One 'L' of an addiction

AndyB1976

AndyB1976

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,377
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
:D:D

I have never tried any of this 'L' gear, never held it and never owned it.:)

I'm worried that my first time won't be my last, and the threads on TP are the definition of temptation.:thinking:

Should I sell my DSLR and buy another point n shoot, keep my life car and savings or open my mind to the beauty and experience of 'L' :suspect:




Andy:p
ps any 'L' pusher here will be marched off this thread, to their quality glass ridden den!:lol:
 
Its a rocky road your thinking about taking :nono: :help: My advice, your only here once, go for it :D Once an 'L' man, you wont turn back :wave:
 
I rented one in April, and now currently saving for it. Its just in a different league. Focus speeds, mechanical noise (lack of), image quality, everything just blew me away!


Go for it!
 
Totally agree with the above.
L lenses are stunning.

Having said that, I'm Nikon, Sony, Pentax etc have equally as nice lenses in their collection.......

If you have used a DSLR and then go back to a P&S, you will notice a huge difference in image quality.
I tried it once. Lasted about 3 days :D
 
I just sent 5.5k to kerso for my latest L glass... I say run for the hills mate... and keep running :)
 
christ, I'm glad nikon doesn't have something like the 'L' designation for the fanbois to get their knickers in a twist about... yes it's their pro line of lenses, but it's not deserving of some magic pedestal that you've gotta do a pokémon and collect them all...

it's a lens. all of the modern lenses are completely capable and adequate for taking good photos. yes, even the kit lens.
buy what you need, or what you want, to do the job... and more importantly, go out and take photos.

and for the record... I make a living with a tamron 17-50 being used for about 80% of my photos, can't find any reason or justification to get the nikon version, the images out the back are damn near identical, though flare from inframe lights is a bit strange on the tamron...I've seen people even slating or deciding not to buy even the canon 17-55 'because it's not L'...
 
They are certainly addictive. I currently have 1 L lens, and I am looking at a couple of lens to complement my current selection. Every time I look at the pics taken with the L I just can't bring myself to buy anything not as good!
 
Stop fannying about, just get them. You will not regret it:thumbs: I've just ordered my third L glass.
 
itsdavedotnet said:
it's a lens. all of the modern lenses are completely capable and adequate for taking god photos.
Click to expand...

i presume you ahve had a canon camera and 3rd party lens and also an L lens to compare? i mean you wouldnt be offering such wise advice otherwise would you? :)
 
Whatever you do just make sure you don't create a signature where you list your lenses and put the 'L' in red, as that would be massively lame. ;)
 
grum said:
Whatever you do just make sure you don't create a signature where you list your lenses and put the 'L' in red, as that would be massively lame. ;)
Click to expand...

Yeagh really Lame that Kind of thing :)
 
grum said:
Whatever you do just make sure you don't create a signature where you list your lenses and put the 'L' in red, as that would be massively lame. ;)
Click to expand...

Well I don't actually go as far as listing my lenses... That would be rather too much. The signature on the other hand :razz: :lol:
 
I think you can still get great results from Sigma etc in my experience but I have a couple of the L series lenses and TBH, they rarely come offf the camera.

You could always hire one for a day first?
 
itsdavedotnet said:
christ, I'm glad nikon doesn't have something like the 'L' designation for the fanbois to get their knickers in a twist about... yes it's their pro line of lenses, but it's not deserving of some magic pedestal that you've gotta do a pokémon and collect them all...

it's a lens. all of the modern lenses are completely capable and adequate for taking good photos. yes, even the kit lens.
buy what you need, or what you want, to do the job... and more importantly, go out and take photos.

and for the record... I make a living with a tamron 17-50 being used for about 80% of my photos, can't find any reason or justification to get the nikon version, the images out the back are damn near identical, though flare from inframe lights is a bit strange on the tamron...I've seen people even slating or deciding not to buy even the canon 17-55 'because it's not L'...
Click to expand...

Fair point, but I'm not here for a brand bashing session - just light hearted chat.

I considered the 24-70 to the 17-55 and the kit lens 18-55 which is 10x less in price. For my budget, for that focal range, aperture within a stop, as an amature - that 18-55IS is just darn fine for me for the moment.
 
itsdavedotnet said:
christ, I'm glad nikon doesn't have something like the 'L' designation for the fanbois to get their knickers in a twist about... yes it's their pro line of lenses, but it's not deserving of some magic pedestal that you've gotta do a pokémon and collect them all...

it's a lens. all of the modern lenses are completely capable and adequate for taking good photos. yes, even the kit lens.
buy what you need, or what you want, to do the job... and more importantly, go out and take photos.

and for the record... I make a living with a tamron 17-50 being used for about 80% of my photos, can't find any reason or justification to get the nikon version, the images out the back are damn near identical, though flare from inframe lights is a bit strange on the tamron...I've seen people even slating or deciding not to buy even the canon 17-55 'because it's not L'...
Click to expand...

It's a placebo, and a bloody good one.

My one and only lens, a fast prime that cost 300 quid (see sig) used on my ancient camera body, produces absolutely superb results. There is some magic in the lens definitely, and the L version of the 50 is actually reputed to be less sharp above around f/2 I think. If I was to buy the 50 L it would be just for the weatherproofing, as to be honest, I don't see how IQ can get any better!

I have held an L 70-200 before and the build did feel very solid. The focus and zoom rings were a lot better than Canon's less expensive glass but to date I have never felt anything as silky smooth as the Sigma 10-20 focus/zoom rings. the build quality on that lens was also very good and it was good to touch.

The 'L' on Canon lenses stands for luxury and I think mostly denotes that the image quality has been made to a very high standard. Most Ls are also really solidly built and a good amount are weatherproofed. That's my one complain about the 50 1.4 - build quality isn't up there and well quite frankly the focus ring is just horrible.
 
Got my first L this year and love it, the addiction isn't for the L though, it's for the best glass and in my opinion that meant for the 24-70 range I was after it meant the L. When I've got the cash I'll be looking for the best zoom lens to go with it and by no means does that mean I'll go out and buy the L - I'll find out what's best to spend my money on first.

If it makes you feel any better I also drive a 33yr old VW and between that and photography I'll be poor for while yet!
 
I started off with a cheapy 70-200 f4 L non is.
I was so blown away with both the build and IQ that over the last couple of years I have sold off all my non "L" lenses and replaced them with
17-40
24-105
300 f4
100-400

I haven't regretted it one bit but I am trying to resist the urge to replace the 17-40 with a 16-35L.
 
I have had a full range of sigma lens.. my first ever lens was a sig 70-200 then added a 17-35 i think it was.. then a 24-70 then the 120-300 2.8 and all perefctly good lens taking perfectly good pictures and i had no intention of going L when these lenses where producing publishable pictures of good quality.. Anyone ask on forums I would say sigma are great... i would still say to this day there service dept are second to none..

then I tried an L glass due to my 120-300 being in for repair and wow.. seriously.. the difference is so amazing... I dont have any sigma and its al canon glass now.. mostly L and will never look back..
 
I haven't tried L lenses but do have a Tokina 11-16 and a Canon 17-55. The build quality of the Tokina is superb. That's the only thing that lets the 17-55 down. As a result, there is a tendancy for dust to get in the 17-55 and whilst it probably doesn't noticably affect image quality it's not a nice attribute. I would certainly choose a Tokina again if the IQ was good and would also go for a (second hand) L lens if it was one I would be using a lot due to the build quality. As for the 50mm f1.4, the build of this doesn't seem to concern me so much due to it being a small light lens.
 
Dan1502 said:
I haven't tried L lenses but do have a Tokina 11-16 and a Canon 17-55. The build quality of the Tokina is superb. That's the only thing that lets the 17-55 down. As a result, there is a tendancy for dust to get in the 17-55 and whilst it probably doesn't noticably affect image quality it's not a nice attribute. I would certainly choose a Tokina again if the IQ was good and would also go for a (second hand) L lens if it was one I would be using a lot due to the build quality. As for the 50mm f1.4, the build of this doesn't seem to concern me so much due to it being a small light lens.
Click to expand...

Dan,

Why did you decide on the tokina 11-16?

Im torn between the three crop UWA's 10-20 value, 10-22 image quality and the 11-16 aperture.:shrug:
 
I've got a mix of what I think are the best lenses to cover what I shoot, all Canon lenses.
10-22mm, 50mm f1.4, 24-105 L f4, 70-200 2.8 IS, 100-400

I've had the discussion with others about comparing lenses so we usually do a few shots with each others lenses. It's never me wanting to buy the other lens. The usual comments are about the clarity and colours, the smothness of operations, quietness etc, then the weight... :D

I've been through the cheaper lenses, but the better quality lenses help me get the shots I want
 
The 50mm f/1.4 L is quite nice :p
 
it depends what prime lol. there are some carp primes out there, i've got a 135 f/3.5 that even showed corner fuzziness on crop if you looked close enough...
 
As I have an APS-C camera and like the wider end of the zoom range most L's don't really make that much sense to me.

A couple of points on the topic of IQ.

Firstly, I forget where I read and who said it but didn't someone (an expert of course...) say that Canon have a range of solidly B+ lenses? My point being that if you want the absolute best the chances are that in many instances "The Best" won't be made by Canon anyway, not unless you want to compromise IQ by limiting your choice to lenses with AF or some other non IQ frippery.

Secondly, I think that if you can stop yourself from pixel peeping many many lenses without an L badge are perfectly good enough or indeed very good for the average or even large print. Remember prints?
 
Slimbert said:
:lol:

Sorry my bad.....that, or they must have used up all the L stickers and body metal on the f1.2 version.....:shrug:
Click to expand...

:lol:

He seems a little obsessed by the 1.4 version, leave him be... :D
 
There must be something in the L sorry L or they wouldn't make (or sell) them.

I've just spent 4 days with a 24-105 on my 7d after being lucky enough to borrow one from work (could have also borrowed the 5d2 body too but didn't want to start thinking about changing bodies again!!!)

Build quality is definitely better than non L glass, I noticed the zoom and focus rings were also noticeably smoother.

And there is a pretty impressive improvement in image quality over the 17-85 I usually use.

On a crop body the 24 end is a little close for me but I worked around it and have the sigma 10-20 that covers uwa.

I really tried to not see the point or give good reasons not to buy an L but i can't!

Am I going to buy one? Yes am currently saving but might go for the 24-70 instead :thumbs:
 
. . . And I though it was all about taking pictures :thinking:

Oh dear . . . very sad, it must be a burden to be a Cannon owner :shrug:
 
Interesting comment, I own 2 L series lenses as well as non canon lenses.

The 100 F2.8 L Macro IS and the 100-400MM L, both well built and deliver great picture quality.

I also happen to own the Tokina range of lenses, the 11-16,16-50 and 50-135mm. They dont feature IS or USM, but optically they are very good and deliver a great picture performance, but additionally I think they are fantastically well built with a rugged body too.

My own sixpence on the subject
 
If you want an L that will last long before you WANT another one, I'd suggest 24-105mm L IS.

It is not all bad about buying lenses. They hold value really well. If you buy second hand you could almost make a few quid extra when it comes to selling for whatever reason (usually to get more expensive one).
 
daugirdas said:
If you want an L that will last long before you WANT another one, I'd suggest 24-105mm L IS.
Click to expand...

Obviously depending on what you are shooting ;) but it's a great lens


Byker28i said:
I've got a mix of what I think are the best lenses to cover what I shoot, all Canon lenses.
10-22mm, 50mm f1.4, 24-105 L f4, 70-200 2.8 IS, 100-400
Click to expand...
trencheel303 said:
The 50mm f/1.4 L is quite nice :p
Click to expand...
Musicman said:
I guess it was this that set him off. ;)
Click to expand...

Well that was more to make the point that sometimes there aren't L lenses available to fit, but I'll admit the 50mm f1.4 is an excellent lens. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top