First L glass advice?

Shima · April 10, 2007

So I've got my rebel xti... and although I was planning to go much cheaper on the first lens after my kit lens... I'm thinking I might just very well save a while longer and hold it out for L....

...why? because my Canon Poweshot Pro1 spoiled me. The silly point and shooter had L glass in it, and I seriously feel like I can tell the difference between the kit lens glass on my Rebel XTi and that Powershot Pro1's built in glass as a result. So I figure let's not go half the way and spend a few hundred on a mediocre lens that isn't L... let's just save the extra pennies (er hundred dollar bills?) and blow it all on a nice L lens when I'm ready to buy that first real glass for it...

The biggest reason i want to do this is that by next March of 2008 I will be finally getting to go back to Japan for another trip, and want to have a really nice lens to use on my camera so I can bring back some amazing shots.

So what is a good first L lens? I'd like some zooming ability... and if it's got a macro option for that part of my fun side too it would be amazing

... but yeah, I want a nice and versatile lens that is L preferably.

And how much am I needing to save for? o.O

ChrisJ · April 10, 2007

I've been trying to decide between the 24-105 f/4L and the 24-70 f/2.8L. There's also the 17-40 F/4L (cheaper, lighter, less flexible in zoom range).

The other one to think about is the 17-55 f/2.8 EF-S. It's not "L" but has "L" class optics. I would probably lean towards this one myself right now, because I can't see investing in a full frame any time soon. And I love the extra stop and range over the 17-40.

wxwax · April 10, 2007

I agree with Chris.

First choice: 24-105 f4.

Second choice: either the 24-70 2.8 or the 17-55 2.8 EFS.

DJ-S1 · April 10, 2007

I played with the 24-105 f/4 and it is very nice. Good range, IS, excellent walkaround lens. I don't think you can go wrong with this one.

LiquidAir · April 10, 2007

It depends on what kind of photography you do. If you take lots of people shots, you'll want an f/2.8 or faster lens (most of my people shots are taken with primes so I have the option of opening to f/2). For landscape and travel photography on APS-C you will want a lens wider than 24mm. I think that on an APS-C body the 17-55/2.8 is the closest thing you are going to get to a "do-it-all" lens. If you are not sure what you want to do with the lens, I think that is the best choice.

ziggy53 · April 10, 2007

LiquidAir wrote:

It depends on what kind of photography you do. If you take lots of people shots, you'll want an f/2.8 or faster lens (most of my people shots are taken with primes so I have the option of opening to f/2). For landscape and travel photography on APS-C you will want a lens wider than 24mm. I think that on an APS-C body the 17-55/2.8 is the closest thing you are going to get to a "do-it-all" lens. If you are not sure what you want to do with the lens, I think that is the best choice.

, and I think the Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8IS is a great all-a-round lens for the 1.6x crop cameras. A good alternative is the Sigma 18-50mm, f2.8 EX DC Macro or Tamron 17-50mm, f2.8 XR Di II LD, if you can do without the IS of the Canon lens. I think that would cover around 50% - 60% of all opportunities.

Another set of opportunities could be solved with the Canon 70-200mm, f4L (with or without the IS). And finally, ultra wide vista landscapes really cry for a Canon EF-S 10-22mm, or the Sigma 10-20mm.

So three lenses is what I would really recommend, but the 17-55-ish range is the first one to satisfy.

cmason · April 10, 2007

My recommendation: 70-200 f4L. It is really simple: this is the least expensive L lens in the line, and it is a real beauty. At this price, you can't afford NOT to own this lens (does that make sense?)

It is not a good walk around lens, not like the 24-105, but of course it is 1/3 to 1/2 the price of other L lenses.

Personally, I want the 24-105. But I just can't justify it at this pt, so I went for the 70-200 to get all the L goodness, and then the Tamron 28-75 as a great alternative to the 24-105. A great solution until I can justify the expense.

Nikolai · April 10, 2007

Shima,
Since you're still with EF-S compatible body, I'd second others' opinion and vote for EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM. It's not marked L, but it's L quality glass and it covers a rather useful range. To be honest, I was about to get one two months ago to replace my ole gud EF-S 17-85 IS USM, but then the news of 1D3 came and I reoriented myself for EF bodies and a pair of 16-35L and 24-70L (I already have two Ls for tele work starting with 70).
FWIW

TylerW · April 11, 2007

I love my 70-200 f/4L, but its hard to recommend for street use - its just too long, especially on a crop sensor. I just added the 17-40mm to my bag of tricks and its like being in love all over again. Not as fast as some as the more expensive L's, but its sharp as you like it and for me has a great zoom range for walkaround street use. I would have considered one of the EF-S lenses, but I can't mount them up on my 10d. Some day I may own either the 24-70 or the 24-105 IS, but for now, I'm one happy L owner.

gus · April 11, 2007

Shima..try a fast prime..honestly. Dont be constricted by changing the viewing angle but shoot what you see & do it fast. To hell with rules of composition.

Just my thoughts anyway but im weird.

Pindy · April 11, 2007

I have the 17-55 and it is L in all but build quality, where it rates just like the 10-22. I haven't regretted that one for a second especially because you get f/2.8 + IS. It isn't long enough at times, though; something the 24-105 could fix in a hurry. But that one isn't wide enough on a 1.6x crop body. Doesn't photography suck?

Having said that, the sharpest/highest contrast shots I get are from the 50mm f/1.4 and the 100mm f/2.8.

claudermilk · April 11, 2007

I have to agree with LiquidAir. It really depends on what you shoot.

For general walk-around, the most commonly recommended lenses are the 17-55 and 24-105. For UWA, IMHO the best are Tokina's 12-24 or Canon's 10-22...in that order; I've used both and much prefer Tokina's overall package, not to mention bang for the buck.

Now, being a troublemaker & refusing to go with the flow, my general walk-around is the 24-70/2.8L. I have some specific requirements that make this lens the perfect solution (small-venue dance events). But, I like it as a general walk-around as well; yeah, it's big & heavy, but worth it considering the shots I can get with it. I also don't agree that 24 is too long on the crop bodies--but that's simply my opinion as opposed to others' opinions. To me the slightly wide to slightly long range is just about right; if I need wider, swap to the 12-24, if I need longer buy the 70-200.

I will definitely second the "get a prime" suggestion. I started expanding from the crummy kit lens with a good deal on a used 50/1.8 Mk I, and a new Mk II will be cheaper yet. You get L-quality optics for less than a good filter costs. I also enjoyed the almost-a-year that I used it exclusively; it made me think more about my photography since I couldn't zoom the lens--it was either move or make the best of where I was.

jdryan3 · April 11, 2007

I can't speak to the EF-S lenses, but if you want something that will also work with FF, I would go for the 24-70 (or 24-105) and the 17-40. But I agree with Chris and others on looking at primes. Hands down get the 50 f/1.8. Also the 85 f/1.8, 35 f/2 and the 24 f/2.8 can be had for few hundred bucks each (but look at their 'L' cousins if you have the $$).

Ultimately it gets down to what you like to shoot, plans (if any) for FF, and your budget.

cwphotos · April 11, 2007

17-40 aint half bad. Its my walk around lens......

kmphua · April 12, 2007

I've just returned from a trip to Kyoto, Japan with my 17-40mm F/4L and 70-200mm F/4L IS and I must say I'm greatly satisfied with both (though not so much with my composition skills). The 17-40mm delivered on also every occasion and was on my Digital Rebel about 80% of the time. The 70-200mm zoom come on less often, but when it did, the IS was a great help to make the shots that wouldn't have been possible otherwise.

Welcome to check out some samples at my site.

Ric Grupe · April 12, 2007

First: 17-55 IS (only logical "smart choice" IMO)

If there is any money left:

Second: 70-300 DO IS (you can tell no one has this lens or they too would be recommending it!)

cwphotos · April 12, 2007

The DO isnt an L Series lens though is it ?

thebigsky · April 12, 2007

I'd go with the 24-70, I love this lens and find myself returning to it the most.

Charlie

Ric Grupe · April 12, 2007

cwphotos wrote:

The DO isnt an L Series lens though is it ?

Neither is a 17-55 IS.

The 70-300 DO IS has a nice green ring instead of a red one.

sskoutas · April 12, 2007

Although L glass is a wonderful treat, it's always going to be technique that beats glass. Great glass can certainly make a well-taken image better, but I've seen seasoned pros on another board post pics taken with the "lowly" Canon 18-55 Kitty that would leave you scratching your head.

That said, L glass is also an investment that you will grow into as you get deeper and deeper into photography, so you're not going to go wrong with it, but you may not fully reap the benefits of the 4 digit price tags for some time to come.

If it's got to be an all around L zoom, I'd be buying the 24-70 (which is actually on my future purchases list) only because 2.8 beats IS for me.

If not, that 17-55 is a nice option with it's 2.8 AND IS (but I don't own it), and I also like the 28-135mm. It's a little slower (f/3.5-5.6) but also has IS and a ton of range... just not as wide which could end up being a big deal.

Look at it this way... for the price of the 24-70L ($1140) or the 24-105L ($1060), you can buy both the 10-22 ($675) and the 28-135 ($410) and be about even, but be more of less covered from 10mm to 135mm (I personally would never miss the 23-27 range this combo doesn't provide)

Food for thought...

wxwax · April 12, 2007

So Shima, what are you thinking?

HiSPL · April 13, 2007

+1 for the 17-40.

If you can live with the F4, it's just a great lens....

Khaos · April 14, 2007

Their are primes that aren't L's that are worth the money, which is a LOT less than an L.

The 50 1/4 and the 85 1.8 are fantastic, sharp non L primes that you should consider. If you want macro, you can't go wrong with the 100 2.8 macro. A fantastic lens. Remember, some lenses may say macro, but only a lens with 1:1 is a true macro.

But if a zoom is what you want then I can recommend the 24-70 L. It's a fantastic lens. I can't comment on the 24-105 since I never used it, but it seems to be well liked and the extra length may serve you well. The IS would certainly make up for the slower speed.

My favorite L zoom is the very first one I bought. I went all out and spent the most I ever spent on a lens for that purchase and got the 70-200 2.8 IS L. It's worth every penny. I love that lens.

Khaos · April 14, 2007

sskoutas wrote:

Although L glass is a wonderful treat, it's always going to be technique that beats glass. Great glass can certainly make a well-taken image better, but I've seen seasoned pros on another board post pics taken with the "lowly" Canon 18-55 Kitty that would leave you scratching your head.

True, but that's usually under controlled conditions. Sometimes you don't have time to plan and make sure everything is just perfect. You need to assess, choose the correct setting quickly for best exposure and let the lens bring to you a sharp, saturated shot. I sold that kit lens quick. And I also sold the 28-135 that some people love. I bought a prime with the cash and then chose to go L for my next zoom.

Poseidon · April 14, 2007

I'd vote for the 25-105L myself, I bought that for my wife, and she LOVES it! I have the 24-70 2.8, the 70-200 2.8 and the 24-105, all L's of course, and I LOVE THEM ALL!

Next on my list is either the 17-40, or the new 16-35... It just depends on Money! as always...

Shima · April 17, 2007

Hey everyone, sorry I didn't respond to your tons of amazing feedback sooner, but the husband and I just moved from our apartment to our first house this weekend (we officially started living here this past Saturday) so now is the first time I've a) had time to check the forums and b) had internet access to check the forums with.

This is also a great example of why if you have a wireless network at home, you should secure it so that your neighbors can't "borrow" it while they wait for theirs to get activated, lol. <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/rolleyes1.gif" border="0" alt="" >

You've all given me some really great advice here, and I definitly see a few winners (opinion wise) standing out for things to consider. I guess now it's time to start comparison shopping and seeing examples of photos taken with these various lens are looking like

Alright so onto intial thoughts:

24-105 and 24-70 seemed to come up a lot in the posts above. (oh I'm so poor lol, but that's alright, my goal is to pick a lens and save save save!!)

Primes are not ruled out, they never were, and this thread has further solidified that.

kmphua: you and your Japan shots are my hero, because the whole reason I'm saving for some nice glass it to take back with me to Japan (and coincidentally that will probably be Kyoto I'm going to next March). However having two awesome lenses that both took great shots makes my decision making even harder!! <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/thumb.gif" border="0" alt="" > (the pic of kiyomizutera is pretty awesome btw, I've been there before)

Ah so many decisions....

Anyhoo, to help with some previous questions about things I like to shoot:

I want one good macro lens so that I can go outside and shoot butterflies, praying mantis (yeah I realize they don't come out to play often, but they did like 2 years ago for me: http://shima.smugmug.com/gallery/882417#39924824 <- back in my point and shoot days with the canon powershot pro1), flowers, gotta love flowers, and other random very up close stuff.

I want a good lens for tourism, namely Japan as mentioned in my fisrt post. I want to capture vivid scenes, people doing what they normally do, landscapes, etc. I want to be able to capture day and night, though mostly gorgeous colorful things during the day. When I went to Japan in 2005, I had a measly wimpy kodak easyshare back then... but you can at least get an idea for what i liked taking shots of back then http://shima.smugmug.com/Japan_March_2005 I plan to shoot much more artistically this time around, I was mainly in pure "tourist" mode last time.

Those are my two top priorities for lenses / what they need to do. Thoughts / modifications in previous statements based on that?

Pindy · April 17, 2007

Shima wrote:

I want one good macro lens so that I can go outside and shoot butterflies, praying mantis...

The EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro is superb and also makes a really great street portrait lens especially for the unwitting street person.

ChrisJ · April 17, 2007

Shima wrote:

Thoughts / modifications in previous statements based on that?

I would go with the 17-55 EF-S f/2.8 and the macro lens of your choice (I don't have one, so can't really comment).

The 24-70 f/2.8L is going to be *heavy*. The other lenses will lose 1 stop. If the macro you choose can double as a telephoto, the 17-55 should be long enough.

I only had a little Sony DSC-P7 the last time I was in Japan, and I still liked many of the shots I took. (But they won't blow up really big without noise)

EDIT: Congratulations on the new house!!!

claudermilk · April 18, 2007

As much as I love the 24-70, it looks like the 24-105, or 17-55 will work best for your type of shooting. The 24-70 is really best suited for low-light & mid-range portrait stuff.

I'll leave macro suggestions to the experts, but everything I've read on Canon's 3-lens lineup all of them are good choices.

Congrats on the house, just did that myself...and secured my new wifi router first thing. Amazing to see how many unsecured nets surround the house; AFAIK I'm the only one in the neighborhood who's bothered to use the security features.

wxwax · April 18, 2007

Based on your camera body and your style of shooting, I suspect the 24-105 is your best bet.

Your 30D has clean high ISO, to compensate for the lens' f4 max aperture. And while some think the lens is stunted on the wide end on a 1.6 crop body, I don't see that as a problem based on your image galleries.

You look like you want a good, all around walk-around lens, and I think the 24-105 gives you the versatility you're looking for.

ChrisJ · April 18, 2007

wxwax wrote:

Your 30D has clean high ISO, to compensate for the lens' f4 max aperture.

That's a good point, Sid. My only quible with that lens is at the 24 end... sometimes that just isn't wide enough on the 1.6x crop bodies. But if you can live with 38mm effective focal length instead of 27mm, then the 24-105 is more flexible on the tele end.

Shima could always add the EFS 10-22 and then have almost the entire near range covered!

Only another ~$650-700.

First L glass advice?

Comments