Finally buying an L Series lens

Kiwi Jaz

Kiwi Jaz

Suspended / Banned
Messages
785
Name
Jarod
Edit My Images
Yes
After badgering my wife for some time, she has finally agreed to let me buy some an L series lens for my Canon 450d.

I am trying to work out which to go for though.
It is a lot of money for me, so I wont be buying another one for some time.
I have been through Adobe Bridge to see which of my current lens length's I use the most and that didnt make it any easier to decide as I seem to use my 70-200 and 18-55 equally!
I am gearing towards the 17-40 at the moment because I have always liked photos taken within that focal length.
The other consideration is that I am doing a fair bit of travel. This is mainly long weekends to european countries, flying on cheap airlines and only taking carry on luggage.
So, I am thinking that the 70-200 may be too large a lens to carry along with my clothes etc (plus I would need to upgrade my Crumpler Jimmy 500 bag I suspect.
The other thing I may need to consider is that the 17-40 doesnt look as ostentacious (to muggers and bad men) as the 17-40.
I love landscape photography (but I am not very good at it yet), travel photography, Motorsports (but dont go to many events as I have no car!) and still life and macro stuff. Pretty much in that order.
I currently have the kit 18-55 IS, 70-200 zoom and nifty fifty (which I love).
I guess my decision is kind of made really and is likely to be the 17-40.
Can anyone see any reason not to go ahead with this purchase? Anyone know the best place to buy this lens from? My budget is around £520.
 
PM Kerso. You already have the 70-200?? Have you considered a sigma 10-20 as you like landscape stuff?
 
Buy it from the classified's mate and you'll still have about £60 or more left over. It sounds like you have made your mind up so go with the lens you want. You wouldn't be buying it if you hadn't already read up so you'll know how good it is. You have your nifty fifty for portraits too if you feel the 17-40 is not suited to that. Good luck with your search.
 
Id PM Kerso on here and see what price he is doing them for, you can pick up from leven as well so not to far away from you. I take it your contemplating the 17-40 or 70-200 F4 as your post is a bit confusing?

To throw another lens into the equation have you thought about a 17-55 IS? its a bit more than your budget but is designed for cropped camera's, ive just swapped from a 24-105 L to it and its a cracking lens.
 
Did you give the 24 - 105L some thought ? I find its a great walk about lens on my 450D.

++ check out prices with Kerso on the forum here.
 
Thanks for the replies guys. Yes, I am thinking of either the 17-40 L or 70-200 L.
My budget is around £520 and my wife is a bit funny about me buying a used lens. So, I figure that gives me those two options.
Have PM'd Kerso.
Sorry James, what I meant was I already have a 70-200mm USM II lens.
Thanks again.
 
I have both, and love both. Which would I prefer? Ooooo, hard one, 17-40, as its the one I use most.
 
Thanks aligibbs..kind of helps reinforce my decision.
Love those shots on your flickr site dkspook. Those are exactly the kind of shots I am wanting..vibrant, clear and great angles.
My wife doesnt want me to get a used lens though.
Will I have any trouble with the 17-40 L on my 450d seeing it is a cropped sensor camera?
I figure I will get similar angles of view as on my 18-55.
 
TBH Kiwi Jaz, getting a 17-40L makes no sense at all to me. It will produce identical images to your kit lens, except that it is missing 15mm at the long end and doesn't have IS :shrug:

It is much better built of course, and perhaps most importantly of all it does have a red ring on it ;)

If you are expecting a miraculous increase in image quality, you will be disappointed. A guy on here hired a 16-35 2.8 L and when he compared it to identical pictures with his Canon IS kit lens, he couldn't tell the difference. The kit lens is really pretty good. I strongly recommened that you hire a 17-40L off StewartR www.lensesforhire.co.uk for a couple of days before you spend serious money.

With the 17-40L what you are paying for is a lens designed to cover full frame format. The designers had to trade focal length range in order to do that, but on a crop camera you're just throwing that extra away - for no benefit.

If you let the designers play to the advanatges of the cropped format, what you get is the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS. If you go for one of those, you keep all the range and IS, and get the major benefit of f/2.8 throughout. It is very well built (if not quite L standard) and sharper than most L lenses. Maybe hire one of these off StewartR too and see how you like it.

EF-S lenses are designed for the smaller crop format, and EF lenses for full frame. The fact that they happen to fit and L versions cost a lot of money doesn't automatically make them better - in fact in terms of specification they are usually inferior. However, the benefits of the smaller format in terms of lens design quickly run out after about 50-60mm so beyond that length EF lenses are equally suitable - in fact the longest EF-S lens is the 60mm macro.
 
Cripes..that makes things a bit more difficult then. I was expecting a miraculous increase in image quality, but if I am not going to get that, I guess there is not much point in getting the 17-40 L Series.
It is pretty expensive to hire lenses..would cut into my budget.
Maybe I should consider other options other than the L Series.
I see on Camerapricebuster that the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS is priced at £750..a bit out of my price range. Looking to spend around £520.
Maybe I should be considering Sigma kit instead?
I had read that people recommended the Canon L series instead but if it is not going to give me any benefit on my 450D I guess I should look for an alternative.
 
Kiwi Jaz said:
Thanks aligibbs..kind of helps reinforce my decision.
Love those shots on your flickr site dkspook. Those are exactly the kind of shots I am wanting..vibrant, clear and great angles.
My wife doesnt want me to get a used lens though.
Will I have any trouble with the 17-40 L on my 450d seeing it is a cropped sensor camera?
I figure I will get similar angles of view as on my 18-55.
Click to expand...

I use it on my 20D- which is a crop body. I find it an amazing lens- check out most of my pics:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/alistairgibbs/

were taken with this lens. I think the quality is worth the price.
 
If you don't mind me asking, what problem does your wife have with you buying used glass? Does she know a good deal about photography herself? If not, I'd suggest making your own decision about whether or not to buy used, as it could mean you end up with a fantastic quality lens in mint condition at a fraction of the RRP. Unless it's her money or something, in which case it's her choice :P
 
Kiwi Jaz said:
Cripes..that makes things a bit more difficult then. I was expecting a miraculous increase in image quality, but if I am not going to get that, I guess there is not much point in getting the 17-40 L Series.
It is pretty expensive to hire lenses..would cut into my budget.
Maybe I should consider other options other than the L Series.
I see on Camerapricebuster that the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS is priced at £750..a bit out of my price range. Looking to spend around £520.
Maybe I should be considering Sigma kit instead?
I had read that people recommended the Canon L series instead but if it is not going to give me any benefit on my 450D I guess I should look for an alternative.
Click to expand...

Why not take your camera into your local shop and take some shots with a lens and see what you think of the difference between the L glass and your kit lens
No need to hire or buy all free tests
 
Kiwi Jaz said:
Cripes..that makes things a bit more difficult then. I was expecting a miraculous increase in image quality, but if I am not going to get that, I guess there is not much point in getting the 17-40 L Series.
It is pretty expensive to hire lenses..would cut into my budget.
Maybe I should consider other options other than the L Series.
I see on Camerapricebuster that the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS is priced at £750..a bit out of my price range. Looking to spend around £520.
Maybe I should be considering Sigma kit instead?
I had read that people recommended the Canon L series instead but if it is not going to give me any benefit on my 450D I guess I should look for an alternative.
Click to expand...

Sorry bud :( I know what it's like when you've set your heart on something. I'm not saying the 17-40L is as good as the IS kit lens, but the real difference is that it's made for full frame and is very well made. If you were on full frame, I'd recommend it like a shot and I'd have one myself.

If you want to boost the image quality of your kit lens, shoot Raw and run it through the latest version of Canon's DPP software - not sure which one you have but the latest updgrade is free here http://web.canon.jp/imaging/dcp/firm-e/pssx1is/index.html Check out the image correction suite which fixes residual CA, vignetting and distortion on all Canon lenses utilising custom corrections according to focal length, aperture, focusing distance etc. Clever software and very easy to use :)
 
Kiwi Jaz said:
I see on Camerapricebuster that the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS is priced at £750..a bit out of my price range. Looking to spend around £520.
Click to expand...

PM Kerso and see what he is doing them at (thats where i got mine from), it wont be £520 but it's going to be cheaper than CPB. Hoppy gave me the same advice the other day and its been good advice, the 17-55 doesnt have the build quality of an L, but its the images that matter and its up there with my 70-200 2.8.
 
That is a good idea Chaz..might check out some options in the camera shops this weekend.
Thanks HoppyUK. I have Adobe CS4 for editing my photos.
I have had some photos rejected by Alamy for clarity (and they are strict on PP sharpening), even though they were taken with tripod, self timer and mirror up enabled. I had thought that maybe I would see more clarity in the photos with the L Series lens.
I really like dkspooks set on flickr. Dont have the money for that lens though!:)
 
Kiwi Jaz said:
That is a good idea Chaz..might check out some options in the camera shops this weekend.
Thanks HoppyUK. I have Adobe CS4 for editing my photos.
I have had some photos rejected by Alamy for clarity (and they are strict on PP sharpening), even though they were taken with tripod, self timer and mirror up enabled. I had thought that maybe I would see more clarity in the photos with the L Series lens.
I really like dkspooks set on flickr. Dont have the money for that lens though!:)
Click to expand...

You're welcome Kiwi. Hope you find what you're after ;)

Photoshop is a brilliant editing programme, but the best Raw converter is Canon DPP which of course has that unqiue image enhancement facility. You can then import the files into Photoshop to finish off if that's your preferred workflow.
 
HoppyUK said:
You're welcome Kiwi. Hope you find what you're after ;)

Photoshop is a brilliant editing programme, but the best Raw converter is Canon DPP which of course has that unqiue image enhancement facility. You can then import the files into Photoshop to finish off if that's your preferred workflow.
Click to expand...
ACR is hot you can put on Grad filters spot healing
What are you Enhancements you are talking about as ACR has all the Canon settings like faithful and landscape and so on do you mean this?
 
Chaz Photos said:
ACR is hot you can put on Grad filters spot healing
What are you Enhancements you are talking about as ACR has all the Canon settings like faithful and landscape and so on do you mean this?
Click to expand...

Chaz, you have the latest version of DPP with your 50D - take a look.

These are not the JPEG presets that are replicated in other programmes. DPP is unique in that it is loaded with data on every Canon lens and it knows which lens you have used, what f/number and focal length, focus etc. It picks up this info from the Exif and applies sophisticated custom corrections. In particular, it automatically corrects chromatic aberration (CA), perpheral illumination (vignetting) and distortion. This kind of thing would take a skilled post processor hours of work to correct to this level.

It only works with Canon lenses of course, but it's very easy and very effective. For sure, this will be built in to forthcoming Canon models, but right now it's free if you shoot Raw and use DPP. For a demo of what it does, see here http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_17-85_4-5p6_is_usm_c16/page3.asp

Check out the graphic widget on that page which shows it in action very well. What this feature is giving you digitally is the kind of enhancements that cost hundreds of pounds to do optically. It turns all your lenses in L quality, instantly, digitally, free :D
 
Remember that L glass is an investment not only for your immediate needs but for future requirements. You may have a crop sensor camera now but you may end up purchasing a full frame in the future. Making the investment of L glass now will save you a shed load of money upgrading in the future.

My next lens purchase is going to be either a 70-200 L or a 100-400 L. Yep i only have a crop 400D for now, but in the next few years i do want to upgrade. So buying the L glass now will minimise outlay after i shell out a good amount on a full frame.

Buying used glass is also a great idea. Think of it as recycling. I have bought 2 lens this way and they are as good as the new ones i have bought. Obviously buy from some one reputible, i always use London Camera Exchange. Have a look on their website for used equipment and you will be impressed with their prices and quality of used kit.

Good luck in your search.
 
HoppyUK can I ask if you've spent any time with a 17-40L on a crop body because what you repeatedly keep stating as fact does not ring true in my experience at all? The image quality from my 17-40 is streets ahead of my 18-55 IS kit lens (and marginally better than my 10-22mm for what it's worth) - the difference is immediately noticeable and significantly better, both on my 450D and 50D. Yes, it is designed for full frame but this does not is some way knobble it for use on a crop sensor. Of course, the 17-55 2.8 gives you an extra stop and an extra 15mm of reach, which may or may not be important to you (it wasn't for me) but it is a few hundred quid more than a 17-40 so it is not a direct comparison. For a lot of people, the extra cost can't be ignored. Sorry to harp on about this, but this is not the first time I've read similar from you and, as a respected forum member, people will more readily believe what you tell them. It's just in this instance I think you are dishing out less than sound information.
 
Dudie said:
HoppyUK can I ask if you've spent any time with a 17-40L on a crop body because what you repeatedly keep stating as fact does not ring true in my experience at all? The image quality from my 17-40 is streets ahead of my 18-55 IS kit lens (and marginally better than my 10-22mm for what it's worth) - the difference is immediately noticeable and significantly better, both on my 450D and 50D. Yes, it is designed for full frame but this does not is some way knobble it for use on a crop sensor. Of course, the 17-55 2.8 gives you an extra stop and an extra 15mm of reach, which may or may not be important to you (it wasn't for me) but it is a few hundred quid more than a 17-40 so it is not a direct comparison. For a lot of people, the extra cost can't be ignored. Sorry to harp on about this, but this is not the first time I've read similar from you and, as a respected forum member, people will more readily believe what you tell them. It's just in this instance I think you are dishing out less than sound information.
Click to expand...

I totally agree, my 17-40mm L is streets ahead of the 18-55 (IS or non IS) for image quality. I don't miss the extra reach at all- but then others might. I have used it as my main lens for about 3 years now, on my Canon 20D (crop body)
 
Dudie said:
HoppyUK can I ask if you've spent any time with a 17-40L on a crop body because what you repeatedly keep stating as fact does not ring true in my experience at all? The image quality from my 17-40 is streets ahead of my 18-55 IS kit lens (and marginally better than my 10-22mm for what it's worth) - the difference is immediately noticeable and significantly better, both on my 450D and 50D. Yes, it is designed for full frame but this does not is some way knobble it for use on a crop sensor. Of course, the 17-55 2.8 gives you an extra stop and an extra 15mm of reach, which may or may not be important to you (it wasn't for me) but it is a few hundred quid more than a 17-40 so it is not a direct comparison. For a lot of people, the extra cost can't be ignored. Sorry to harp on about this, but this is not the first time I've read similar from you and, as a respected forum member, people will more readily believe what you tell them. It's just in this instance I think you are dishing out less than sound information.
Click to expand...

No worries bud. Each to their own :) I have only used a 17-40L briefly. Basically it was on my shopping list so gave it a quick test. I could not discern any significant benefit at all at normal apertures, although I accept that if you pixel peep in the right places it is there. And I have said as much in preceding posts here - it is better than the IS kit lens, but it is certainly not streets ahead as you put it, and I would say certainly not four or five times better relative to cost. And you lose 15mm reach, and you lose IS. Basically, I don't think it is the big step up that maybe the OP thinks it is, but I didn't say don't buy it, I said try one first, and take a look at the 17-55 2.8 IS which is better than the IS kit lens in several ways, plus it retains the range and has IS. It is also more expensive, but rather spend £700 and get something really usefully better than spend £500 and get a lens which is hardly any sharper, if at all at common apertures, and loses out in every other aspect apart from build quality.

That is my experience and views on those two particular lenses. Others may think differently but I don't think anybody claims that the 17-40L is one of Canon's stella EF lenses and it certainly has some optical weaknesses, whereas the IS kit lens is really rather better than you might expect at the price. That kind of draws them into closer comparison than you might normally expect.

What is perhaps behind my thinking in this thread and others where I may have posted similar is the sometimes unquestioning assumption that L lenses are automatically 'best'. Sure they are always good, but they are only best if you are shooting full frame (I'm referring to focal lengths under 60mm or so here) and you need the high standard of build quality. Therefore, if you're an average Joe like me using a crop camera, it perhaps makes more sense to look at lenses which Canon has designed specifically with this use in mind, rather than shelling out blindly for something that was designed for a different purpose.

Edit: note that I refer to the IS version of the 18-55 kit lens, which is optically quite different to the non-IS version (which was supplied with the 20D IIRC.) The non-IS kit lens did not come from Canon's top drawer ;)
 
The 17-40 f4 is a superb lens i use it on full frame body and a lot of the work it is used for are A1 prints mine has paid for it's self numerous times over. A friend bought the 16-35mm 2.8 and we carried out a series of tests between the two he now owns a 17-40 as well the question you need to ask yourself is what size of prints do you want to make and do you need the pro build of a l spec lens. As someone who makes a living from photography i would'nt buy anything else
Regards
Lost
 
I'd go with 70-200mm f/4L (IS or non-IS) if that is fast enough for you. This lens is amazingly sharp, you won't believe how good it is. It is also ridiculously light (like 600g or less). After using 24-70 this felt like a toy. I am 100% getting one myself one day.

17-40 is good (as in colour), used it once and was not really convinced about the corner sharpness even on my old 30D. According to reviews on 5D people have to stop down to f/16 at 17mm to get any usable photos. Surprisingly 16-35 II looked horrible on my 40D at 16-22mm f/8. So Tokina 12-24 or 11-16 may be far more sensible if you need wideangle and will not be upgrading to FF soon.
 
daugirdas said:
17-40 is good (as in colour), used it once and was not really convinced about the corner sharpness even on my old 30D. According to reviews on 5D people have to stop down to f/16 at 17mm to get any usable photos.
Click to expand...

:shake: I found the 17-40L at 17mm on a 5D to be capable of producing more than just usable images at apertures wider than f/16.

The following image was shot through a glass window, on a 5D, 17-40L at 17mm f/7.1, ISO 200.

First, the whole image:

http://i418.photobucket.com/albums/pp261/randomimg/IMG_0963.jpg

Then an enlargement from the top-left hand corner.

http://i418.photobucket.com/albums/pp261/randomimg/IMG_0963-2.jpg

Yes, there is some softness right in the corner, but you do not need to stop down to f/16 to get usable shots.

I also found that the 17-40L, on a 40D, is noticeably superior optically to the EF-S 18-55 IS. It could just be the copy I used, but the 17-40L is sharper and suffers from less CA/fringing.

For my money, if I were in the OP's position I'd be aiming to get a used EF-S 17-55. This is a fantastically sharp lens and made a brilliant combination with my 40D. With a £520 budget, getting a mint one shouldn't be too difficult.
 
my wife said this said that my wife my wife my wife:gag:man or mouse springs to mind:lol::lol::lol:
 
Thanks again for your help guys. I am really pleased that I asked the question here on this forum (rather than just blindly hopping in and handing over my life savings!).
I think I will do what Chaz suggested and visit a couple of camera shops and try some out..they might even do me an exceptional deal to sway my decision.
That Canon DPP software sounds good HoppyUK, I will check it out.
 
garymicheal said:
my wife said this said that my wife my wife my wife:gag:man or mouse springs to mind:lol::lol::lol:
Click to expand...

;) We are trying to save for a house and she never buys anything extravagent, so isnt fair if I blow all our savings..especially seeing as she earns more than me.
 
Well I've owned both the 17-40L and the 70-200L (non IS). The 17-40L is a fantastic lens. It's well built, very sharp and the colour/contrast from the lens is what puts it streets ahead of the kit lens. But you know this already I'm sure. If you are going to use it for landscapes then yes get this lens. But to be honest, I sold all my camera gear a few years ago (financial reasons) and have only just got back into it all and this time round I'm doing it differently. Even if I could afford the 17-40L I would still not buy it as for my personal needs, I find myself using that focal range A LOT, but always needing it faster. Enter the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8. Not the best lens in the world no, but I'm just saying don't just get attracted to the L in the L glass. It's meaningless if it doesn't suit your needs. The 70-200L is pin sharp and probably the sharpest I've ever owned, however, it's big/bulky/heavy and hardly a stealth lens. The amount of (in my case unwanted) attention it brings is massive. Used to get asked what magazine I was with all the time.
But as said, L glass is an investment. I just think you need to work out what you need based on logical assessments of what you shoot most, rather than just pinning it down to two L Glasses is what I'm trying to say. I think having owned L glass I'm in a fair position to say, that for me it wasn't worth the massive cost, and I would rather have had 3rd party or slightly less good canon lenses, and added a few primes and a macro in there instead.
Good luck with your decisions.

EDIT: Above comments was in reference to using L lenses on 300d (1.6crop factor)
 
There are quite a few posts on here now from people saying they have used this lens or that, but without always making it clear what format they are referring to.

I'm fairly sure that often they mean full frame, either film or digital, when the OP is on crop format so any comments must be highly qualified to make them comparable.

Format is fundamental. The whole camera system is built around it, and it changes everything (not just field of view). Whatever a lens does on one format, it will perform completely differently on another format.
 
clicktor said:
The 70-200L is pin sharp and probably the sharpest I've ever owned, however, it's big/bulky/heavy and hardly a stealth lens. The amount of (in my case unwanted) attention it brings is massive. Used to get asked what magazine I was with all the time.
Click to expand...


FWIW I totally agree with this. It's pretty much "socially unacceptable" to use it anywhere near (other people's) children for example.
 
Those a nice clear shots aliigibbs. Thanks for taking the time to post the links.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top