"L" Glass

[Neva]

My question is this: If I were going to start gathering "L" glass, what would be a good lens to start with? From the photos I've posted, you can tell I don't do alot of macro work, so I don't think a macro lens would be beneficial for me. But, I'm wondering what would be a good one to start with. Any suggestions or comments? Thanks in advance!

[john101477]

depends on what your goal is as far as "collecting" technically you only "need" 2-3 maybe 4 at most. Then again comes the question of prime or zoom. If I shot Canon this would be my lineup.
EF 17-40mm f/4L USM (only because it is half the price of the 16-35)
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM (because I love my nikon 70-200)
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM (semi unsure of this lens as to it's usefulness to me)
I am also a big fan of the 50mm in a lot of situations.
If you are looking at primes thats a whole different list IMO. you coiuld also look at Gregs list of lenses as I know he is a canon shooter and has some good primes.

[Neva]

Thanks for your input John. I did check out Gregs list of lens and I read his reviews on the lenses. I'm still thinking about it. My honey just purchased a 100mm Macro lens and he is trying to get me to sell most of what I have in lenses and start in getting the L glass. I love the thought of having some great "L" glass; my checkbook doesn't like the thought of it though----it's fighting me all the way!!

[NCPhotoTrekker]

Here's my two cents...I have to go against John's recommendation here on the 24-70mm f/2.8L. If I could only have one lens, this would be it. It is a great general purpose lens that covers wide, normal, and telephoto. It is fast, and it is sharp. It is equally as useful on both a cropped frame and full frame camera.

I would shy away from the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS unless you are needing the speed. The f/4L IS is actually sharper, and it is lighter as well. The weight savings will be beneficial as you build your collection.

I also like the 17-40mm f/4L to round things out. It is cheaper than the 16-35mm f/2.8L, but the biggest advantage to it is the filter size. It takes a standard 77mm filter while the 16-35mm takes an 82mm. That would kill your ability to use filters in unison with hoods. My largest filter diameter is 77mm and I use step-up rings for the 72mm and 67mm diameter lenses.

[Neva]

Thank you for all your input Greg! It is really appreaciated and I value your, and all you guys' opinions and knowledge. It really helps!!

[john101477]

Belle, your welcome
I did want to point out my reasoning on the 24-70. My logic is the same that many have with Primes. having covered the 17-40mm and 70-200mm range, there is not much I could not capture by simply walking in or out 100ft or so. That being said, I will probably end up with a better mid zoom at some point but it is not in my "have to have" list. As for the 70-200 f/2.8, simply put Nikon does not offer the f/4. With the canon you save quite a bit going to the f/4. If you shot wildlife (on the move) or sports enough to make it matter, I would say go for the 2.8, otherwise save the money.

[musicman5]

Echoing what John and Greg said I'd temper it with get a lens that fits what you want to use it for. I shoot events that can be indoors or outdoors. So I tend get fast lenses (f/2.8 or faster) because I can go either way with them.

Zoom lenses:
If I was going to shoot daylight or flash I'd go with f/4 lenses, the 24-105mm f/4L IS and the 70-200mm f/4L IS.

I own the 24-70 (bought a used copy) and seldom use it except on special occasions. My most used lens is the 24-105, mine is just as sharp as the 24-105 and I use it for all sorts of things. It is my work horse, events, studio, product shots and walk around lens. I use the 24-105 on my 5D and on my cropped sensor camera, the 40D.

For the 40D I much prefer the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens. It's every bit as sharp and a heck of a lot lighter than the 24-70.

Primes:
My 50mm f/1.4 and the 135mm f/2L lens are actually my 2 favorite lenses. Of either type. I'd prefer the 35mm on my 5D but just can't justify the expense, I can just back up like John said. The 135mm is the sharpest lens that Canon makes, I've sold more photos that were taken with this lens than any other. For me it's perfect for candid environmental portraits.

Hope something here helps.

[jimhobson]

I'd like to say one thing. The 24-70 f2.8. It is my least used lens ever.
Today I went out to a Refuge I go to often to check a waterfall. It look good so I decided to photograph it. Unfortunately, I only had my Nikon with the 35mm f1.8G. It's a tight area and I didn't have room to back up. I couldn't get the shot. Had I brought the Canon with the 24-70, I could have. When I use my Canon, the 24-70 is always in the bag. Just don't use it much. Today it would have saved the day, again.

[NCPhotoTrekker]

The 24-70mm f/2.8L is a heavy lens, no doubt about it. It weighs as much as my 70-200 f/4L, however, being an f/2.8 it is quite flexible for all sorts of photography. With the 40D, I could get nice tight portraits without having to switch over to a dedicated telephoto. That is not so much the case with the full framer, but now I have a nice wide angle ability with the lens that was never really there.

[Neva]

Thank you all for the information and input. Working for the state, I get paid once a month, so I have a little bit of time to thing about what I really want to do. Once again, thank you!