The downside to buying a Canon L lens

Lakes_Puma

Lakes_Puma

Suspended / Banned
Messages
47
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
Bought a 70-200 F4 IS a little while ago and am blown away by its quality, only problem is it makes all my other lenses (not that I have a lot) look quite rubish.

Quick shot while I was just messing around, the sharpness of the lens just blows me away!

IMG_4728.jpg
 
Nice one, have been tinkering the thought of buying this lens. Just think I would regret not saving the extra on the 2.8. :/
 
I was thinking about getting the Canon 85mm f/1.8 but i'm not so sure after seeing pics with the 70-200mm....
 
Its a nice lens for sure. Im waiting on my 70-200 2.8 II to come. They are expensive lenses but worth the money.
 
Yeah. The L lens addiction can be a dangerous one. They take absolutely amazing pictures in every sense of the word. Still miss my 85Lii. That was undoubtedly a special lens. Just remember - they cost a small fortune each and you don't really need them all. Do you?
 
I just upgraded my F4 to the 2.8 MkII....

Man oh man the 2.8 is heavy... worth hanging on to the F4 as a nice outdoor walkabout as the IQ is fntastic...
 
It's a very nice lens for sure a nice Slovakian lady had one at my brothers wedding! Was surprised as to how big it was though!! Not really a walkabout option!!!
 
The only regrets i have in buying L spec lenses is it really hits my bank account.
Regards All
Richard
 
mipevo6 said:
I just upgraded my F4 to the 2.8 MkII....

Man oh man the 2.8 is heavy... worth hanging on to the F4 as a nice outdoor walkabout as the IQ is fntastic...
Click to expand...

I thought the same when I went from the f4 to a mkI f2.8 but after a few months realised that I hadn't used the f4 again. The f2.8 is heavier but the improved quality makes it well worth carrying.
 
I started with a second hand 70-200 f4 non IS, which was nice and sharp throughout. But, it started me thinking about how good the f2.8 IS would be compared to the f4. The only downside I could see was the weight difference but, as I use a Sigma 150-500 OS handheld most of the time, easily manageable so I sold the f4 and bought an f2.8 IS L MkI.

Amazing lens, not brilliant at f2.8, but stopped down to 3.2-3.5 it was sharper than my f4 was. I was so pleased with it that it practically lived on either one of my bodies. Then I started reading some of the reviews of the MkII and that started me thinking again.

After selling my MkI and my oldest camera (550D) I ordered a new MkII last week. I got it at Panamoz, ordered it monday and got it thursday. Everything I've read about how sharp this lens is, wide open or stopped down or with TC's fitted is true. The IQ is so sharp it's equalling my 100 L Macro at times, I've had better butterfly shots with the 70-200, and yeah I know it's expensive and people say it's the person and not the kit that makes the photo but this lens does go a long way to help. I've got 3 L lenses now and the only downside to having an L lens IMO is that you can never have enough of them.
 
Just traded a f4 for a f2.8 IS MkII and its is brilliant. Thought the f4 had good IQ but the 2.8 is superb. The great thing about the L series lenses is that if you look after them they will always get good money if you sell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top