L lens worth it?

trucatus · 8th January 2005

I am thinking of buying L lens for my digital camera - the lens that comes with 300D got worse results than my Epson 3000Z. After trying the 20-35mm I bought recently, I am convince that lens play a major role in my hobby.

L lens is just costly and is it worth the money?

agape01 · 8th January 2005

No... unless you are willing to fork out a minimum of $3K to buy one, but if you are willing to buy more than one, then be prepared to fork out at least $6K to $20K. Other brands like Sigma and Tamron can almost give comparable results.

moos blues · 8th January 2005

why not bring ur camera body and do some test shots at a shop...? If would help them make a sale i think they will be happy to let you test it out. Just say you want to test on ur cam body lor den keep the pics with u.

bring ur 20-35 and shoot one pic... and with the same settings shoot one with a 17-40L or similiar and compare it lor... or just borrow someone's =)

Who knows, once u've tried L, you might never go back. haha

mpenza · 8th January 2005

It largely depends on whether the improvements in quality and performance are worthwhile for you. There're also third party equivalents which might be worth considering too.

The bottom line is get what you could afford and need. You don't always need the best lenses and the best lenses might not be suitable for you (e.g. top range lenses generally comes in metal bodies and have huge glass elements which made them heavy).

I personally only have one lightweight L telezoom and one L telephoto prime to cover the subjects (fashion shows) that I take most often. For travelling, weddings and day-to-day shooting, I find a mid-range "consumer" lens (e.g. Canon EF24-85, Sigma 18-125) good enough.

trucatus · 8th January 2005

I am thinking of the 16-35mm L and the 70-200 L my 35-135mm (love that lens but no more production) is still pin sharp. But the $$$ wow my wife may murder me in sleep.

Anyone uses the 16-35mm L compared with 20-35mm?

mpenza · 8th January 2005

20-35 actually performs pretty well

but is not as wide as the 16-35, especially on a digital body.

for a lower budget, you could consider the 17-40F4L and 70-200 F4L or Sigma/Tamron 17-35f2.8-4 and Sigma 70-200F2.8 HSM EX.

trucatus · 8th January 2005

Friend uses 17-40mm L says barrel distortion very bad. I don't know what is it though...

mpenza · 8th January 2005

barrel distortion? 16-35 is worse if I'm not wrong.

jeff49er · 8th January 2005

Originally Posted by trucatus

I am thinking of buying L lens for my digital camera - the lens that comes with 300D got worse results than my Epson 3000Z. After trying the 20-35mm I bought recently, I am convince that lens play a major role in my hobby.

L lens is just costly and is it worth the money?

Really not worth it

RossChang · 8th January 2005

L Lens?... worth the money (provided u dun get lemons)... but is the money spend justifiable? this question is highly dependent on individual(and the depth of their pocket)

generik · 8th January 2005

Originally Posted by trucatus

But the $$$ wow my wife may murder me in sleep.

太夸张了！

But seriously those 2 piece of glass are going to be like $6k!!

Why not just get a 17-40/f4 to play play first? Starter L lens

trucatus · 8th January 2005

How much is that 17-40mm L? If not to ex can buy la. Parting with my BP-E2 to upgrade. Hopefully don't disappoint me.

mpenza · 8th January 2005

it'a abt $1.2k.

generik · 8th January 2005

And it is about 1/2 the prices of the other L lens.. so it is "quite cheap"

trucatus · 8th January 2005

Then have to get rid of my 20-35mm lens...can the hood fit to the 17-40mm L anyone?

USM · 8th January 2005

Originally Posted by trucatus

Then have to get rid of my 20-35mm lens...can the hood fit to the 17-40mm L anyone?

Is your 20-35mm lens the f3.5-4.5 version, and not the f2.8? If it's the former, your lens hood is EW-83II, while the f2.8 uses EW75 hood. You can't use both on the 17-40mm f4L. Anyway, the 17-40mm f4L comes with the supplied lens hood EW-83E, so you don't need to buy at all.

RossChang · 8th January 2005

hmm... the supplied hood of the 17-40?... I call it a squashed pan cake... not really tat nice looking but it's still a flower hood...

generik · 8th January 2005

Originally Posted by USM

Is your 20-35mm lens the f3.5-4.5 version, and not the f2.8? If it's the former, your lens hood is EW-83II, while the f2.8 uses EW75 hood. You can't use both on the 17-40mm f4L. Anyway, the 17-40mm f4L comes with the supplied lens hood EW-83E, so you don't need to buy at all.

Hehehe.. see? Canon so good! Comes with a free hood!

BUY BUY BUY!

USM · 8th January 2005

Originally Posted by generik

Hehehe.. see? Canon so good! Comes with a free hood!

BUY BUY BUY!

Then what are you waiting for?

StreetShooter · 8th January 2005

No.

Next question?

Seriously, after looking at my 4R prints, it makes no difference whether I use a cheapo lens or an L lens.

8th January 2005	#1
trucatus Advertiser Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Singapore Posts: 1,649	L lens worth it? I am thinking of buying L lens for my digital camera - the lens that comes with 300D got worse results than my Epson 3000Z. After trying the 20-35mm I bought recently, I am convince that lens play a major role in my hobby. L lens is just costly and is it worth the money?

8th January 2005	#7
trucatus Advertiser Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Singapore Posts: 1,649	Friend uses 17-40mm L says barrel distortion very bad. I don't know what is it though... Last edited by trucatus; 8th January 2005 at 12:50 PM.

8th January 2005	#2
agape01 Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Somewhere Out There Posts: 2,314	No... unless you are willing to fork out a minimum of $3K to buy one, but if you are willing to buy more than one, then be prepared to fork out at least $6K to $20K. Other brands like Sigma and Tamron can almost give comparable results.

8th January 2005	#3
moos blues Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Pasir ris Posts: 681	why not bring ur camera body and do some test shots at a shop...? If would help them make a sale i think they will be happy to let you test it out. Just say you want to test on ur cam body lor den keep the pics with u. bring ur 20-35 and shoot one pic... and with the same settings shoot one with a 17-40L or similiar and compare it lor... or just borrow someone's =) Who knows, once u've tried L, you might never go back. haha

8th January 2005	#4
mpenza Moderator Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: New York City Posts: 13,402	It largely depends on whether the improvements in quality and performance are worthwhile for you. There're also third party equivalents which might be worth considering too. The bottom line is get what you could afford and need. You don't always need the best lenses and the best lenses might not be suitable for you (e.g. top range lenses generally comes in metal bodies and have huge glass elements which made them heavy). I personally only have one lightweight L telezoom and one L telephoto prime to cover the subjects (fashion shows) that I take most often. For travelling, weddings and day-to-day shooting, I find a mid-range "consumer" lens (e.g. Canon EF24-85, Sigma 18-125) good enough.

8th January 2005	#6
mpenza Moderator Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: New York City Posts: 13,402	20-35 actually performs pretty well but is not as wide as the 16-35, especially on a digital body. for a lower budget, you could consider the 17-40F4L and 70-200 F4L or Sigma/Tamron 17-35f2.8-4 and Sigma 70-200F2.8 HSM EX.

8th January 2005	#10
RossChang Member Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 1,563	L Lens?... worth the money (provided u dun get lemons)... but is the money spend justifiable? this question is highly dependent on individual(and the depth of their pocket)

8th January 2005	#14
generik Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 292	And it is about 1/2 the prices of the other L lens.. so it is "quite cheap"

8th January 2005	#20
StreetShooter Moderator Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Katong Posts: 4,702	No. Next question? Seriously, after looking at my 4R prints, it makes no difference whether I use a cheapo lens or an L lens.