# Which L Lens to start with?



## magnum (Aug 26, 2013)

I have a Canon 7D and my wife has a 600D. We have on both the EF-S 18-200mm 1:3.5-5.6 IS lenses and find these pretty satisfactory general walk around lens (with the obvious compromise for the large focal length range).

I have been thinking of late of getting our first "L" lens. As enthusiast rather than professional photographers without a endless budget and the price of these lenses, we really don't want to waste money getting the wrong lens. 

Our interests in photography are (not in any particular order):
1. Landscape and travel 
2. Nature, animal, birds (not macro)
3. People (not portrait)

With this in mind I recently hired a EF 17-40mm f4.0L USM (as a potential landscape lens) but was underwhelmed when I compared it side-by-side with our 18-200mm using equivalent focal lengths and exposures. I was expecting this L lens (Canon's cheapest and most popular, so I read) to stand head and shoulders above the 18-200mm in image quality, color saturation, brightness, etc. But my (admittedly) amateur eye could not see the difference.

So my thinking now is towards the opposite (focal length) end and I am thinking of a telephoto zoom. I like the focal length available on 100-400mm L lens but as the rumors are that this is likely to be updated soon, I don't want to buy old technology for my first L lens. I also hear good reports about the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens but the maximum focal length is a bit shy of what I would/might want for a serious nature lens.

Any thoughts, experiences and/or advice are welcome and sought.


----------



## Aaron78 (Aug 26, 2013)

My first L lens was the 70-200 2.8 II, and it remains my most used lens.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 26, 2013)

The L lenses like the 17-40mm L will be much better on FF.

I'd suggest the 15-85mm or the 17-55mm for your crop camera, they are a much better match to the APS-C sensor. If you don't mind changing lenses, a combination of the 10-22mm EF-s and the 24-105mmL would work.

The 18-135mm STM is also said to be pretty good.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 26, 2013)

For visible improvement in picture quality, not all L lenses are wonderful. Canon 15-85mm or 17-55mm can really expand your way of photographing. I do not see much advantage in STM 18-135 though.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 26, 2013)

Consider the 70-300L. Excellent IQ, useful range on crop and FF, great travel lens.


----------



## magnum (Aug 26, 2013)

Aaron, I hear really good reports on the Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Telephoto Zoom Lens. Of course, it is one of Canon's most expensive zoom L's. I take this is due to the fast (f2.8) characteristics combined with the L quality? 

Neuro, it is the Canon EF 70-300mm F4-5.6L IS USM to which you are referring? I hear good things about this too. But one downside is that it doesn't taken the Canon converters.


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 26, 2013)

the 17-40 really needs to be stopped down a good bit before it starts to shine. landscape and bidding are usually two different lenses entirely. if you are looking for some remarkable improvement and you have two grand to spare, I'd suggest maybe a 35mm sigma which it's a very useful focal length for people, and a 400mm L f5.6. two very different lenses for two very different subjects.

maybe you have a bit more cash, throw in a 10-22 or a tokina 11-16.


----------



## batotman (Aug 26, 2013)

You're probably not going to see a massive difference or at least enough to satisfy you. If it were me I'd look at a prime like a 35/2 or 50/1.4 for some creative options or the 40/2.8 for street photography.


----------



## takesome1 (Aug 26, 2013)

Magnum,

You learned a valuable lesson from the 17-40, while the price of L lenses is 3 times that of non L lenses the improvement in IQ is fractional.

I would go with the 70-200mm F/2.8 as well.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 26, 2013)

magnum said:


> Aaron, I hear really good reports on the Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Telephoto Zoom Lens. Of course, it is one of Canon's most expensive zoom L's. I take this is due to the fast (f2.8) characteristics combined with the L quality?
> 
> Neuro, it is the Canon EF 70-300mm F4-5.6L IS USM to which you are referring? I hear good things about this too. But one downside is that it doesn't taken the Canon converters.



Yes, that's the lens to which I was referring. I have both the 70-200/2.8L IS II and the 70-300L. Personally, I found the 70-200 range a bit awkward on APS-C - too long indoors, not long enough outdoors. I didn't use it much on my 7D, but after getting a FF camera it became my second most-used lens.


----------



## 7Dneilan (Aug 26, 2013)

Hi there,

As a keen amateur, I have just taken the plunge and ordered a 70-200 f2.8 - I am beside myself with excitement! I've had a play with the 70-200 f4 and loved the versatility, so I am really looking forward to the wider aperture. If focal length is a concern, an extender will help you out.

You would not regret it and as long as you treat it nice, it will hold a great deal of its value for potential resale, should you decide to upgrade to a longer lens.

Good luck!


----------



## crasher8 (Aug 26, 2013)

wider L zooms aren't so great on crops imho and offer not usually desirable focal lengths but YMMV. I say look into the medium telephoto primes. 100L Macro, 135 f/2. Now those are lenses that shine on all bodies.


----------



## Cory (Aug 26, 2013)

Sigma 30 1.4 Art and
Canon 100-400


----------



## ONeill (Aug 26, 2013)

You've reached the stage where you recognize that you can improve your photography, and you're wondering how to go about it. This is an exciting place to be, but also one fraught with confusion. The mistake that a lot of new SLR photographers make is to think that an ultra-sharp lens will, somehow, magically improve their photography and make their pictures look 'professional'. Actually, this is the wrong way to approach things. May I suggest that what you should do right now is think about how you can change your approach to how you take pictures? How can you make your pictures different from the crowd? Can you look at things in a different way? As a so-called professional, this is the question that I ask myself every day on the drive in to work. 

L lenses won't inherently give you this - what they will give you is a robust and reliable tool that you can use every day without having to worry about it and that you can realistically expect will still be earning you money in three years time. Most of all, what you're going to get from an L lens is robustness, reliability, solidity and a tool that will do the job in adverse conditions, amidst a scrum of other photographers when, quite frankly, all you want to do is go home. Sharpness and color rendition comes a long second to all this. An L lens is just a working tool. Yes, generally, they will be slightly better than consumer lenses in sharpness terms (though not always), but there is a limit to this. It's not that L lenses are bad, more that these days, consumer lenses are really good, and good value to boot. Just not reliable or tough enough for day-in, day-out professional use. That's what you're paying for. Believe me, I'm much more concerned that my lens/camera will stand up to a bash against a wall than how sharp the lens is. When I want to make a memorable photograph, sharpness is a very minor consideration. Composition, perspective, content and subject interest and dynamics are what I'm looking for. I take accurate focus and an acceptably sharp result for granted, and even focus is a tool in itself. And you're probably going to be looking at most of your pics on a computer screen at best. Come on, guys, how many of you regularly print photos to 20x30?

So you want to spend some money. That's fine. First of all, go and get yourself a copy of Adobe Lightroom and learn how to use it. This will make more difference to your photographs than any lens ever will. Check out Lyndadotcom - it's a great educational resource. Learn how to use your camera in aperture priority mode and in full manual. Then, as JDRamirez suggests, get yourself a good prime lens and a polarizing filter. The new Sigma 35mm is a very good place to start. If I only had one lens, it would be a 35 prime (and my second would be a 135L). This will teach you to make yourself think before you release the shutter. It'll stop you being lazy and make you more aware than you believed possible of what's in front of you. Put your zoom lens away for a month or two and dream up some projects with specific themes that you'll use your new lens exclusively for. Rust. Specific colors. Water. Close up. Monochrome. Motion blur - whatever - anything that your imagination can come up with, but be strict with your self and don't goof off, because at the end of the day, the only person you'll be fooling will be yourself. Walk out of the door with a purpose and don't get side-tracked. Down the line, you can pick up a 300L f/4 or 400L f/5.6 or similar for your wildlife, etc. Same theory as the 35. For travel, you've already got a great lens. Personally, I'm not a great fan of ultra-wides (e.g. 10-22) until you've got a lot more mileage under your belt. They're novelty lenses in most people's hands, although that particular lens is very good on a crop camera. Whilst the 70-200 f/2.8 v2 is a magical lens on full frame, somehow, as someone else mentioned, it doesn't really gel on a crop body. Furthermore, you've already covered its range. If you really have to get a zoom, the 70-300L will work better for you.

Not sure that this is what you wanted to hear, but I remember when I had the same questions as you (back in 1978). I wish I knew then what I know now...


----------



## scottkinfw (Aug 26, 2013)

The 70-200 2.8 II is is awesome. Of course it is big, heavy, and white (attention grabber, if that matters). It takes wonderfully crisp photos, have one, love it. I had the 17-40, didn't like it- gave it away free to a friend.
On the closer in range, I love the 24-70 2.8 II It has been putting out the sharpest pics of all of my lenses lately. It is small, black, easy to carry, and is great. You obviously don't get reach, but wow, what an image.

I also have the 24-105 with is, and this also has been a wonderful lens for me. It is slower at f4, but has is. I have read that a lot of people complain of bad copies, but I guess I got lucky.

You only mentioned zooms, so that is all I will comment on. One thing to consider is that the 70-200 works very nicely with a tc for increased reach!

Neuro swears by his 70-300L with variable f stop. Lighter than the 70-200 2.8 and has excellent iq and better range. Of course you may want to look into some older lenses like the 400 f5.6 or the 300 f4 is, as cheaper prime alternatives.

Don't forget to consider refurbs from Canon too 

[quote

author=magnum link=topic=16624.msg306256#msg306256 date=1377481042]
I have a Canon 7D and my wife has a 600D. We have on both the EF-S 18-200mm 1:3.5-5.6 IS lenses and find these pretty satisfactory general walk around lens (with the obvious compromise for the large focal length range).

I have been thinking of late of getting our first "L" lens. As enthusiast rather than professional photographers without a endless budget and the price of these lenses, we really don't want to waste money getting the wrong lens. 

Our interests in photography are (not in any particular order):
1. Landscape and travel 
2. Nature, animal, birds (not macro)
3. People (not portrait)

With this in mind I recently hired a EF 17-40mm f4.0L USM (as a potential landscape lens) but was underwhelmed when I compared it side-by-side with our 18-200mm using equivalent focal lengths and exposures. I was expecting this L lens (Canon's cheapest and most popular, so I read) to stand head and shoulders above the 18-200mm in image quality, color saturation, brightness, etc. But my (admittedly) amateur eye could not see the difference.

So my thinking now is towards the opposite (focal length) end and I am thinking of a telephoto zoom. I like the focal length available on 100-400mm L lens but as the rumors are that this is likely to be updated soon, I don't want to buy old technology for my first L lens. I also hear good reports about the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens but the maximum focal length is a bit shy of what I would/might want for a serious nature lens.

Any thoughts, experiences and/or advice are welcome and sought. 
[/quote]


----------



## timmy_650 (Aug 26, 2013)

My vote would be EF-s 17-55 f2.8 (if you go full frame later you can sell it without much lost, if any) And 70-300L or the 100-400. I love the 70-200 F2.8 mkII but the price is hard to get pass for your first L lens. I would rather have you good L lens than one Great one.


----------



## aroo (Aug 26, 2013)

It's not a telephoto, so forgive me if this is off-topic, but I'm often really excited about images from my 40mm pancake lens. It's a huge step up in clarity and sharpness from the lens you have, and it doesn't cost much at all. Also consider picking up a nifty fifty (50mm f/1.8) to see if wide apertures do anything for you. It feels good to know for sure why you want a particular lens before buying it.


----------



## The Bad Duck (Aug 26, 2013)

Oo shiny upgrades!
What is it that you want your new lens to do? Better low-light shooting? More shallow DoF? More focal length? Less focal length?

1. Landscape = good tripod and a stopped down lens. @ f/11 most lenses are pretty good. Of course the 10-22 is great, you might want to think about that lens, but personally I seldom use ultra wide angle for lanscapes.
travel = your 18-200 AND a low light lens like the 28 /1.8, 30 /1.4, 35 /1.4 for nightshots on the go. the 10-22 can give cool images in narrow places.

2. Nature, animal, birds (not macro) = as long a lens as you can get. You can never have too much focal length for birds. 100-400 may be a good choise. The 400 /5.6 lacks IS but has a little bit more contrast. Sigma 120-300 /2.8 Sport is a favourite, but expensive and heavy. 70-200 /2.8 II and a extenders is another way to go. Long lenses are either expensive or not very good. And you really should only buy the good lenses. Do it right the first time or regret it and buy the good lens later (and waste money).

3. People (not portrait) = your 18-200. Personaly I prefer primes for shooting people but that´s just me. If you don´t want the short DoF of fast lenses, then there is not much need to get something new. perhaps you would feel different about portraits with a nice portrait lens as the 85 /1.8 or 50 /1.4 and go that way with your people photography?

It´s not easy to choose, that´s why I need a larger camera backpack nowadays...
Good luck!


----------



## BrandonKing96 (Aug 26, 2013)

perhaps a basic 24-105L? maybe coupled with a 70-300L or 100-400L?


----------



## Haydn1971 (Aug 26, 2013)

My first question would be do you shoot in raw and do you have Lightroom ?

If you don't, try this first, including buying a book on Lightroom... Next up, check at what focal lengths you shoot at most, this is easy in Lightroom... I'd first consider a better APS-C lens, i had the 15-85mm, but the 17-55mm might work for you, my photos kinda looked a bit better, next up I'd consider a low f stop prime, I got the 50mm f1.4 new and a secondhand 135mm f2.0 L prime, my photos started to buzz with these. I added the 10-22mm which was fun to use and gave me some great images... I also got into using ND grads, polarising filters and black glass.

My story drifts from here, as I took the plunge with a 6D when it was launched, bought a 16-35mm soon after, then a 24-70 f2.8 II soon after that.... I sold my 450D which ended up costing me £50 per year of use, bargain ! Sold my 15-85mm which had cost me about £60 per year of use.... Still need to get shut of the 10-22mm and although I'm pondering swapping my 70-300 non L for something better, I'm still getting good images from it, just annoyed with the buzzy AF it has and slight loss of image quality beyond 200mm (pixel creeping necessary to see)

Moral for me is don't jump in at first, learn what you need through Lightroom, play with light using filters and once you get to know your photos, use that knowledge to improve your kit sensibly.


----------



## Northstar (Aug 26, 2013)

If you are looking for IQ and versatility, then the 70-200 2.8 ii is the lens that will have you seeing a difference compared to your current lenses.


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Aug 26, 2013)

To start: most used 24-70/II.
Then, close second 70-200/2.8 II.
Primes: 35L and 135L.


----------



## Mendolera (Aug 26, 2013)

I third or fourth the 70-300L ($1300) as the the lens that might cover a lot what your looking for.

However, I would seriously consider the 70-200L F/4 ($550) for the price if you dont need IS or the wider aperture. Its defintely going to be sharper the 18-200 and not that much less then the 2.8 II.

When and if the newer 100-400L gets replaced expect it do be at least $2500.. The current version is great and I got mine like new on CL for $900 so there are deals to be found on this lens currently.


----------



## zim (Aug 26, 2013)

ONeill said:


> You've reached the stage where you recognize that you can improve your photography, and you're wondering how to go about it. This is an exciting place to be, but also one fraught with confusion. The mistake that a lot of new SLR photographers make is to think that an ultra-sharp lens will, somehow, magically improve their photography and make their pictures look 'professional'. Actually, this is the wrong way to approach things. May I suggest that what you should do right now is think about how you can change your approach to how you take pictures? How can you make your pictures different from the crowd? Can you look at things in a different way? As a so-called professional, this is the question that I ask myself every day on the drive in to work.
> 
> L lenses won't inherently give you this - what they will give you is a robust and reliable tool that you can use every day without having to worry about it and that you can realistically expect will still be earning you money in three years time. Most of all, what you're going to get from an L lens is robustness, reliability, solidity and a tool that will do the job in adverse conditions, amidst a scrum of other photographers when, quite frankly, all you want to do is go home. Sharpness and color rendition comes a long second to all this. An L lens is just a working tool. Yes, generally, they will be slightly better than consumer lenses in sharpness terms (though not always), but there is a limit to this. It's not that L lenses are bad, more that these days, consumer lenses are really good, and good value to boot. Just not reliable or tough enough for day-in, day-out professional use. That's what you're paying for. Believe me, I'm much more concerned that my lens/camera will stand up to a bash against a wall than how sharp the lens is. When I want to make a memorable photograph, sharpness is a very minor consideration. Composition, perspective, content and subject interest and dynamics are what I'm looking for. I take accurate focus and an acceptably sharp result for granted, and even focus is a tool in itself. And you're probably going to be looking at most of your pics on a computer screen at best. Come on, guys, how many of you regularly print photos to 20x30?
> 
> ...



Don't know if you helped the OP's but you sure made me think
I'm gonna print this out!

Thank you for taking the time


----------



## cid (Aug 26, 2013)

My first L lens was (and still is) 100mm L IS - it's a great lens and I have to say it was my first prime too. I have to say, that having fixed focal length made me think more about composition then using zoom where it was very comfortable to just zoom in to "get closer" or zoom out to "fit everything in". It is also very very very sharp lens and it's very easy to get used to it.

So my advice? If you want L, then buy L, invest in some nice prime to start (100/135mm?), but first rent some of them, test them and then get most of the one you chose


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 26, 2013)

magnum said:


> With this in mind I recently hired a EF 17-40mm f4.0L USM (as a potential landscape lens) but was underwhelmed when I compared it side-by-side with our 18-200mm using equivalent focal lengths and exposures. I was expecting this L lens (Canon's cheapest and most popular, so I read) to stand head and shoulders above the 18-200mm in image quality, color saturation, brightness, etc. But my (admittedly) amateur eye could not see the difference.



You will see the difference when the L quality lens goes on shooting when your ef-s breaks down :-> 

But the 17-40L isn't made for crop, I use it anyway and it's "good enough" at closed aperture f8 and "good" at f16, but this is a ff lens. It's is an unfortunate fact that Canon doesn't build ef-s L quality with sealing, but there you are. For the price, the 17-40L is good at what it is supposed to do: landscape with minimal flare, round bokeh lights, nice sunstars and a gel filter holder at the back.



magnum said:


> Aaron, I hear really good reports on the Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Telephoto Zoom Lens. Of course, it is one of Canon's most expensive zoom L's. I take this is due to the fast (f2.8) characteristics combined with the L quality?



Also note the size and weight of this thing, you should really consider that if you're an amateur and want to carry it around and/or shoot a prolonged time.



magnum said:


> Neuro, it is the Canon EF 70-300mm F4-5.6L IS USM to which you are referring? I hear good things about this too. But one downside is that it doesn't taken the Canon converters.



Converters are just a fix for temporary use - the 70-300L (I have it) works fine with the Kenko, or with the Canon but the latter only @300mm. Just like any zooms in the medium price range the sharpness degrades with a tc- so the general advice always is: Don't chose these lenses because you intend to use them with a tc, reserve that to the 300L-600L 

My advice is also the 70-300L, good quality, excellent IS, ok sharpness unless you want 100% crop sharpness like usually only primes deliver, still a strong background blur depending on subject distance. Anything Canon releases next in the tele range will be a *lot* more expensive than this, it's an excellent first choice and a good iq-size-weight-price package.


----------



## sandymandy (Aug 26, 2013)

24mm 1.4


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 26, 2013)

I would get a telezoom. The standard and wide angle zooms make little sense on a crop body, and the 35 L is outperformed by the Sigma.


----------



## Sella174 (Aug 26, 2013)

I (appear to) do the same type of photography and have gone through quite a repertoire of lenses until I've finally settled on those I current own. So my recommendation would be (first) the *EF 400mm f/5.6 L USM*, for wildlife; and then (second) the *EF 24mm f/2.8 USM IS*, which gives roughly 35~40mm equivalent on APS-C, for general travel.


----------



## DRR (Aug 26, 2013)

magnum said:


> I have a Canon 7D and my wife has a 600D. We have on both the EF-S 18-200mm 1:3.5-5.6 IS lenses and find these pretty satisfactory general walk around lens (with the obvious compromise for the large focal length range).
> 
> I have been thinking of late of getting our first "L" lens. As enthusiast rather than professional photographers without a endless budget and the price of these lenses, we really don't want to waste money getting the wrong lens.
> 
> ...



Based on these varied shooting requirements and your crop sensor cameras, I recommend a set of 3 or 4 mid level, _fast_ primes versus a single L lens. 

Perhaps something like
20mm 2.8 USM
50mm 1.4 USM
85mm 1.8 USM
100mm 2.0 USM

If you want a single lens I don't think you can go wrong with the 70-200 2.8 IS mkII. But consider primes also.


----------



## j0epayne (Aug 26, 2013)

Get the 70-200 II and the 2x converter.


----------



## chasinglight (Aug 26, 2013)

ONeill said:


> Whilst the 70-200 f/2.8 v2 is a magical lens on full frame, somehow, as someone else mentioned, it doesn't really gel on a crop body.



This is my experience exactly. I shoot with the 7D and out of all my lenses the 70-200 is the least used. As said before it is either too long inside or too short outside (really awkward to use); however, when the focal length is just right it is a magical lens. The ONLY reason I haven't sold it is because I intend to to upgrade to FF relatively soon...but for the time being it mostly stays at home in its protective case.

In my experience, my first lens was the 18-135 (non STM). This was a good lens, but I did see a very noticeable improvement in IQ when I upgraded it to the 15-85. The 15-85 is my most used lens for everything but birding. The 50 1.8 as cheap as it is is great for low light photography. And the 100-400 is pretty good for birding.

so my recommendation would be a 15-85 for general photography (people, places, and things) and if you want to take your wildlife photography to the next level look at the 100-400 or the 400 5.6.


----------



## magnum (Aug 26, 2013)

Thanks folks for your efforts and replies. I am overwhelmed by the responses. This is the first time I have posted like this on this forum and the responses have exceeded all my expectations. This is simply one of the most informative forums I have encountered. On other forums, not that I have post this issue there, i don't get much response. Thanks a million. You have given me much to think about and I am not in a hurry to make a purchase. 

O'Neill thanks for your long reply. In reading it, I thought you have been reading my mail. My wife an I are recent enthusiasts photographers, only been a member of a camera club for our second year but it has really stretched us. This is the first year of seriously entering monthly club competitions (which are judged by Photographic Society of Queensland [PSQ] accredited judges, not club members) and I have already picked up seven awards (mainly merits but one highly commended) in 6 competitions. So this has spurred me on to want to achieve more with my photography. Hence the reason for looking at better glass. When I got our first 18-200mm EF-S lens I was impressed with the first outing (having had only kit lenses before). It's just a great walk around lens too and gives a great focal length range. We've photographed a few events in the last last year or two and this is such a great lens for these sorts of things where you need a good focal length range. 

However, I want to start thinking about getting lenses that are more targeted to particular needs/types of photography (rather than the all rounders we have). The input I have received on this thread has been simply awesome, has helped a lot and is greatly appreciated. Keep it coming.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 27, 2013)

magnum said:


> Thanks folks for your efforts and replies. I am overwhelmed by the responses. This is the first time I have posted like this on this forum and the responses have exceeded all my expectations. This is simply one of the most informative forums I have encountered. On other forums, not that I have post this issue there, i don't get much response. Thanks a million. You have given me much to think about and I am not in a hurry to make a purchase.
> 
> O'Neill thanks for your long reply. In reading it, I thought you have been reading my mail. My wife an I are recent enthusiasts photographers, only been a member of a camera club for our second year but it has really stretched us. This is the first year of seriously entering monthly club competitions (which are judged by Photographic Society of Queensland [PSQ] accredited judges, not club members) and I have already picked up seven awards (mainly merits but one highly commended) in 6 competitions. So this has spurred me on to want to achieve more with my photography. Hence the reason for looking at better glass. When I got our first 18-200mm EF-S lens I was impressed with the first outing (having had only kit lenses before). It's just a great walk around lens too and gives a great focal length range. We've photographed a few events in the last last year or two and this is such a great lens for these sorts of things where you need a good focal length range.
> 
> However, I want to start thinking about getting lenses that are more targeted to particular needs/types of photography (rather than the all rounders we have). The input I have received on this thread has been simply awesome, has helped a lot and is greatly appreciated. Keep it coming.


At the beginning of the post, it seemed like you just wanted a lens L which is equivalent to 18-200mm, and in fact there is no such lens. How are you getting more serious in photography, the way is to replace the 18-200mm for a set of lenses. I do not know how much you are willing to spend, but follows a short list of lenses which serve several purposes.
EF-S17-55mm F2.8 IS
EF70-200mm F4L IS
EF50mm F1.4
EF100mm F2


----------



## Axilrod (Aug 27, 2013)

What focal length do you shoot at most often? I'd seriously consider the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8, I was absolutely floored when I used in on an FS700 and I've owned pretty much every L lens under 200mm. It's the fastest zoom you can buy, reasonably priced, well-built, and sharp as a tack, plus it's made to be used with APS-C sensors. If you want something with a bit more range I'd go with the 17-55 f/2.8 IS.


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 27, 2013)

magnum said:


> Thanks folks for your efforts and replies. I am overwhelmed by the responses. This is the first time I have posted like this on this forum and the responses have exceeded all my expectations. This is simply one of the most informative forums I have encountered.



Spending other people's money is my (our?) favorite pastime :-> ... and here are a lot of enthusiasts around who understand that shelling out thousands of $$$ should be not done easily, I also got great help here as to what lenses are best for me.


----------



## Tabor Warren Photography (Aug 27, 2013)

We have a 7D & 60D and we almost always have the 35 1.4L on one of them at all times. I know its focal range is covered by your other lens, but I have been extremely pleased with the quality that comes from this lens, plus, being a 1.4, you can handle some low light situations as well.

Cheers,
-Tabor


----------



## adebrophy (Aug 27, 2013)

aroo said:


> It's not a telephoto, so forgive me if this is off-topic, but I'm often really excited about images from my 40mm pancake lens. It's a huge step up in clarity and sharpness from the lens you have, and it doesn't cost much at all. Also consider picking up a nifty fifty (50mm f/1.8) to see if wide apertures do anything for you. It feels good to know for sure why you want a particular lens before buying it.



I echo that 100%! I think this rivals some of my Ls in quality - sharp wide open and lovely contrast and colour. The limitations of a prime are really good at forcing you to step up creatively. I think that lens and the 135L make an astounding pairing. 

Also, I'd recommend trying the super cheap 70-200 f4 L. The non-IS model was my first L lens and it blew away my consumer 70-300 - nice and sharp and very fast at focusing. It's also light which makes it a lens you'll be happy to take hiking. Best of all you can get them secondhand for £400, which is insane.


----------



## magnum (Aug 29, 2013)

Ok over the last couple of days I've ha a bit of think about this after all the great advice, comments and experiences. Thanks a million. This is a great forum.

I am now thinking of a toss between two non-L lenses both the EF-S. They are:

10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM; or
17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM 

I am leaning towards the 10-22m as this gives us a range we don't current have and would make a nice ultra wide lense on 7D and 600D for landscape.

Once again seeking comments, views and experiences especially from members who have used this lens.


----------



## bjale (Aug 29, 2013)

j0epayne said:


> Get the 70-200 II and the 2x converter.



I have this and after 2 years of usage the 70-200 II is my most use lens and when searching for birds I use the 2x, love it on my 7D.


----------



## aroo (Aug 29, 2013)

I've used the EF-S 10-22mm quite a bit, mostly landscape. Love it. Love it.


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 29, 2013)

magnum said:


> I am leaning towards the 10-22m as this gives us a range we don't current have and would make a nice ultra wide lense on 7D and 600D for landscape.



Btw You should change the title of the thread (edit first post) and add your new question or people won't read about your change of mind.


----------



## magnum (Aug 29, 2013)

Marsu,

Good idea, this tread has evolved. So I have created a new thread and if members wanted to pop over there and comment, http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=16669.0


----------



## tomscott (Aug 29, 2013)

Mine was a MKI 70-200mm F2.8 non IS fantastic lens and still have it today. IS is overrated


----------



## vlim (Aug 29, 2013)

70-300 f/4-5.6 L IS ! razor sharp, great IS, weather sealed and compact... You almost have a 70-200 f/4 L IS and a 300 f/4 L IS with this one...


----------



## symmar22 (Aug 29, 2013)

ONeill said:


> You've reached the stage where you recognize that you can improve your photography, and you're wondering how to go about it. This is an exciting place to be, but also one fraught with confusion. The mistake that a lot of new SLR photographers make is to think that an ultra-sharp lens will, somehow, magically improve their photography and make their pictures look 'professional'. Actually, this is the wrong way to approach things. May I suggest that what you should do right now is think about how you can change your approach to how you take pictures? How can you make your pictures different from the crowd? Can you look at things in a different way? As a so-called professional, this is the question that I ask myself every day on the drive in to work.
> 
> L lenses won't inherently give you this - what they will give you is a robust and reliable tool that you can use every day without having to worry about it and that you can realistically expect will still be earning you money in three years time. Most of all, what you're going to get from an L lens is robustness, reliability, solidity and a tool that will do the job in adverse conditions, amidst a scrum of other photographers when, quite frankly, all you want to do is go home. Sharpness and color rendition comes a long second to all this. An L lens is just a working tool. Yes, generally, they will be slightly better than consumer lenses in sharpness terms (though not always), but there is a limit to this. It's not that L lenses are bad, more that these days, consumer lenses are really good, and good value to boot. Just not reliable or tough enough for day-in, day-out professional use. That's what you're paying for. Believe me, I'm much more concerned that my lens/camera will stand up to a bash against a wall than how sharp the lens is. When I want to make a memorable photograph, sharpness is a very minor consideration. Composition, perspective, content and subject interest and dynamics are what I'm looking for. I take accurate focus and an acceptably sharp result for granted, and even focus is a tool in itself. And you're probably going to be looking at most of your pics on a computer screen at best. Come on, guys, how many of you regularly print photos to 20x30?
> 
> ...



Could not have said it better.


----------



## bholliman (Aug 29, 2013)

chasinglight said:


> my recommendation would be a 15-85 for general photography (people, places, and things)



+1

I started digital photography with a T2i (550D) and later upgraded to a 7D. My first lens was the EF-S 18-55 that came with the Rebel. Later I added a 18-135 (roughly similar IQ and performance to your 18-200) and 55-250. Last year I sold both lenses and purchased a EF-S 15-85 and EF 100-400 and the improvement in image quality (sharpness, color and reduced distortion) was considerable. The EF-S 17-55 2.8 is also an excellent EF-S lens if you need a faster lens for subject isolation or low light shooting. Both the 15-85 and 17-55 are "L"quality even if they don't have an L after their name. Canon has chosen to not designate any EF-S lenses as L, but if they did these two would make the cut in my opinion.


----------



## chas1113 (Aug 30, 2013)

*Here's one from left field: EF 100-300 f/5.6 L* ....right around $300 used. It was my first L lens (for my 10D) and I still have it today. In fact I think I am the only one on the planet that still has one and still likes it. ??? I don't use it as much since getting the EF 70-300mm L IS L (a fabulous tele-zoom), but it's a terrific lens for the money if you can tolerate a fixed f/5.6 aperture and push-pull zoom design. Precursor to the EF 100-400mm IS L, it comes from the era of the vaunted Magic Drainpipe (EF 80-200mm 2.8 L) and has similar image characteristics: great color, great contrast and clarity and saturation... and just like the Drainpipe — it's BLACK! But the real clincher: it only weighs 695 grams! About the same as the EF 24-105mm f/4.0 L.

But if you want to spend 4X for the same range, get the EF 70-300 L IS. Modern, sharp, lighter than the 2.8 zooms and packs really well. Also, the EF 70-200 f/4 L (non-IS) for the money is really hard to beat, but I got rid of mine after getting the 70-300L.

—chas


----------

