I wouldn't say that the L lenses are over-rated. Over-priced, maybe. But just because a lens has an L in its name, it doens't mean that it's the best lens out there. There are some non-L lenses which are also amazing (17-55, for example).
There are some non-L lenses which are also amazing (17-55, for example).
I'm new to photography, using Canon DSLR. I saw ads at the "For Sale" forum here, and looked at the L lenses and the non-L lenses, and obviously, the prices are many many times more for the L lenses (for the same/almost same XXXmm range).
Sorry for being vagued.
1. No, I'm not from Canon and trying to get a market survey. It is just for my own thoughts.
2. The reason for starting this post:
I'm new to photography, using Canon DSLR. I saw ads at the "For Sale" forum here, and looked at the L lenses and the non-L lenses, and obviously, the prices are many many times more for the L lenses (for the same/almost same XXXmm range).
So, I was thinking whether it is worth the thought/dream of getting a L lens, when an equivalent non-L lens is much more affordable - I do not have a big budget (otherwise I will stock up the L lens in my bag)!
I want to hear from users - pros, amateurs, serious amateurs - on your take about the L lens, and to be able to understand the mystery of getting the L lens. Then I can continue dreaming of getting one, or just concentrate on getting the non-L lenses and forget about the L lenses!!
A long rambling from a newbie! Thanks to all that had shared your opinions.
buying a 70-200 L just for the F1 race... bagus~! :sweat::sweat::sweat:
too much money to spend nowadays...
buying a 70-200 L just for the F1 race... bagus~! :sweat::sweat::sweat:
too much money to spend nowadays...
if you're single... and have no obligations... why not! :bsmilie:
buying a 70-200 L just for the F1 race... bagus~! :sweat::sweat::sweat:
too much money to spend nowadays...
buying a 70-200 L just for the F1 race... bagus~! :sweat::sweat::sweat:
too much money to spend nowadays...
Sorry for being vagued.
1. No, I'm not from Canon and trying to get a market survey. It is just for my own thoughts.
2. The reason for starting this post:
I'm new to photography, using Canon DSLR. I saw ads at the "For Sale" forum here, and looked at the L lenses and the non-L lenses, and obviously, the prices are many many times more for the L lenses (for the same/almost same XXXmm range).
So, I was thinking whether it is worth the thought/dream of getting a L lens, when an equivalent non-L lens is much more affordable - I do not have a big budget (otherwise I will stock up the L lens in my bag)!
I want to hear from users - pros, amateurs, serious amateurs - on your take about the L lens, and to be able to understand the mystery of getting the L lens. Then I can continue dreaming of getting one, or just concentrate on getting the non-L lenses and forget about the L lenses!!
A long rambling from a newbie! Thanks to all that had shared your opinions.
You know, the answer is very simple.
Use whatever camera gears you have... when you really feel constrained by whatever equipments you have then look for something better than your existing setup.
There is always something better but that does not mean that you need those or you can afford to have that. on the other hand, I can afford two ice creams does not mean I will have two ice creams now.. right?
If you really use your gears, if you know their capabilities, it will really take you few years to feel constraint by your current gear. Honestly, many of us don't really understand our gears and think a L or expensive gear will make wonders for us!!
When you reach there, you probably very clearly know what are the bottlenecks in your current setup... probably you can revisit again and you will say yes, I need a L.... until then....learn your existing gears first.
Kana 4D/Toto one time big big, can buy all the lens Canon have....:bsmilie:
I do not have a big budget (otherwise I will stock up the L lens in my bag)!
Budget is one thing, functions is another. I have L lenses, because they don't have equivalent non-L that match the specs. But I wouldn't stuff my bag full of L lens just because I can afford it. First of all, most L lens are heavier, and bulkier to achive the optical & robustness. For example, I still have my Tamron 28-75 as my walk around lens as I prefer the size compare to 24-70/2.8 from Canon.
Hi Chopper, Understand that the tammy is much sharper than the Canon L....:think:
Well most L lens are just awesome! Recently i purchased the 70-200mm L IS II lens and used it for F1 and the images wowed me. I am just a beginner at photography so dont expect any form of skill from me to be quite honest, how the images turned out was strictly due to the lens, and me pointing at the cars, thats all i did. On the contrary, i had a buddy that was with me and using a 70-200mm Nikon lens, with same settings and all, image just dont turn out as well as mine. Do you think its worth paying more for it, initially i thought the premium was too much, but after taking the plunge and seeing the results, it was more than worth it.
However lens like 100-400mm L lens, some people say it doesnt deserve the L tag, and some ppl say its just good enough to attain the L tag, depends on individuals, but overall for all L lens, they are superior in quality.