To L or not to L, that is the question...

[Carlo]

Been reading about these legendary beasts for a while now, and am coming round to maybe risking divorce/loss of testicles and buying one.

my current most used lens is a EF-S 17-85mm so i'd be looking at the 24-105 f4L.
questions are;
do you buy new, second hand, pay full price for a UK one, or risk customs fees/possible warranty problems and buy from Hong Kong?
can anyone categorically tell me that if i buy a grey import would Canon UK fix it under warranty?
Whether its from Kerso etc its still an awful lot of money (£675) or even £900 for a UK shop bought one.
Is it also true that the white box ones dont come with a warranty? (sure i read that somewhere!)

to raise funds i would certainly have to sell 2 or 3 of my existing lenses.
Cliftons are offering a 12 month interest free option which is tempting

now what else have i in the house i could sell?

 

[arad85]

Personally, I'd get a better EF-S lens. Either the 17-55 or 15-85. Better focal range and compliment it with a 70-200F4L and you have a set of great lenses... I don't think it worth the money to pay for an EF optimised lens at the shorter focal lengths...

 

[Carlo]

Personally, I'd get a better EF-S lens. Either the 17-55 or 15-85. Better focal range and compliment it with a 70-200F4L and you have a set of great lenses... I don't think it worth the money to pay for an EF optimised lens at the shorter focal lengths...

Hmmm food for thought there.
I've always thought about the 15-85, and the 17-55 has great praise heaped upon it.
My thinking though was, eventually to go full frame so thats why EF, not EF-S, especially as i don't think i could possibly afford two high end lenses (unless my numbers do come in!).
Are the L series really THAT good?

 

[dinners]

If you want to move to EF Lenses (24-105) because of a future move to full frame or also shoot 35mm film SLR then what have you got wider than 24mm that will replace the loss of your 17-24mm range.

If you're sticking with a cropped sensor then I'd be inclined to agree

15-85 is a step up from the 17-85 and those extra couple of mm are noticeable.

17-55 is a significant step up from the 17-85 as you benefit from f2.8 although you loose some focal length.

 

[Carlo]

If you want to move to EF Lenses (24-105) because of a future move to full frame or also shoot 35mm film SLR then what have you got wider than 24mm that will replace the loss of your 17-24mm range.

If you're sticking with a cropped sensor then I'd be inclined to agree

15-85 is a step up from the 17-85 and those extra couple of mm are noticeable.

17-55 is a significant step up from the 17-85 as you benefit from f2.8 although you loose some focal length.

i've got a Sig 10-20mm so i'd still have that UWA covered.
there doesn't seem to be a lot of difference in price of the 3 lenses mentioned.
this is definately one of those topics where the more you find out, the more questions you ask yourself!

 

[The Greek]

Used 17-40 f4 + 70-200 f4 = £850, which leaves you 50 quid for a 50mm f1.8 if you don't already own one.

 

[arad85]

Buy for the system you have now, not the one you may have in the future. You can pick up used 15-85's for £400-£450ish. If you ever move to FF, you can sell for what you paid - assuming you don't keep the crop and 15-85... The thing about GOOD lenses is they don't lose value.

Personally, I don't see the need for L lenses at those focal lengths on a crop - my 15-85 produced better pictures on the 7D I had than the 24-105L did. Couple that with a superb IS system (which compensates nicely for handheld badly lit static objects) and you're onto a winner.

 

[Barks]

Are the L series really THAT good?

In my experience, yes.

That said, unless you're thinking of going pro or are a very serious enthusiast then you probably don't need the absolute best of the best and you'd struggle to justify the extra outlay over the non-L series equivalents when you bare in mind that sometimes the step up in cost would get you a non-L series lens lens plus a fortnight away with the missus somewhere for the same money (or less) than buying the L series lens.

And to anyone who is even vaguely thinking of going to a full frame or film body then definitely go for EF over EF-S every time. If/when you make the switch in bodies you won't have to replace all your lenses at the same time.

 

[Little John]

Are they good? yes. Worth the cost? depends what your use is. I started out buying L lenses 24-70 and the 70-200 2.8IS both new and for a crop sensor 500D so I didnt really see a difference in image quality as someone fairly new to DSLR I was more imressed by the silent, even quicker focus speeds and constant apperture. I did need to buy the wider lens 10-22 to make up at that end but I got a good one and I was then able to compare the none kit lens EF-s against the L's and the L's are good. I then also bought an 18-200 for when Dad borrowed the camera and it is bad compared to what I am used to.

The problem is one leads to 2 and 3. A decent lens won't improve your photography but it will make the whole thing easier with constant apperture and improved quality images and the build quality is fantastic. But for personal use without making money from photography and your obvious concerns about the ability to afford them I would be looking at other things before a new lens. if you do go for somthing then the 70-200 f/4 would be where I would go first it is very affordable and even better used.

 

[Carlo]

Are they good? yes. Worth the cost? depends what your use is. I started out buying L lenses 24-70 and the 70-200 2.8IS both new and for a crop sensor 500D so I didnt really see a difference in image quality as someone fairly new to DSLR I was more imressed by the silent, even quicker focus speeds and constant apperture. I did need to buy the wider lens 10-22 to make up at that end but I got a good one and I was then able to compare the none kit lens EF-s against the L's and the L's are good. I then also bought an 18-200 for when Dad borrowed the camera and it is bad compared to what I am used to.

The problem is one leads to 2 and 3. A decent lens won't improve your photography but it will make the whole thing easier with constant apperture and improved quality images and the build quality is fantastic. But for personal use without making money from photography and your obvious concerns about the ability to afford them I would be looking at other things before a new lens. if you do go for somthing then the 70-200 f/4 would be where I would go first it is very affordable and even better used.

very helpful/wise words, and a lot to think about there.
Thanks

 

[Carlo]

I know i will go to FF eventually, but realistically that won't be for some years unless the prices fall dramatically, and that's not going to happen!
I waited for around 3-4 years for DSLR's to drop and that never happened too!
Reminds me of my good mate that moved to London over 15 years ago due to work...He's STILL saving up for a deposit on a flat!!!!

 

[Darkstar]

Are they good? yes. Worth the cost? depends what your use is. I started out buying L lenses 24-70 and the 70-200 2.8IS both new and for a crop sensor 500D so I didnt really see a difference in image quality as someone fairly new to DSLR I was more imressed by the silent, even quicker focus speeds and constant apperture. I did need to buy the wider lens 10-22 to make up at that end but I got a good one and I was then able to compare the none kit lens EF-s against the L's and the L's are good. I then also bought an 18-200 for when Dad borrowed the camera and it is bad compared to what I am used to.

The problem is one leads to 2 and 3. A decent lens won't improve your photography but it will make the whole thing easier with constant apperture and improved quality images and the build quality is fantastic. But for personal use without making money from photography and your obvious concerns about the ability to afford them I would be looking at other things before a new lens.


if you do go for somthing then the 70-200 f/4 would be where I would go first it is very affordable and even better used.

I am looking into getting the 24-105l as my first l series .. Bit Puzeled as your post seems to suggest that on a none ff body IQ was not that notacible difference ? Mine would be married with the 600D I have a 24 55 kit lens and thought this would be good as a first in the l series line as a walkabout lens

 

[dao]

It is probably worth going to a shop and having a go with the lenses. Getting an idea of how they feel and the type of image they produce rather than looking at pictures of them online. Then you can really decide if they are worth the cash.

 

[Carlo]

It is probably worth going to a shop and having a go with the lenses. Getting an idea of how they feel and the type of image they produce rather than looking at pictures of them online. Then you can really decide if they are worth the cash.

which shops would let you try out a selection of lenses?
anyone have experience of this?
Thanks

 

[dao]

which shops would let you try out a selection of lenses?
anyone have experience of this?
Thanks

Of course you can try a lens out before you buy it, camera shops are not museums after all. I would be very surprised if they wouldn't let you test the lens unless you looked like you were going to run off with it.

 

[modchild]

I was out today shooting wildlife and used the 24-105 f4 L on my 60D and got some terriffic shots. I got the lens as a kit lens with a 5D2 but I sold the 5D2 and my 7D for a 5D3 instead and the 24-105 on that is immense. The IQ is brilliant, the AF is nice and fast and it's a great length.

You can get a new 24-105 from Hdew cameras http://www.hdewcameras.co.uk/canon-ef-24-105mm-f40l-is-usm-274-p.asp for £619 and they supply a UK vat receipt so Canon will honour the warranty and I can highly reccommend them as I've bought lots off them.

 

[Little John]

I am looking into getting the 24-105l as my first l series .. Bit Puzeled as your post seems to suggest that on a none ff body IQ was not that notacible difference ? Mine would be married with the 600D I have a 24 55 kit lens and thought this would be good as a first in the l series line as a walkabout lens

It wasnt a thing of the image quality wasn't noticable, I used the 18-55IS kit lens from the 500D for 6 weeks maybe before buying the 2 L lenses. I didn't really shoot anything other than holiday snaps and i wasnt looking for the image quality I was still in wonder over the focusing speed and other differences of a DSLR compared to the compacts. it was only the 18-200 sigma I realised how good the L's are as te 18-55 went back int he box where it has stayed for 3 years.

 

[Mani Gill]

I was out today shooting wildlife and used the 24-105 f4 L on my 60D and got some terriffic shots. I got the lens as a kit lens with a 5D2 but I sold the 5D2 and my 7D for a 5D3 instead and the 24-105 on that is immense. The IQ is brilliant, the AF is nice and fast and it's a great length.

You can get a new 24-105 from Hdew cameras http://www.hdewcameras.co.uk/canon-ef-24-105mm-f40l-is-usm-274-p.asp for £619 and they supply a UK vat receipt so Canon will honour the warranty and I can highly reccommend them as I've bought lots off them.

Sorry to hijack the thread, is there much difference in IQ, with the 5D ii and 5D iii?

In relation to this thread, I use the 24-105 L on a 550D, and I would say it is a great lens, ideal weight and excellent quality, however I did eventually want to upgrade to FF, just thinking which one and is the extra £1200 worth it for the 5D iii.

 

[Carlo]

Sorry to hijack the thread, is there much difference in IQ, with the 5D ii and 5D iii?

In relation to this thread, I use the 24-105 L on a 550D, and I would say it is a great lens, ideal weight and excellent quality, however I did eventually want to upgrade to FF, just thinking which one and is the extra £1200 worth it for the 5D iii.

i don't mind, it's a question i would ask in 6 months a year or so! or even be curious to know the answer now!