Which L zoom brought you great joy?

[L-coholic]

70-200mm f/4L non-IS.
used to have this lens, the price and image quality brought me great joy,
the first and only L lens of my life(jumped ship to Nikon one year ago).

 

[esoeij]

Thanks. As there isn't a non-IS version I did not bother indicate IS or non-IS for these lenses.

Interesting to note that while the 70-200 2.8 IS has garnered the most votes, none of its 70-200 brothers came close. On the other hand, the 24-105 IS has received quite a good number of votes and is just behind the 24-70 2.8. Does that indicate photographers' preference for IS lenses?

Despite their higher costs, IS lenses are still very popular. Does it mean that photographers are also willing to pay for IS?

For tele-zooms, I would pay more for IS. For walkabout lenses like the 24-70 and 24-105, the latter is actually cheaper but in any case the main considerations in deciding between the two are more than just IS (e.g. weight, f-stop, focal range, IQ).

 

[Snoweagle]

Thanks. As there isn't a non-IS version I did not bother indicate IS or non-IS for these lenses.

Interesting to note that while the 70-200 2.8 IS has garnered the most votes, none of its 70-200 brothers came close. On the other hand, the 24-105 IS has received quite a good number of votes and is just behind the 24-70 2.8. Does that indicate photographers' preference for IS lenses?

Despite their higher costs, IS lenses are still very popular. Does it mean that photographers are also willing to pay for IS?

I used to own non-IS lenses including the 70-200 f/4 but ever since i used the 70-300, it's really worth every penny for IS.

 

[An drew]

For tele-zooms, I would pay more for IS. For walkabout lenses like the 24-70 and 24-105, the latter is actually cheaper but in any case the main considerations in deciding between the two are more than just IS (e.g. weight, f-stop, focal range, IQ).

Agree.

I used to own non-IS lenses including the 70-200 f/4 but ever since i used the 70-300, it's really worth every penny for IS.

Is your 70-300 sharper than the 70-200 f/4 at 200mm?

If yes, is your 70-300 at 300mm as sharp as the 70-200 at 200mm?

 

[Snoweagle]

Is your 70-300 sharper than the 70-200 f/4 at 200mm?

If yes, is your 70-300 at 300mm as sharp as the 70-200 at 200mm?

Comparing both at the tele ends, they are equally very sharp. But if u're comparing both at 70mm, the 70-200 f/4 is still a slight tad sharper. The 70-300 at 200mm, difference is negligible as compared to 70-200 f/4.

L teles have never failed to impress me. :thumbsup:

 

[Turbonetics]

Thanks. As there isn't a non-IS version I did not bother indicate IS or non-IS for these lenses.

Interesting to note that while the 70-200 2.8 IS has garnered the most votes, none of its 70-200 brothers came close. On the other hand, the 24-105 IS has received quite a good number of votes and is just behind the 24-70 2.8. Does that indicate photographers' preference for IS lenses?

Despite their higher costs, IS lenses are still very popular. Does it mean that photographers are also willing to pay for IS?

personally i feel that having IS an advantage especially for telephoto lenses.
based on the votes,i do own the 70-200mm IS II lens.this lens is really sharp and never fails to impress me.
i used to own the 1st runner up lens,24-70mm.it may not be as sharp as the champion(personal feel),but it is still a sharp lens.
no wonder it is one of the best selling walkabout L lens.
i do regret selling it off for the 16-35mm II.
will wait if Canon will come up with an IS version of the 24-70mm and i might get one of it.

 

[Snoweagle]

personally i feel that having IS an advantage especially for telephoto lenses.
based on the votes,i do own the 70-200mm IS II lens.this lens is really sharp and never fails to impress me.
i used to own the 1st runner up lens,24-70mm.it may not be as sharp as the champion(personal feel),but it is still a sharp lens.
no wonder it is one of the best selling walkabout L lens.
i do regret selling it off for the 16-35mm II.
will wait if Canon will come up with an IS version of the 24-70mm and i might get one of it.

There was a rumoured 24-85 f/2.8L IS, wonder how true it is.

 

[An drew]

i do regret selling it off for the 16-35mm II.

Are you happy with your 16-35 II? I feel mine is underutilized.

 

[An drew]

Comparing both at the tele ends, they are equally very sharp. But if u're comparing both at 70mm, the 70-200 f/4 is still a slight tad sharper. The 70-300 at 200mm, difference is negligible as compared to 70-200 f/4.

L teles have never failed to impress me. :thumbsup:

Thanks for sharing. Seems like this will pair well with my 24-105 for travel.

 

[Turbonetics]

There was a rumoured 24-85 f/2.8L IS, wonder how true it is.

i take rumours with a pinch of salt until it has been officially announced.

 

[Turbonetics]

Are you happy with your 16-35 II? I feel mine is underutilized.

iam using it as my walkabout lens on a 1.3x crop body.
overall it is still a good performer.
but i feel that it is not as sharp as the 24-70mm.

 

[Snoweagle]

Thanks for sharing. Seems like this will pair well with my 24-105 for travel.

The 24-105 is an excellent L travel lens though i don't own one, but used before. The 70-300 to me is the perfect tele zoom for FF.

 

[An drew]

but i feel that it is not as sharp as the 24-70mm.

Unfortunately Canon's ultrawide zooms are not known to be ultra-sharp. Nevertheless the 16-35 II is better than the old 16-35 and 17-35. It is ok lah.

 

[Snoweagle]

Unfortunately Canon's ultrawide zooms are not known to be ultra-sharp. Nevertheless the 16-35 II is better than the old 16-35 and 17-35. It is ok lah.

I second your first sentence. Nikon has better UWAs.

 

[avsquare]

owning the 24-105mm. looking forward to buy the 17-40mm

 

[An drew]

owning the 24-105mm. looking forward to buy the 17-40mm

Ah, going for the f/4 zoom trinity? In case you miss the earlier post see below.

You will be happier to add 8-15 f/4, plus the quad f/4 primes 300 f/4, 400 f/4, 500 f/4, 600 f/4 :bsmilie:

 

[Snoweagle]

But the 400 f/4 is not a L, but DO.

 

[An drew]

owning the 24-105mm. looking forward to buy the 17-40mm

Joke aside, I think this is a good combination.

But the 400 f/4 is not a L, but DO.

Please forget the 400 f/4, really overpriced. Somemore not L.

 

[avsquare]

Joke aside, I think this is a good combination.

Please forget the 400 f/4, really overpriced. Somemore not L.

No lah, cos after SERIOUS consideration - since I don't shoot sports/action, nor I shoot action under low light, I don't think I need the whopping f/2.8 and wider. I kind of shoot still subjects, and I always have my 580EX II with me when I walk around..

So I guess 17-40 f/4 and 24-105 f/4 makes a good combi for general purpose.. saves me much more money compared to 16-35 f/2.8 and 24-70 f/2.8 which is easily double.. haha!

 

[Snoweagle]

Please forget the 400 f/4, really overpriced. Somemore not L.

I didn't say i wanted to get that lens mah.