L lens worth it?

[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?

 

[agape01]

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]

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 :bsmilie:

 

[mpenza]

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]

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]

20-35 actually performs pretty well ;p 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]

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

 

[mpenza]

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

 

[jeff49er]

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]

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]

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

:bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie:
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]

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]

it'a abt $1.2k.

 

[generik]

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

 

[trucatus]

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

 

[USM]

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. ;p

 

[RossChang]

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]

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. ;p

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

BUY BUY BUY! :think:

 

[USM]

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

BUY BUY BUY! :think:

Then what are you waiting for? :bsmilie:

 

[StreetShooter]

No.

Next question?

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