first L lens?

sedona's grandma

brand new here. been reading a lot of info and some wonderful photography. i'm considering buy a new lens, perhaps an L. i love photography-but had not done much for last 120 years-but the last 17 months i've been doing a lot more--granddaughter is 17 months old:lust
cameras: 5D and xSi
lenses:18-55 xsi kit, canon 75-? (what i could afford at the time), sigma wide angle?, canon 50 1.8 and tamron 28-75 2.8

REALLY want to improve my skills and be pleased with what i create. i've shot one friend's sons wedding, love beach photography -i'm 5 minutes away, people in general, interesting architecture..most everything.
have considered purchasing an L lens. i realize that might be a pretty big jump but i don't have as many years in front of me as i used to and my granddaughter will only be this age -whatever one it is-once, so......
any input would be GREATLY appreciated.
look forward to being part of this community beth

W.W. Webster

sedona's grandma wrote: »

i'm considering buy a new lens, perhaps an L. ...... any input would be GREATLY appreciated

Tamron makes nice stuff, but Canon's 24-70mm f2.8 L is a top class general walkabout lens - you won't be disappointed!

sedona's grandma

thanks for a response, appreciate it. i will definitely take a look at 24-70mm f2.8L. since i posted, i went to website link by Art Scott and found the 70-200mm f2.8L IS new for 1399.00 minus 10% plus some free stuff as promotion. from what i've seen that looked like a pretty good deal. i'll go looking for the one you recommended now. thanks.beth

zack75144

I apologize for the stereotyping of a Grandmother, but one thing you probably should consider with any lens purchase is size and weight. It may be the best lens in the world, but if it is too heavy for you to carry around and use it what good is it?
I suggest that before you make a purchase, head to a camera store so you can feel the lens in your hands to be sure that you can handle it. BTW the 24-70L is a great lens!

W.W. Webster

sedona's grandma wrote: »

since i posted, i went to website link by Art Scott and found the 70-200mm f2.8 L IS new for 1399.00 minus 10% plus some free stuff as promotion. from what i've seen that looked like a pretty good deal.

That's an entirely different lens for an entirely different purpose. I have one, and love it!

But are you sure you know what you are trying to achieve with a new L lens? If not, you risk just buying any 'good' lens available on a 'good deal' without actually enhancing the capability of your equipment, relevant to the shooting you do, or want to do!

sedona's grandma

thanks guys. i realize that it's an entirely different lens, but i thought that i could use it for beach, for marine life, activities that dgd will be in one day (would have been wonderful for my daughter's competitive swim meets), know i could have used it when i was in japan last summer, etc. it's just a thought. i saw such a difference from the slow canon zoom and kit lens i had when i started using the tamron and the "nifty fifty" that it seemed like a natural progression. i thought about the weight of the lens and i'm pretty certain i'd be ok with it any more thoughts or suggestions are welcome. i'm going to spend evening after work reading reviews. no place near me to rent to check one out.

cmason

I always recommend the 70-200 f4 L, as it is the most affordable, bang for the buck L of them all, and it will always put a grin on your face. Everyone should own this lens.

sedona's grandma

more advice welcomed (hoped for)...have found myself not being able to get the shot i wanted re: zoom in the past. the tamron i have is excellent for me as a walk around lens, so i'm going to pass on the 24-70L i know it would be better than my tamron, but for now it's good enough. it's the out of reach shots that i can't get because of the zoom lens i originally bought being too slow. i think i'm down to one of these two 1) the 70-200L 2.8 IS on sale till the 4th of July or 2) save 300$$ and get an older 80-200L. hope to hear from someone with an opinion on this. my thoughts are that i could save 300$$ now but then i would have a lens that can't be repaired and if something went wrong with it i'd be out everything or i could go with the new one that would be under warranty and would be able to be repaired in the future should that occur.
hope to hear from someone about this. thanks, beth

ivar

The 70-200 2.8 IS is awesome, but be aware: It is REALLY heavy. I know several people who have traded it in for an f/4 version or got both because of the weight.

sedona's grandma wrote: »

REALLY want to improve my skills and be pleased with what i create.

Are you 100% sure it is the lens that is holding you back? A lens itself is not going to improve your skills. There are other things as well that could help you improve.

Richard

I wouldn't get too hung up on L--there are some wonderful lenses out there that don't have a red stripe. The Tammy 28-75 you have is not very different in optical quality from L glass--the main difference is focus speed and build quality. Think more about the range you want to cover and the light you are likely to encounter. All of the Canon 70-200L lenses are terrific, but there's a big difference in price and weight between the f/4 and f/2.8 IS. For beach shooting, I think f/4 would be fine, but in general I think it's too slow for indoor shooting without a flash.

sedona's grandma

the range is what i'm thinking about. that's why i feel the tamron is more than acceptable for an all around lens. i don't think i'l need wide angle much and as i've thought about what i would want to photagraph more (and better-including me behind the lens) would be beach (of all varieties and in lower lite), weddings, portrait(natural light and some studio), wildlife, zoo, family in whatever is going on, etc. if i knew that another lens would give me the quality that the 70-200 either 2.8 or 4 would, i'd be good with that. from what i have seen, there isn't anything that is near those lenses that don't cost as much and in some cases more. right now the 70-200 f/2.8 is less expensive than the f/4. i'd post a few shots i've taken but i can't seem to get the file small enough to do that. i would really appreciate constructive criticism and am wanting to do the best that i can.




++++++