Your first L-lens...

[calebk]

First L lens was a 24-70. I needed that range as I had just went to a 1.3x crop camera. Buy because you need it, not because it's prestigious or gives you bragging rights.

 

[iamcarlos]

70-200 f2.8

Damn painful parting with the money...

Always believed that the eye behind the camera is more important than the lens..

But this lens was superb and I totally understood the L obsession.

 

[yujun]

first and only L atm is the 70-200 F4 IS USM. love it to bits.

 

[spartacus.ret]

Always believed that the eye behind the camera is more important than the lens.

arguments like this are only applicable to people who can't shoot to save their lives, but like to upgrade their gear.

you give a lao-yar-pok lens and a good performing lens to a photographer who knows what he is doing, you will see the difference. same goes for camera bodies.

that's why i hate this argument - it's like saying if you're a very good photographer, shooting a point-and-shoot is all you need.

 

[spartacus.ret]

btw, 135L.

one of the best out there, with the 24L, 35L, 85L, 200 f2L and the 300Ls.

 

[muttons79]

My first was the 24-105 f/4 for the reach, followed by the 16-35 f/2.8 for the wide end

Now infected badly by the L virus!

 

[frankchn]

24-105 f/4L and 70-200 f/2.8L IS for me actually. Added the 17-40 f/4L for wide landscapes and thinking about the 100-400L for zoo and big-ish wildlife.

 

[chalib]

70-200 4IS

Amazed with its sharpness wide open

 

[Kit]

that's why i hate this argument - it's like saying if you're a very good photographer, shooting a point-and-shoot is all you need.

That's a misconstrued view of the statement.

A good photographer have to know what to use and how to use it well to get the pictures taken. That's why the photographer is important where equipment is concerned. If he thinks a PnS sufficient then so be it but that does not necesary means that all he ever needs.

 

[m3lv1nh0]

My virgin L lens is the 24-70. It's long and thick.

 

[iamcarlos]

arguments like this are only applicable to people who can't shoot to save their lives, but like to upgrade their gear.

you give a lao-yar-pok lens and a good performing lens to a photographer who knows what he is doing, you will see the difference. same goes for camera bodies.

that's why i hate this argument - it's like saying if you're a very good photographer, shooting a point-and-shoot is all you need.

Uh huh.. I've seen waaay to many folks with L lens shooting god-knows-what. Which was why I had the initial belief that if you're good you're good. You don't need an L lens.. till I bought my very first L lens and found the amazing difference it made to my photos.

Anyways.. we digress, the L lens is indeed worth the money!

 

[sfz]

24-105 f/4L and 70-200 f/2.8L IS for me actually. Added the 17-40 f/4L for wide landscapes and thinking about the 100-400L for zoo and big-ish wildlife.

you have the exact lineup i'm looking at

 

[dRebelXT]

17-40..
but my tokina 11-16 beats 17-40 already.. better built and sharper at 16mm vs 17mm.

 

[StrifeYun]

hmm , first was the 70-200f2.8... love the USM on canon hehe contrust and built of "L"

 

[babykailan]

My first also 17-40L. Cheap, light and good! Thinking of 16-35 now but... better dont think lah. :bsmilie:

 

[Garion]

My first L lens was the same with many people here...the venerable 17-40 f4L. Got it many years back when I had a 10D and its still serving me faithfully. I got it then coz it covered a somewhat general 'walkabout' shooting range for a 1.6x crop, and the price point makes it an affordable first L lens. Now using it primarily to cover wide angle shots on a 1.3x crop camera. No intention to swap for 16-35 down the road...its good enuff for my needs, and will keep it in lieu of the possibility of acquiring FF body in future.

Once you go the 'L' route, it is hard to turn back. I've gone on to more L glass, no regrets thus far....sure they cost a lot, but what you pay is what you get...and you are definitely getting excellent IQ in spades.

To beginners wondering to take the plunge for 'L'....if you are constrained by budget, try to prioritize what kind of photography you find yourself doing the most and target the 'L' lens which is most suitable for that application. In the end it boils down to your individual budget and needs. But I can safely say, you won't regret getting an 'L' if you can afford it.

 

[NE clicks clicks]

Here goes:

My 1st L was also a 17-40 f/4 L when I was using it on 20D.(Reason: The 18-55 kit non IS pic quality and built isn't up to the mark)
My 2nd L was a 700-200 f/4 L. (Reason : My 70-300mm is a crap lens)
My 3rd L was a 700-200 f/4 L IS. (Reason : upgrade from 70-200 f/4 cos of the IS, it works a treat!)
My 4th and last L is the 24-105 f/4 L IS (Reason : Its a wonderful combo with my new 5DMK II).
Hope my L bug would stop there

 

[+evenstar]

1st L: 24-70 f2.8 as it works well with my 1D II
2nd: 70-200 2.8L IS to replace my 70-300
3rd: 17-40 f4L due to work requirements
4th: 300 f2.8L IS as i like to shoot sports

 

[scenic98]

looks like most has 17-40 as their first L lens. Me no different. Then got the other popular L lens...the 70-200 f4. 70-200 f2.8 too rich (and heavy for me). been using them on my 350 and now 50d. compared to the kit lens that came with the 350, the 17-40 is defintely a big improvement. too bad back then they didn't have such 18-200 as the kit lens. would have been a good travelling lens.

crumpler 7mil bag is good enough for my abv set up plus a flash.

using a spare 70L dry box passed to me by my dad.

 

[st0pandst4re]

1st L - 70-200 F4L
2nd L - 24-105 F4L IS (decided to get this over the 24-70 because i realised i needed the IS more then the f2.8!)

saving for the 300 F2.8L IS! :bsmilie: