Do I need L lenses?

Strangways

Strangways

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,195
Name
Gordon
Edit My Images
Yes
I only take pictures for my own pleasure so should I really worry about buyng L lenses. I find that the Canon software sharpens things more than I need, so do you really see a need for me to have L lenses if it is just for me to admire?
 
Simply NO.;)


Not imho



md:thumbs:
 
Nope, there is no real need for them at all. If you're happy and enjoying the taking of and looking at your photos, then you have the perfect kit. :thumbs:
 
You have asked the question and answered it yourself :D
 
Perhaps you could buy one then give it to me if you still felt you didnt need it :D:D:D

If you happy with what you have then thats all that matters
 
No, stay well clear of them. I bought one, and am about to get another. It's a dirty, dirty habbit.

If you're only taking pics for your own pleasure and are happy with what you're acheiving then no, you don't need them. If like me though you found that your kit is struggling to get the results you demand then yes.
 
I think you should use L lenses till you've passed your test, after that you can use what you want...:)
 
I need L lenses and a 5D mkII and a 1Ds mkIII and.....................................
 
It depends on what you are doing. If you are happy with your results, then stick with what you have.

I shoot birdies, and found that my 70-300 IS didn't quite give the results I wanted. I bought a second hand 100-400 L IS, the difference in image quality is noticable. Unfortunately all the birdies have bu****ed off for the minute
 
No you don't NEED them if you only take pictures for your own pleasure. There may come a time when you want them but that's a different issue, and nothing wrong with that. But as for need? Then no you don't.
 
You will see better pictures with L glass.. not better photography.. better pictures.. Its not about sharpness for me.. Its the massive difference in colour between 3rd party and L lens.

It doesn't matter what your taking the pictures for.. It matters how good you want them to be :)
 
You don't need them - you NEED air to breath, water to drink, food to eat, shelter from the elements. Pretty much anything else is wants.
 
If you can afford them without starving, why not? Your question does make it seem like more than a want than a need though.:D

Do remember that all L glass were not created equal so carefully research what you want to buy for your needs and not simply for the sake of L glass.

Welcome to the empty wallet club:thumbs:
 
Thank you all very much for your responses. :thumbs:

I think you are right, in so much that, I don't need them I just want them. I shall wait until my lottery numbers come up and spoil myself, mentime I will carry on enjoying all the options of lenses I have. :)
 
If you are happy with your images, then stay with what you have.

I thought that the 'upgrade' to L was not going to give much benefit.

Here are two 100% crops, taken indoors, in manual mode, at the same focal length, on two different lenses.
I don't think there would be much argument as to which image would be considered better.
However, given that one lens costs 3x the other, is the image 3x better?



click each image for a 400px version. Lighting was identical between shots (hence indoors)

Edit: Perhaps I should say, that for 3 years, the images from the 'lesser' lens have been good enough for me.
 
an L lens is a sub-brand of lenses from Canon. Some state that they are Luxury lenses. They are meant to be 'professional' lenses and are weather sealed (for the 1D I believe) and should be guaranteed to give a quality image (where here quality is in terms of the effects of the light passing through, not how good the image was in the first place). Well, when I say guaranteed, a lens can't become an L lens without meeting certain quality standards.
If you go to www.canon.co.uk you can even search on lenses which are L
 
There are an awful lot of us 'pleasure' shooters on this site. I have just two lenses and they are both L. I could sell them both for profit tomorrow. You can't say that about many consumer lenses. Not that I would as they have given me the very best pics of my kids growing up and invaluable memories. I would hate to look back and wish I had bought better lenses.

But you are quite right in that nobody needs them. Any lens can be used to take a picture. Processing can make an improvement too.

Take the best pictures you can with the best equipment you can afford and enjoy the hobby.

Graham
 
Something to consider asides from the optical perfection that is L glass, L lenses are better built and very reliable in extreme conditions
 
inaneredstripe said:
and if you wanting new lenses to entend your range of kit. sigma's EX lenses are supposedly pro quality kit.
and a lot cheaper.
Click to expand...

I already have some EX lenses and I can't imagine how these could be improved on, especially the 70mm f2.8 macro.
 
i just dont feel the need for L glass really ,,:D
 
I want L glass

don't need it

other things to spend the money on...like a holiday in which I could take nice travel photos in the first place!

if you want to get close to L glass quality and sharpness look at the 50mm 1.4 which I think it's a stonker of a lens and complements the 40D very well
 
Love this thread!
My photo mentor got her FRPS with a non-L 28-135, a darned fine lens that is....
That was in the days of film.
She's had various digital bodies and is currently using a 5DII.

The interesting thing is that she never felt the need for L glass until she migrated from the 20D to the 5D.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top