanna go there... :bsmilie:

 

[dkw]

Chat with a friend to day and he says will always buy a f2.8 .... hobby becoming more expensive by the day.....

Used to be my position too, until I realised f2.8 still isn't fast enough for a lot of low light indoor shooting (w/o flash), not necessarily usable when you need DOF, but with a significant weight penalty. Would rather use a smaller, lighter (and significantly cheaper!) lens that works well in decent outdoor light, and supplement with flash when shooting indoor. For non-flash, I have the neat and light 50/1.4, which is 2 whole stops faster.

I only have 1 f2.8 lens left (of 3), still appreciate the need for speed, but a f2.8 zoom is a poor compromise in my book.

Btw, another plug for the Sigma 70-200....I had it for a while and it was an EXCELLENT lens, loved it to bits.

Cheers,

 

[trucatus]

Do you own a L lens dkw? If given a choice whaty would you buy for a Canon 300D?

 

[Castlesinthesky]

i don't know about you guys..but i'm pretty happy with my 2 L primes.

 

[dkw]

Do you own a L lens dkw? If given a choice whaty would you buy for a Canon 300D?

Equipment list is in my profile. Also used to have 17-35/2.8, 28-70/2.8 and 24-70/2.8.

I do like portraiture and wildlife, and dabble with macros. If I could have only 1 'L' lens, it would be the 100-400IS, 'coz for the rest there are very capable 3rd party alternatives.

It really depends what you like to shoot......

Cheers,

 

[khairi]

Chat with a friend to day and he says will always buy a f2.8 .... hobby becoming more expensive by the day.....

f2.8 coupled with high ISO for low light shots that's the only way to go

 

[litechaser]

Used to be my position too, until I realised f2.8 still isn't fast enough for a lot of low light indoor shooting (w/o flash), not necessarily usable when you need DOF, but with a significant weight penalty. Would rather use a smaller, lighter (and significantly cheaper!) lens that works well in decent outdoor light, and supplement with flash when shooting indoor. For non-flash, I have the neat and light 50/1.4, which is 2 whole stops faster.

I only have 1 f2.8 lens left (of 3), still appreciate the need for speed, but a f2.8 zoom is a poor compromise in my book.

Btw, another plug for the Sigma 70-200....I had it for a while and it was an EXCELLENT lens, loved it to bits.

Cheers,

yup, second that. The Sigma 70-200 f2.8 is even sharper than my L lens !

 

[2100]

That sd9.org sample is obviously a lemon. My copy at 200 f2.8 is definitely not that soft, though the CA is there.

 

[trucatus]

Maybe you guys can give me a suggestion. I will appreciate it.. Currently I own the
EF100-300mm USM f4-5.6
EF35-135mm USM (no more production)
Tamron 90 Di Macro (NEW)
EF20-35mm f3.5-4
Will be buying my first L lens with the buget should be 70-200mm f4 L. Is that a good choice for a start?

 

[mpenza]

it's my first and most frequently used L too. but why do you need it in the first place. is it because the image quality of the 100-300 is disappointing?

 

[Adam Goi]

To boost my ego? It's definitely worth it! :bsmilie:

 

[mpenza]

that's an important reason too I guess ;p I don't really need it too but convince myself to get it ;p

 

[trucatus]

Well, I'll be selling the 35-135mm and the 100-300mm to upgrade.....
Is that a good choice to start? The 70-200 f4 L...

 

[mpenza]

you asked a subjective question that you have to answer for yourself. think of what's important for you and whether the lens can satisfy your requirements.

it's the best choice for me cos I detest heavy equipment and yet I want the best image quality and fast autofocus at a price that's comfortable.

There're also many people who bought the 70-200F4L but later decide to go for the 2.8Ls, and quite a few that went straight to 2.8Ls.

 

[nightwolf75]

Well, I'll be selling the 35-135mm and the 100-300mm to upgrade.....
Is that a good choice to start? The 70-200 f4 L...

mpenza's question still stands tho... do u need the f4L?

actually, getting the f4L u are sacrificing some of ur range. if u get the f4L, u still need to find something to fill the gap for the low to mid zoom range. if u sell these 2 lenses, u are left with 20-35mm, which IMO, belongs to the low zoom range. however, its not wide enuf to shoot things like grp or landscape, neither long enuf to be a walk-about lens (ie 1 lens setup for a trip etc...).

so, do u need the f4L and wat are u going to shoot most often dat u'll need the f4L?

 

[dkw]

Well, I'll be selling the 35-135mm and the 100-300mm to upgrade.....
Is that a good choice to start? The 70-200 f4 L...

Maybe you give us an idea of what type of shooting you intend to do with it? The lens in and of itself is very highly rated.

Cheers,

 

[khairi]

h ah a...this thread still growing...

bro...all you need to do now is just answer the questions that was asked like:
1. What do you want to shoot? Macro? Travel? Portraits? Street? Events?
Once you've found your reason...then you'll start to wonder which lens will suit those needs of yours.
2. maybe you'll need
17-40
24-70
70-200
i dunno...to me, the lense will fall into place once you know what you want to shoot.

You have had experience with lenses b4, so you should roughly know what's cookin for your taste and what's not.

I think, you wanted a set that is versatile for you. something that could be easily manipulated to your needs according to conditions or situations that you would have considered facing in future.

 

[trucatus]

Most of the time shooting family, my children, some flowers, landscape, ... I shoot almost everything !!! I think the most important is image quality.

 

[dkw]

Most of the time shooting family, my children, some flowers, landscape, ... I shoot almost everything !!! I think the most important is image quality.

I think the 17-40/4L and 70-200/4L are the two more affordable 'L' lenses out there and are very highly regarded in terms of image quality.

17-40 --> http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=3&sort=7&thecat=27

70-200/4 --> http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=14&sort=7&thecat=27

The 17-40 would be quite useful for landscapes (shameless plug --> I have a mint one for sale ;p ), and the 70-200/4 will be nice for portraits, and with tubes and close-up filter, also decent for macros.

Cheers,

 

[ek35vkva]

L-lens only worths its gold if you're dealing with film photography. Digital photography entails the in-camera processor, parameter setting of the contrast level, post-shooting processing software, white-balancing, etc. Too many things that can affect the quality of the picture. If you want a really good value quality lens, go for Tamron or Tokina. Unless you're one of those shooters who prefer to be seen then to see, i.e. all dressed up with top notch equipment.

I remember during my poly days, the photographic contest first-prize went to my buddy using a Yashica camera with Fuji-lens. How about that?

If you want good color rendition? Then shoot in raw then post-process. Digital photography is going to bankrupt those creme-dela-creme guys like Leica, Carl Z., Angeniux, etc..... who always well known for their color rendition. Anyway, color is subjective.....

Having said that I'm an old-timer Canon supporter. L-Lens indeed contributed greatly to pic-quality in pre-digital photography days. Its contribution very much lessen in digital photography.

Some might not agree with me but its okay. The true spirit of forum is to respect others' opinion and this a just my own.....