# What was your first L lens?



## mackguyver (Jun 5, 2014)

My first *L* was the 135 f/2, which I purchased with the plan to use it for headshots to make some money from my photography. I did that, but actually ended up using it with the 1.4x as a poor man's wildlife lens . It's been downhill from there in terms of spending way too much money on these beautiful lenses....

What was your first?


----------



## 2n10 (Jun 5, 2014)

I consider the EF-s 17-55 my first due to the IQ. ;D By designation the 100-400L. I bought it for birding and am very pleased. It has changed my perception on the "need" for L lenses with its IQ. All of the EF-s lenses I have and have had are no slouches in IQ though.


----------



## climber (Jun 5, 2014)

24-70/2.8 II and 70-200/2.8 II at the same time


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 5, 2014)

climber said:


> 24-70/2.8 II and 70-200/2.8 II at the same time


That must've been an exciting day! I love those lenses.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jun 5, 2014)

My first was the 17-40 f/4. Bought just before my 2010 Grand Canyon trip, sold just after. I wasn't happy with its performance on my 50D and thought the 17-85 IS did much better.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 5, 2014)

My 'gateway lens' was the EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS. The 100L backfocused slightly on my T1i/500D, which led to the 7D, which had lots of noise and led to the 5DII, which was slow with weak AF and led to the 1D X. Oh, and I shot a bird with the 100L, which led to the 600/4L IS II.


----------



## tomscott (Jun 5, 2014)

Mine was the EF 70-200mm F2.8 L 17 years old and still perfect.

Then 24-105mm L and 100mm L which I bought with my 5DIII then most recently Ef 24-70mm F2.8 L MKI and EF 16-35mm F2.8 L MKII bought them in march mint from a guy switching to Nikon…

Then a week ago bought the EF 70-200mm F2.8 L IS MKII


----------



## Besisika (Jun 5, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> My first *L* was the 135 f/2, which I purchased with the plan to use it for headshots to make some money from my photography. I did that, but actually ended up using it with the 1.4x as a poor man's wildlife lens . It's been downhill from there in terms of spending way too much money on these beautiful lenses....
> 
> What was your first?


I pre-ordered the 70-200 MK II but I sold it very quickly. It was too professionnal for me back then. Everybody expected miracles out of my T1i.
Sold it and bought used 135 f2, 200 2.8 and 300 f4. Now using them on pro bodies. 
Miss it a bit but all went well for me; I am no longer afraid of being treated as "professionnal" anymore, after almost 3 years.


----------



## canon1dxman (Jun 5, 2014)

100-400 in 2005, 1 day before the final day of the Ashes at The Oval. Only sold it last year when I bought a Sigma 120-300 Sport.


----------



## SoullessPolack (Jun 5, 2014)

Mine was the 24-70 first version, which was...wow, 6 years ago already. It's dealt with all the punishment I've thrown at it and still keeps on going. I even bought the 24-70 II about a year ago, returned it and got another one, and then returned that one because there was no increase in sharpness or performance but a lovely $1000 increase in price. And over the years I bought more and more L lenses. Stupid gateway lens


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 5, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> My first *L* was the 135 f/2, which I purchased with the plan to use it for headshots to make some money from my photography. I did that, but actually ended up using it with the 1.4x as a poor man's wildlife lens . It's been downhill from there in terms of spending way too much money on these beautiful lenses....
> 
> What was your first?


The same here. The 135L was the lens that showed me what good glass was about. I still use it alot.


----------



## lion rock (Jun 5, 2014)

My first L was 100mm f/2.8
Thought to finish with 200-400, but just wasn't strong enough to wield it. Now, I target the 300mm f/2.8
-r


----------



## Pieces Of E (Jun 5, 2014)

The 300mm f4 L IS. Super lens for a walkaround nature photographer on a budget.


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 5, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> The same here. The 135L was the lens that showed me what good glass was about. I still use it alot.


It's a sweet lens. I sold it to fund my 300 f/2.8 IS II, but I miss the small size and weight compared to my 70-200 f/2.8 IS II.



lion rock said:


> Now, I target the 300mm f/2.8
> -r


I don't think you'll regret it.



Pieces Of E said:


> The 300mm f4 L IS. Super lens for a walkaround nature photographer on a budget.


I've never tried that lens, but the 400 f/5.6 was my second L and is responsible for the vast majority of my best photos


----------



## wsmith96 (Jun 5, 2014)

My first L was the 70-200 2.8 Mk II. I wasn't happy with the fuzzy pictures I was getting from my 70-300 IS USM at the long end and I borrowed my friend's 70-200 Mk i and fell in love with how sharp and fast it was. . I was sold - and a few months later I had enough to make the purchase. It's my favorite lens and does pretty well on my T1i. I don't really miss the extra 100mm of the other lens

Next on my list is upgrading my 60mm macro to the 100L. Somewhere in there I'll update my camera body to something newer. Then I'll need to upgrade my 10-22 and 17-55. Of course, I'd like to add a few more primes....

you get the picture.


----------



## tron (Jun 5, 2014)

My first L was the EF300mm f/4L (NON IS). I still have it. It is very sharp.


----------



## philam65 (Jun 5, 2014)

Mine was the 100mm f/2.8L macro. It still amazes me with the images it produces.


----------



## NancyP (Jun 5, 2014)

60D my first DSLR, EF-S 15-85mm my first lens, EF-S 60 f/2.8 Macro my second lens (both are great choices, and "L"-worthy if L status was conferred on EF-S, the 15-85 in particular being better for APS-C than the 24-105 for FF).
First L lens was 70-200 f/4 L IS. Great! #2, 400 f/5.6L, #3, 180mm f/3.5L Macro. Now I am moving into full frame and the 70-200 and 180 are used for that too. The 400 stays on my 60D, for the extra reach provided by APS-C format. All are great lenses.


----------



## CANONisOK (Jun 5, 2014)

I would have though almost everybody would have the same answer as me: the 24-105mm L! I wasn't blown away with it; having used a good 17-55mm on crop for a while before that lens. But my second L: the 70-200mm L ii really showed me the light.


----------



## daemorhedron (Jun 5, 2014)

Also the 100mm Macro L. =) not sure what my next choice will be, but pretty easy to get addicted!


----------



## Click (Jun 5, 2014)

The 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS


----------



## Bernd FMC (Jun 5, 2014)

Mine was the 70-200 f4 IS L - nearly at the same Time i startet to go Digital with my 5DMIII.

For al long Time i used my T90 with FD 70-210 F4 - 50mm F1.8 and 24mm F2.8 & 300TL Flash
Replaced by 5DMIII - EF 70-200 F4 IS L - 50 F1.4 and 17-40 F4 L & 600 RT Flash

70-200 frist because the FD 70-210 1:4 was my most used Lens in the Past.

Greetings Bernd


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 5, 2014)

100L, quickly followed by the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. Total kit back then comprised 20D, 10-22, 17-55, 100L and 70-200L II. Thought I was done with lenses, but then I moved to FF, which made GAS so much worse...


----------



## kbmelb (Jun 5, 2014)

24 1.4 mkI on my 40D. I was just looking for a fast wide. Once I upgraded to FF I didn't care for the framing and sold it.


----------



## Dantana (Jun 5, 2014)

I picked up the 200 2.8 L last fall, just before upgrading to the 6D/24-105 combo. I love how small, fast and sharp it is, as well as how quickly it focuses. It's a great lens. I know a 70-200 would be more flexible, but for a price.

It's also acceptably sharp with the 2X Extender III that I picked up just after. It makes for a really pack-able 400 5.6.


----------



## candyman (Jun 5, 2014)

My first L-lens was the 70-300L. I bought it to replace the Tamron 18-270 (non-PZD version)
I bought it for sports photography with my 7D. It serves me well today also for landscape /travel


----------



## unfocused (Jun 5, 2014)

100 "L" macro (If you don't count the 15-85mm EF-S, which would probably have a red ring if they put red rings on EF-S lenses.)

All downhill from there (in order of acquisition): 100-400; 70-300; 24-105 (with 5DIII); 200mm 2.8 prime; 17-40. Three of those were refurbished.


----------



## pdirestajr (Jun 5, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> My 'gateway lens' was the EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS. The 100L backfocused slightly on my T1i/500D, which led to the 7D, which had lots of noise and led to the 5DII, which was slow with weak AF and led to the 1D X. Oh, and I shot a bird with the 100L, which led to the 600/4L IS II.



If you give a mouse a cookie...


----------



## COBRASoft (Jun 5, 2014)

I also bought the 200mm f/2.8 as first L lens. It's a fantastic lens, but the lack of IS made me go for the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II after all. Now, my 200mm f/2.8 is for sale, but with some pain in the heart I must admit.


----------



## JumboShrimp (Jun 5, 2014)

Sometime in the late 1980s I had the FD version of the 24/1.4L.


----------



## skullyspice (Jun 5, 2014)

Dantana said:


> I picked up the 200 2.8 L last fall, just before upgrading to the 6D/24-105 combo. I love how small, fast and sharp it is, as well as how quickly it focuses. It's a great lens. I know a 70-200 would be more flexible, but for a price.
> 
> It's also acceptably sharp with the 2X Extender III that I picked up just after. It makes for a really pack-able 400 5.6.



same here 200 2.8 with 2x.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Jun 5, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> My first *L* was the 135 f/2, which I purchased with the plan to use it for headshots to make some money from my photography. I did that, but actually ended up using it with the 1.4x as a poor man's wildlife lens . It's been downhill from there in terms of spending way too much money on these beautiful lenses....
> 
> What was your first?


My first was the 17-40mm f4, followed by the 24-105mm f4 and later by the 70-200mm f4 (non IS)


----------



## Mr_Canuck (Jun 5, 2014)

70-200 f/4 is L(ovely and ight)


----------



## nitelife2 (Jun 5, 2014)

20-35L/2.8


----------



## Khalai (Jun 5, 2014)

70-200/4L (nonIS). Boy I was overwhelmed by the IQ, colours and contrast. Then came 17-40L, and upgrade from nonIS to 70-200/4L IS (which I had really bad luck, twice in service for faulty USM collars). Upgrade from nonL to 100L macrolens, replaced 70-200/4L IS with 2.8 IS II variant. After transition to 6D and need for a "new" basic lens, 24-70/2.8L II. And now waiting for reviews and delivery of the 16-35/4L IS to replace my 17-40L.

I guess I have fullblown GAS


----------



## Act444 (Jun 5, 2014)

The 24-105, which I still have (albeit a different copy).


----------



## COBRASoft (Jun 5, 2014)

Actually, I recently went into the next dimension 'above' L glass (somehow)... I purchased a Sigma 50mm F/1.4 ART. Amazing quality and design, but I have yet to see if they really beat L-glass on durability. 
Nevertheless, it sits happily next to my current L-glass (16-35mm L f/2.8, 24-105mm L f/4.0, 100mm L f/2.8 and 70-200mm L II IS f/2.8). 

GAS is my biggest problem though . Looking at the 300mm f/2.8 IS now, but the price is just too high to be justified.


----------



## dppaskewitz (Jun 5, 2014)

Click said:


> The 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS



Same.


----------



## Viggo (Jun 5, 2014)

Bought the 17-40 for the 1d3 when it was first delivered, I got one of very first. I needed a general purpose. Nice jump from my 400d + 17-85 I had until that.


----------



## Jemlnlx (Jun 5, 2014)

17-40mm f/4 L. Moved from a 40D to a 5D Mark II and had to retire my 17-50mm f/2.8 Tamron. I got the 28-75mm f/2.8 Tamron. I wanted to go wider on the full frame and pulled the trigger on the 17-40. Loved it back then and will do.


----------



## JohanCruyff (Jun 5, 2014)

CANONisOK said:


> I would have though almost everybody would have the same answer as me: the *24-105mm L*!




+1


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 5, 2014)

70-200 f2.8 IS mrk I - bought it used, got hooked from there. To me, this is still excellent lens on the market for those on tighter budget.


----------



## COBRASoft (Jun 5, 2014)

The 24-105 was my second lens


----------



## jdramirez (Jun 5, 2014)

I bought the 70-200f4L usm... I couldn't use it indoors... and it was basically going to replace all of my other lenses... at least that was the plan. I sent it back after less than a week... and I got some extra cash and got the 24-105... which was better...but I wouldn't say I feel in love with it.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 5, 2014)

COBRASoft said:


> Actually, I recently went into the next dimension 'above' L glass (somehow)... I purchased a Sigma 50mm F/1.4 ART. Amazing quality and design, but I have yet to see if they really beat L-glass on durability.
> Nevertheless, it sits happily next to my current L-glass (16-35mm L f/2.8, 24-105mm L f/4.0, 100mm L f/2.8 and 70-200mm L II IS f/2.8).
> 
> GAS is my biggest problem though . Looking at the 300mm f/2.8 IS now, but the price is just too high to be justified.



One advice, *DO NOT * try this lens on your camera - unless you ready to pull trigger


----------



## jasonsim (Jun 5, 2014)

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM...since sold and upgraded to the f/2.8L IS II version. Great lens! I thought I was crazy for spending that type of money on a lens ($1050.00, 5 years ago). Oh how things are very relative.


----------



## Poolboy76 (Jun 5, 2014)

My first L was a 135L f/2.0 on advice from a Flickr-friend. I now own four "L's" but the 135L remains my favourite as it is so incredibly good for many of my needs.


----------



## bobby samat (Jun 5, 2014)

16-35 2.8 II. graduation present for my photojournalism degree.


----------



## dhr90 (Jun 5, 2014)

24-105L was my first L, and my first Canon, it was a real wake up from the 7 year old beginner level Sony kit I had been using. It is my go to lens (Although I prefer my 70-200L f2.8 II, its not as useful in so many situations IMO). 

I'm not sure I could live with a 24-70 now despite how good it is meant to be. Not that I could afford one anyway, so my G.A.S is aimed elsewhere at the moment.


----------



## RobertG. (Jun 5, 2014)

Hi, I can't really remember it anymore. I guess it was the EF 35L but it could also haven been the TS-E 24L.


----------



## Viggo (Jun 5, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> COBRASoft said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, I recently went into the next dimension 'above' L glass (somehow)... I purchased a Sigma 50mm F/1.4 ART. Amazing quality and design, but I have yet to see if they really beat L-glass on durability.
> ...



+1, for pretty much all L-lenses..


----------



## longdrive70 (Jun 5, 2014)

EF800 8)


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 5, 2014)

longdrive70 said:


> EF800 8)


Really? I guess your username says it all. The 800mm was my first CPS loaner, though


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jun 5, 2014)

My first was the non-IS version of the 70-200 f/4. It was quite a revelation in color and its bokeh replacing the 55-250mm. Eventually sold it to fund purchasing the 70-200 f/4 IS.


----------



## BLFPhoto (Jun 5, 2014)

My first L was the "Magic Drainpipe" EF 80-200 f/2.8 L. It didn't have USM. It was 10mm less range than its current cousins. And it didn't have IS. But the images were quite magical. I bought, compared, and used the 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS when it came out, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS when it came out, and ultimately kept the 80-200 over those even when it became no longer officially supported by Canon. I only sold it a little over a year ago when I got the new 70-200 f/2.8 IS L II, which is the first of that series that really surpasses that old black lens for me. But, honestly, I wish I'd kept the 80-200 for portraits. The drainpipe was magical with portraits. Only the 85 and 135 Ls are better in my book. 

After the 80-200, it was a long, steady ride to where I am today.


----------



## rs (Jun 5, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> 70-200 f2.8 IS mrk I - bought it used, got hooked from there. To me, this is still excellent lens on the market for those on tighter budget.



Same here. 

Sublime build quality, AF speed and handling, and while the colours and rendering were superior to my 10-22 and 17-55, it never delivered the detail or contrast I expected wide open.

Next up, the 100L, and I got a taste for what's possible. After much research I bit the bullet, sold up the 70-200 mk I to fund the mk II, and eventually followed up with a third stunning L - the 24-70 mk II.

I feel kind of spoiled now, and don't want to buy another lens that falls short of the standard set by those three.


----------



## AE-1Burnham (Jun 5, 2014)

Was rather young, and foolish, at 16 years old: EF 100-300 5.6L (was a bargain at the time). 
The revelation was the 135 2.0L -> 70-200 2.8L (for photo-journalism) -> 24 1.4L II -> 17-40 F4.0L -> 50 1.2L (to replace the poor build quality of the F1.4 which had already been replace x 3) -> 70-200 2.8L IS II.
Next I think is back to the 135 F2.0L or a 300/400 (F = savings-commitment ;-)


----------



## cid (Jun 5, 2014)

I almost bought 70-200 f/4 IS, it's really incredible lens I had few opportunities to try, but I wanted macro lens so I ended with 100L - and I'm really happy with it and reasults I'm able to achieve with it ^^


----------



## brad-man (Jun 5, 2014)

1st: 24-105...............Still use for travel
2nd: 17-40................Still use until 16-35 f/4L IS arrives
3rd: 70-200 f/4 IS......Will have to pry from my cold dead fingers (and I have the 2.8 v2)


----------



## mb66energy (Jun 5, 2014)

The 4.0 70-200 L (non-IS) in 2005 for the 20D - still in use as an allround telephoto lens.
The 5.6 400 L followed some years later.

135 L was on my plan but I preferred the 2.0 100 due its smaller size and similar IQ.
100 L Macro was an option but 100 Macro had similar, sometimes better reviews in
terms of IQ and the L was twice the price - the non-L version won.


----------



## KyleSTL (Jun 5, 2014)

CANONisOK said:


> ... the 24-105mm L ... my second L: the 70-200mm L ii really *showed me the light*.



Yes, double the light. A'thank ya very much.

Mine is the 24-105mm (the one and only L lens I have owed).


----------



## cheerdad (Jun 5, 2014)

First L lens 70-200 2.8 is vs ii incredible lens for shooting low light sports
second L 24-70 2.8 ii also incredible lens for shooting sports. 
I use both on 5diii
what lens next ??? any suggestions

thanks


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 5, 2014)

The first one was a 24-70L (MK I). I returned it after a few days. I eventually tried several of them, 5 or more, none of them were keepers. The first one I kept was the 24-105mm L.


----------



## waelelgendy (Jun 5, 2014)

My first L lens was the 35L, bought it as an upgrade to my only fast prime at the time (the 50mm f1.4), as I needed a wider lens to be my all around lens. The 135L followed a month later as a result of watching dozens of amazing shots taken with that lens on flickr!


----------



## Quasimodo (Jun 5, 2014)

My first was the 24-105 as a kit for the 5D II, then got a bunch, but recently find myself using it more and more.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 6, 2014)

The 70-200 f/4 non-IS. For the price, I still think it's a good bet (though I'm used to IS now). It blew me away with the image quality (I'd only had a kit lens, some secondhand 20+ year old lenses, and a super cheap Tamron tele-zoom).


----------



## Joe M (Jun 6, 2014)

My first was the venerable 70-200 F4L which I promptly sold when the IS version came out. Though it's "only" F4, I really like the images this lens will produce and if my wife had to live life with only one lens, this would be it.


----------



## kaihp (Jun 6, 2014)

My first *L* was the 17-40/4L, which I bought the same day as my first DSLR: the 10D, just 10 years ago now.

Later came the 70-200/4L (non-IS), which was sold for a 2nd hand 70-200/2.8L IS (MkI).
I still have the 17-40L, but the new 16-35/4L IS is fueling my GAS


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 6, 2014)

my first L was the 28-300 IS L

and yeah its been a slippy slope ever since


----------



## Wayward (Jun 6, 2014)

I started out with the 70-200 F4 IS, then the 24-105 with the upgrade to the 6D from the Xs, and most recently, the 400 F5.6. I'd love a longer tele next but I think I'll go for a crop body (7dII??) first!


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 6, 2014)

Mine's the same as nitelife2: the 20-35 f2.8 L, bought used in about 1991.


----------



## canon1dxman (Jun 6, 2014)

COBRASoft said:


> The 24-105 was my second lens



Mine too and still got it 8)


----------



## Roo (Jun 6, 2014)

Mine was a secondhand beat up 70-200 f2.8 non IS I picked up for $800 a couple of years ago. I was amazed how quick the af was and how sharp the image was but I didn't use it much because most of my shots were either side of its range. My second was a 24-105 that came with my 5D3 that I'm really happy with. Earlier this year I tried the 70-200 again and noticed there was water damage on the lens element. The short story is that insurance replaced that old beat up 70-200 with a nice new 70-200 f2.8 IS II ;D


----------



## Menace (Jun 6, 2014)

24-105L


----------



## Menace (Jun 6, 2014)

cheerdad said:


> First L lens 70-200 2.8 is vs ii incredible lens for shooting low light sports
> second L 24-70 2.8 ii also incredible lens for shooting sports.
> I use both on 5diii
> what lens next ??? any suggestions
> ...



What amazing 1st and 2nd L series lenses ! 

Next purchase: EF400 f2.8 II


----------



## Vikmnilu (Jun 6, 2014)

Mine was, as other members of the forum, the 70-200 f4L bought it in Nov 2011 in a trip to NY from Boston (where I initially went for a conference).
It completely amazed me, at the time I only had Sigmas and the 50 1.8II and an old 10D... Something like 6 months later I bought an used 5D Mark II with a 24-70 2.8L version I and this was a huge upgrade... to be able to shoot at ISO 800 and above!!! WOW!!!!

Still nowadays, almost 3 years later I still love the 70-200 f4L, versatile, lightweight for hiking and used a lot, always giving me very good results. 

Since that I have decided that I won't buy any non L lenses, unless justified.

At the moment I am thinkingabout selling the 24-70 2.8L I and the 24 1.4L II that I bought 1.5 years ago to buy the 24-70 2.8L II, but I bet the 24 prime is not going to be easily sold here in Finland...

Cheers!!!
Victor


----------



## eml58 (Jun 6, 2014)

135f/2 L +35f/1.4 L

Bought them both the day I bought my first 1D, the 1DsMk3

Still own all 3, the 1Ds doesn't get too much use anymore, but I find I cant sell old Cameras, seems like selling your Kids, cant do it.


----------



## Nirmala (Jun 6, 2014)

400 5.6 was my first L


----------



## anbjerknes (Jun 6, 2014)

My first L was the 24-105 f4. (Had used 16-35 2.8, 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 IS at work previously, but not owned any.)

Later I had the 70-200 4IS, now the 2.8(no IS).


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jun 6, 2014)

Mine was a 17-40L which replaced my 2nd broken Tamron 16-35 Dii lens. It was a lens which also taught me the true value of Canon L lenses....I later sold it for a profit 3 years later when I needed an f2.8 version. The 17-40L was heavily used but looked and functioned in mint condition. Canon L lenses are exraordinarily well built and resistant to casing scuffs. Unlike Tamron and Sigma.


----------



## MarcPool (Jun 6, 2014)

100mm macro L and I loved it so much I bought a 70-300mm a couple of weeks later.


----------



## Vivid Color (Jun 6, 2014)

Mine was the 24-105 f/4, which came with my 6D. Shortly thereafter, I bought the 70–300 L and later I bought the 100 mm macro L. I'm thinking about getting the 180 mm macro but may wait on that for a while.


----------



## Kathode-Ray (Jun 6, 2014)

Like many, my first L-lens was the 70-200mm f/4.0 USM. Amazing quality and sharpness for the money. I bought it not very long after I got my first DSLR, a 500D. Paired nicely with the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM.

Next came the IS version when I upgraded to a 60D. I still use it today with my new 6D 

Ray


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 6, 2014)

Lot's of great replies - thank you all for sharing - and now I think I need another couple of posts - what was your second L, most recent L, favorite L, etc., etc. ;D. 

*L*ots of *L*ove for the *L L*enses around here!


----------



## jalbfb (Jun 6, 2014)

24-105 f/4L


----------



## jdramirez (Jun 6, 2014)

I was editing a friend's image and it was fine, but at 100%, it wasn't sharp. It is nice to know what there is a reason why I'm passing all much more for my lenses.


----------



## Jim Saunders (Jun 6, 2014)

I started with a first-generation 24-70 f/2.8. Then it was a 5D2 to get the most of it, and it all went downhill from there!

Jim


----------



## bereninga (Jun 6, 2014)

24-105 f4 was my first and only (at the moment).


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 6, 2014)

bereninga said:


> 24-105 f4 was my first and only (at the moment).


I like your "at the moment" caveat...beware...these lenses are _very _addictive


----------



## dcm (Jun 6, 2014)

550D with 24-105L and 17-40L

+70-200 f/4 L IS
+100L
+8-15L
+6D
+35L
+6D
+135L

likely more to come.

It would be interesting to see the progression of bodies/lenses and see how they correlate across photographers.


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Jun 6, 2014)

24-105/4 IS.


----------



## wysiwtf (Jun 6, 2014)

70-200 f2.8L IS II ... and zero regrets


----------



## Deleted member 20471 (Jun 6, 2014)

The 70-200/4L, this was one the main reasons why I switched from Nikon to Canon.


----------



## bitm2007 (Jun 6, 2014)

17-40mm in 2005, 24-105mm in 2009, 70-300mm in 2013, next step in the progression would be a 200-900mm ish lens in 2017. That would be a Canon !!!


----------



## Slyham (Jun 6, 2014)

pdirestajr said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > My 'gateway lens' was the EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS. The 100L backfocused slightly on my T1i/500D, which led to the 7D, which had lots of noise and led to the 5DII, which was slow with weak AF and led to the 1D X. Oh, and I shot a bird with the 100L, which led to the 600/4L IS II.
> ...



;D I just read that book to my kids couple of days ago.


----------



## Dukinald (Jun 6, 2014)

24-105 L quickly followed by the 70-200 F4 L (non IS). SOld the 70-200F4 after a year and took the plunge and got the 2.8 MKII. 

In between got the 100L and now waiting for the UWA 16-35 F4 IS.


----------



## Khufu (Jun 6, 2014)

400mm f/5.6L... She's so slim, lightweight, on the ball and fast to get me what I want, treats me incredibly well!


----------



## Ruined (Jun 6, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> My first *L* was the 135 f/2, which I purchased with the plan to use it for headshots to make some money from my photography. I did that, but actually ended up using it with the 1.4x as a poor man's wildlife lens . It's been downhill from there in terms of spending way too much money on these beautiful lenses....
> 
> What was your first?



If I recall, I believe it was the 100mm f/2.8L Macro. I still use it a ton to this day, although not as much for macro.


----------



## DominoDude (Jun 6, 2014)

My first was the 70-200/4L IS USM. Decision was made after carefully comparing it against the f/2.8 without IS. My choice is at least as sharp, and with the IS I figured I should be able to shoot under roughly the same conditions. I have had no regrets, and it didn't stop me from buying more L-glass later on.


----------



## Slyham (Jun 6, 2014)

No L lenses yet. :'(


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 6, 2014)

Slyham said:


> No L lenses yet. :'(


I think we need to take up a collection box for Slyham. That or warn him never to touch one so he doesn't know what he's missing.


----------



## ewg963 (Jun 6, 2014)

24-105mm


----------



## Aaron77 (Jun 6, 2014)

Canon 24-70 F4 L is. Amazing lens!


----------



## Slyham (Jun 6, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Slyham said:
> 
> 
> > No L lenses yet. :'(
> ...



I vote for the collection box!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;D


----------



## DigitalDivide (Jun 6, 2014)

The 17-40mm f/4 was the first and only L lens I purchased before switching from film to digital. Before that my widest lens was a 28mm, so the 17-40 opened up a lot of new opportunities. I've never been very impressed with the IQ and distortion of that lens though, and I'm sorely tempted by the new 16-35 f/4 IS. 

Next was the 24-105mm f/4 kit lens that came with my 5D2, the 300 f/4 IS and the 70-200 f/4 IS (a lovely tack-sharp zoom that is still reasonably affordable). Lately I've added the f/2.8 IS II version of the 70-200 along with the 24-70 f/2.8 II, which are both wonderful.

Definitely a slippery slope; aside from the 16-35 f/4, I'd really love to acquire a 300 f/2.8 IS II, but I have decided to try to earn it by improving my technique first. The same applies to the 5D3 - I'd love to have one, but my 5D2 can do everything I need for now if I learn to use it properly.


----------



## The Bad Duck (Jun 6, 2014)

17-40 /4 L and 70-200 /4 L IS. I bought them at the same time in 2007 as a student. Still use them. They were also my first Lenses in the EOS - system.


----------



## pj1974 (Jun 6, 2014)

My first L lens was the 70-300mm L USM IS. I bought it a few years ago to replace my 'quite average' 100-300mm USM, mainly for much improved IQ @ the tele end, and of course the IS. (I must say the 100-300mm's USM was very good!) 

I didn't actually expect to get the 70-300mm L, it was recently released in shops - and I was looking between the Tamron 70-300mm and the Canon nonL 70-300mm, leaning toward the Tamron. Then I saw it on the shelf in the shop - and asked to try it on my 7D.

Took a few shots inside and more outside the store. I was surprised at how well balanced it was on my 7D, AND how compact it was. (I wanted a very portable lens to fit in my shoulder LowePro bag, to complement my Canon 15-85mm). I went home, looked at the photos on my PC and was sold - particularly at the great sharpness, contrast and general great IQ at 300mm f/5.6. 

I went back to the store, and they offered me a great deal (really good price on a new lens, and gave me a pro 67mm multicoated Hoya UV filter).  So I was 'sold' and bought it and have enjoyed using it lots since. My 7D's AF is good, and I have photographed much wildlife, including hundreds of birds, also BIF. 

Cheers..... Paul


----------



## kegressy (Jun 6, 2014)

Canon 300 F 4.0 L IS. Bought it in 2004 for a trip. It turned out that the 70-200 f2.8L IS with a 1.4x and a 2.0x extenders would have served me much better, but I kept the 300 lens for many years.


----------



## ATC (Jun 7, 2014)

Like many, 24-105, with a 6D kit. 70-200 f4 IS soon, then a wide angle zoom. Not sure yet which one.


----------



## Brymills (Jun 7, 2014)

70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM

It was ace then. It's still ace now!


----------



## Botts (Jun 7, 2014)

My first was a 70-200mm f/4L IS.

Then came a 35L, which was sold for a 35A


----------



## JPAZ (Jun 7, 2014)

My first, 70-200 F/4 IS. It was my second lens specifically for a DSLR (had an XTi with a 17-85). At the time, I thought that lens was big and heavy! Strange how our perception changes. 

Years later, when I upgraded to FF, I got a "white box" 24-105 and a 17-40. These three lenses remain my "travel triumvirate" especially when trekking. 

But to show you how weight and size are all relative, I've managed to get a 100-400, a 100L macro and a 70-200 F/2.8 ii. Then I made the terrible mistake of renting a 300 f/2.8 ii.........Enter the CPW buyer's group deal (and a loving spouse who told me to go for it) and I've got my "L" gathering covered.

Here's what is so interesting, after all of this, I still have my first L, and I still use that lens (when the 2.8 is just too big), to this day. But, when thinking about the redundancy of this bunch of glass, I am finding it hard to part with any of them.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jun 7, 2014)

1. 24-105 IS
2. 16-35 f/2.8 v1
3. 70-200 f/4 IS
4. 24-70 f/2.8 v1
5. 35 f/1.4

I'm not going any further. Those were the first couple years. Suffice to say I have about 4 more (new) that cost as much as all those cost me combined (used). I try to buy most of my stuff used but the newer stuff isn't enough of a discount to make it worth it.


----------



## PhotographerJim (Jun 7, 2014)

24-105mm L


----------



## verysimplejason (Jun 7, 2014)

17-40L and 24-105L. They're my most loved lens (aside from the 100mm non-L USM macro F2.8 and the 50mm F1.8 II which I love more).


----------



## wsmith96 (Jun 7, 2014)

dcm said:


> 550D with 24-105L and 17-40L
> 
> +70-200 f/4 L IS
> +100L
> ...



I'll play

~2001/2002 Nikon Coolpix 885 -> 2009 T1i with 18-55kit -> christmas got a 70-300 IS USM and 270 flash -> a year later picked up a 60 macro and was amazed at how sharp it was -> started to read and follow canon rumors -> year later 430EX, 10-22 and 17-55-> 6 months later 85 1.8 -> 3 months later 70-200 Mk II and canon monopod-> 3 months later 50 1.8 moment of weakness - have no idea why I bought this lens) -> manfrotto tripod and giottos head -> 430 EX and ST-E2 (deal through work), rouge flash benders/softboxes and boom stand. Now I'm sitting on some cash waiting to see what all of these "big" announcements are about before deciding whether to clean house and go FF or stick with crop. I'm happy with crop so far, but if this new camera is crop and has iso quality in the 5D/1DS II range, then I probably will stay with crop. I don't really take pictures in the dark, so low light performance isn't as important to me. I would like a clean image around ISO 1600.


----------



## gshocked (Jun 7, 2014)

Hi All,

The first one I got was the 24-105 f4 L.
I think it's a great lens and I'm so confused why some youtube reviews are panning it saying that its an average lens... (Does anyone really think this?)

Thanks


----------



## rpt (Jun 7, 2014)

Mine was the 100-400L. I got it for birding...


----------



## jd7 (Jun 7, 2014)

70-200 f/2.8L IS (mk 1) about 9 years ago. It's still going strong! 

I have largely managed to (just!!) resist the temptation to get lots of L lenses (well, financial considerations also help with the "resistance"!). I ran with a few Sigma lenses for a while because they seemed to offer good value, although since moving to full frame I've been re-jigging my lens collection and ended up swinging back towards Canon - although still not many Ls. As fantastic as the Ls (generally) are they tend to be expensive, heavy and big and I've discovered that for my shooting I simply make more use out of lenses which are smaller and lighter. Am currently evaluating a 24-70 f/4L IS as a possible replacement for my Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX HSM, in part because the Canon is lighter (the size is actually pretty similar) and because I like the idea of the semi-macro mode, but I'm still testing it out.


----------



## mwh1964 (Jun 7, 2014)

24-105L with a 5D3. Then 100L, 70-300L, 70-200LII, 50L which was sold again regrettably, 24-70LII, 135L. Probably I should have stayed with 24-105 and the 70-300L.


----------



## ErikNZ (Jun 7, 2014)

A 70-200mm f/2.8L (non-IS), purchased new over 10 years ago along with a Canon EOS 10D - a camera I rather forget. It was sold about three years ago to fund the purchase of its replacement, a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS MkII.


----------



## FTb-n (Jun 7, 2014)

1st -- EF 70-200 f2.8L IS Mark II -- got hooked after an hour with a friend's Mark I. My most used lens by far.

2nd -- EF 24-105 f4 IS -- love this lens, especially the oversized body cap model 5D3 that came with it!

3rd -- EF 24-70 f2.8 Mark II -- love this lens, too. Wish it had IS, but it's tack sharp, great in low light, and a focus demon. Excellent match to the 70-200. With these two lenses, each on its own 5D3, I'm set for most everything that I shoot. (Most everything, not all. Still room for more glass on the wish list.)


----------



## cycleraw (Jun 7, 2014)

1st-24-105mm f/4L, I know that lens isn't the highest regarded "L" lens but once I got it I was hooked on L quality glass. I must have gotten one of the good ones.

2nd-70-200mm f/2.8L II, WOW what a lens, love it.

3rd-17-40mm f4L, needed a wider lens but not really f2.8 so went for this one. Might replace it with the new 16-35mm f/4 IS.

4th-100mm f/2.8L, primarily to mess around with macro.

Bought the 24-70mm f2.8L II but wasn't overly impressed, my 24-105mm is basically as sharp so I returned it to use the $'s hopefully soon on a lens on my wishlist.

Wishlist: 300mm f/2.8L II, 600mm f4L II.


----------



## christianronnel (Jun 7, 2014)

First L lens and first ever lens that I owned is 70-300L. Before that I borrowed my friends' lenses (yes I was surrounded by nice Canon users). The decision to get the lens was mostly influenced by the lens review here in CR when the lens first came out. Which was also the very first time I came across this site.


----------



## greger (Jun 7, 2014)

The 70-200 f4 IS USM and a 1.4 ll Extender came first and after buying a 2X ll Extender I researched and bought the 100-400 L. The 70-200 hasn't seen any use and the 100-400 is mounted on my 7D when we go out to shoot BIF. My wife wants to try the 70-200 on her 70D, so I'm sure she will use it a lot. Maybe not with an Extender. My next L might be one of the 16-35's depending on the reviews the new f4 gets and if I go FF.


----------



## bholliman (Jun 7, 2014)

My first L was the 100-400. My first DSLR was a T2i (550D) that I bought with the 18-55 kits lens and an EF-S 55-250 v1. I was happy with this set-up for about a year, but then replaced the kit lens with a EF-S 18-135 and the 55-250 with the 100-400 as I was looking to additional focal length. I purchased it used off eBay and it was a pretty good copy. After over a year of use, I found I was seldom using it much beyond 200mm and often wished I had a faster lens for lower light use and shallow DOF. So, I sold it to help fund the purchase of a 70-200 2.8 II, which I plan to hang onto forever!

My second L was the 24-105 followed closely by the 35 and 135.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 7, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Lot's of great replies - thank you all for sharing - and now I think I need another couple of posts - what was your second L, most recent L, favorite L, etc., etc. ;D.
> 
> *L*ots of *L*ove for the *L L*enses around here!



Woo. Second L was the 400 f.5.6 - the lens that taught me I needed a new body (for better high ISO; I upgraded from the 50 to the 5D3) and IS (which I'd never thought I needed before - I found it unusable on the 50D for dim light bird work, though the image quality was very good). Most recent is the 85 1.2 II - I salivated and dreamed from the first time I saw it. I was exactly what I was expecting - huge, tricky, stunning. My favourite is a tossup between the 100 macro - it always produces better image quality than I expect, however used to it I get - and my workhorse the 500 f/4 IS II - the super teles are really in a class of their own. Robust, reliable, with no image quality flaws (until you add a 2x extender).


----------



## NancyP (Jun 7, 2014)

scyrene, my second L was 400mm f/5.6L no-IS as well. I can say that it was a difficult start to learn bird photography, but I was forced to learn technique, and can muddle along pretty well without IS. On occasion I have gotten sharp hand-held shots as low as 1/125 sec, although I try to shoot at 1/500 or more. I find the 400mm to be a very friendly carefree lens - I don't mind (barely notice) hiking with it. At some point I hope to get the 500 or 600mm f/4 II. I expect that my experience hand-holding a long non-IS lens will be helpful in using the much heavier f/4 lens. First, I plan to rent the lenses, to see if I can manage the 7 pound (or 8.5 pound) lens hand held.


----------



## Stig (Jun 7, 2014)

Mine was the 24-105 f4 in a kit with the 6D 
it replaced my 350D and 17-55 f2.8 as "the base" and was an improvement in the way it feels (build quality) and range... I really like the combo

then came the 135 f2 (got that one used, on a trip to US) and of course its lovely, magical, etc... but maybe I wouldn't buy it if the nifty fifty wouldn't show me what a fast prime can do... I'm really gad I got that one years ago (hmm, now that I think of it, maybe Canon does those so they work for them as a cheap entry drug  )


----------



## Berowne (Jun 7, 2014)

EF 200/2.8 USM II. Small, cheap, sharp and fast.


----------



## traingineer (Jun 8, 2014)

24-70 F2.8 L. It'a the first lens I got (3.5 years ago) and it's focal length on the 7D is actually a very nice focal length, its weight is also very nice.


----------



## xps (Jun 8, 2014)

My first L-lens was the Canon 28-70mm L USM 2.8. I bought it back in 1995. and I am still happy with it


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jun 8, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Lot's of great replies - thank you all for sharing - and now I think I need another couple of posts - what was your second L, most recent L, favorite L, etc., etc. ;D.
> 
> *L*ots of *L*ove for the *L L*enses around here!



My second L was a 24-105L bought along with the 17-55 for my 7D. Unfortunately this L too was sold pretty quickly as the 17-55 was a better range, sharper wide open, and faster on APS-C.

My third L was bought 2 years later, along with the 5DIII- the 24-70II. Ironically, I bought another 24-105L at the same time with the idea of keeping the one I like more. As you can guess from my signature, the second 24-105L was also sold. 

I love all my lenses. If I don't, I get rid of them. But I think the lens that has given me most photos with consistent focusing and little to none PP is the 135L, even within the short time I've had it.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 10, 2014)

NancyP said:


> scyrene, my second L was 400mm f/5.6L no-IS as well. I can say that it was a difficult start to learn bird photography, but I was forced to learn technique, and can muddle along pretty well without IS. On occasion I have gotten sharp hand-held shots as low as 1/125 sec, although I try to shoot at 1/500 or more. I find the 400mm to be a very friendly carefree lens - I don't mind (barely notice) hiking with it. At some point I hope to get the 500 or 600mm f/4 II. I expect that my experience hand-holding a long non-IS lens will be helpful in using the much heavier f/4 lens. First, I plan to rent the lenses, to see if I can manage the 7 pound (or 8.5 pound) lens hand held.



I'm sure you're right - I could have persevered but I decided to take the chance and move to pro-level gear, and it turned out to be the right one for me. I live in a particularly grey part of the world (northern Britain), so most of the time needing fast shutter speeds (1/500 or above) would have required higher ISO than my 50D could have managed (or would have restricted shooting to rare sunny days).

I heartily recommend the 500 (and the 600 is probably even better if you can afford the extra money/weight). It takes a bit of getting used to the extra size (it dwarfs the 400 5.6), but I can't fault it.


----------



## KyleSTL (Jun 10, 2014)

I would love to compliment my first and only L (24-105mm) with the new 16-35mm f4L IS USM and 70-200mm f4L IS USM, but sadly, as a hobbist I simply can not justify $2500 in new lenses. Most of what I have has been upgraded over the past 4 years incrementally by purchasing broken equipment and fixing it myself for a fraction of the price of even used gear. I don't think that is going to happen with my two wants at this point.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jun 10, 2014)

First was the 100-400, then 17-40. However it was just the start of a slippery slope!
I am currently running the following "L" lenses 17-40, 24-105, 70-200 F2.8 IS, 300 F2.8 IS and 800 F5.6 IS, no wonder I am skint!


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 10, 2014)

johnf3f said:


> First was the 100-400, then 17-40. However it was just the start of a slippery slope!
> I am currently running the following "L" lenses 17-40, 24-105, 70-200 F2.8 IS, 300 F2.8 IS and 800 F5.6 IS, no wonder I am skint!


The first step is admitting you have a problem, the second step is...where's my credit card? There's a new L lens coming out...I'm sorry, what were you saying?
;D


----------



## bsb03 (Jun 10, 2014)

My first L was the 100-400mm.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jun 10, 2014)

I must be the weirdest person on this thread cos my first L was the TS-E 24mm.


----------



## Steve Todd (Jun 10, 2014)

Good question, I had to pull out my records to see which one was first. Looks like it was the EF 80-200 2.8L USM (not a typo, it really was an 80-200!) in May 1990. It cost $1296.00, which was a lot then! My second, was the EF 35-340 3.5-5.6L USM, in Apr 1995. Since then I've added nine others. The EF 300 2.8L II is on my short list for future purchases, although the 200-400L sure is appealing...just not in my budget plans!


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jun 10, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Lot's of great replies - thank you all for sharing - and now I think I need another couple of posts - what was your second L, most recent L, favorite L, etc., etc. ;D.
> 
> *L*ots of *L*ove for the *L L*enses around here!



I have two lenses tied for top honors in my books, the 135L f/2 and the TS-E 24mm f/3.5 L II. Two gob-smackingly amazing lenses; one amazing value for money and the other just plain amazing albeit a bit pricey. Also I'd make a notable mention of the much-loved but imperfect 35mm f/1.4.


----------



## Etienne (Jun 11, 2014)

The 24-105 f/4L IS came in the 5DII kit,
and I bought the 16-35 f/2.8L II at the same time


----------



## Zv (Jun 11, 2014)

After being disappointed with the Tamron 70-300 VC, I decided to stick to Canon lenses and with a friends wedding coming up fast I went with the 70-200 f/4L IS. It arrived about one day before I had to fly out to Scotland for the wedding. First time I used it was there. Later on it clicked that I had just bought my first L! Still impressed with the quality of this lens. 

Followed it up with the 17-40L after selling my much loved 10-22. Then I bought a used 135L, and finally sold my 17-55 for a used 24-105L (which usually people get first!). And the move from crop sensor / ef-s was completed yesterday when I sold my 7D! 

My fave L has to be the 135L but the 70-200 f/4L IS comes a close second.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Jun 11, 2014)

My first was the black 80-200 2.8L, which I bought used in mint condition for $600! (Got it from a coworker at the photo lab I work at). I recently sold it, after a decade of use, for about the same amount.

It was a great lens and I think I like the black better than white (I now have the 70-200 2.8 non IS). I only sold it because it does NOT take teleconverters and it was too heavy carrying both that and the 300 f4L (which I also got cheap used). So now I use the 70-200 with 1.4x extender. Another thing I like about the old black version is the tripod collar was hinged and could be removed without removing the lens from the camera. The new version has a solid ring which is a step backwards IMO.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jun 11, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> johnf3f said:
> 
> 
> > First was the 100-400, then 17-40. However it was just the start of a slippery slope!
> ...



I don't have a problem - I am just an addict who does not want a cure! The credit card is fine, I have no debts but a 600 Mk2 - possibly a 300 F2.8 Mk2 and loose the 17-40 + 24-105 for a 16-35 F4 and 24-70 Mk2.......
well maybe I won't be out of debt for long!


----------



## notapro (Jun 11, 2014)

My first was the 50mm f/1.2.


----------



## jhpeterson (Jun 11, 2014)

My first L lens, in fact my first lens in an EF mount, was the 300mm f:2.8. This was more than 20 years ago.
And, I guess I jumped in pretty hard as I bought it with an EF 2x extender and EOS-1 body.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jun 11, 2014)

My first was a 400/5.6, followed shortly after by a 17-40 and a 70-200/4. The 135 is my only other L lens.


----------



## KyleSTL (Jun 11, 2014)

StudentOfLight said:


> I must be the weirdest person on this thread cos my first L was the TS-E 24mm.



I don't think that's weird, I think it's awesome.


----------



## FEBS (Jun 11, 2014)

My first L lenses were the 17-40L and 24-105L that I bought together for my 7D. I did found the 24-105 OK, but expected more of it. The 17-40 was another case, not wide enough and the IQ was even worse compared to my 10-22. I even thought to sell it. 

Because of the noise of the 7D, I added a 5Diii. What a difference for both lenses on this body. I am very happy I didn't sell them. Now the road to more L lenses was opened, and you know what that means for your wallet.

Never the less, I'm very happy when I see the results now, compared to 2 years ago with a 7D and a tamron 18-270.


----------



## Cariboucoach (Jun 12, 2014)

The 70-200 f/4L USM with out IS. I bought it in conjunction with a refurbished EOS 40D. I have upgraded my camera to a EOS 6D, but I haven't purchased any more "L" lenses. I am looking though and I am leaning towards the EF 24-70 f/4 or the Tamron 24-70 f2.8. 

They are both around the same cost, but I don't know if the reliability of the Tamron, given some of the reviews of inconsistent QC, is worth the extra f stop.


----------



## tq0cr5i (Jun 12, 2014)

I bought my first L on September 25, 2010. It is my favorite lens from then.


----------



## DRR (Jun 12, 2014)

My first L was a 24-70 f/2.8, close to 10 years ago now. Was my go-to do-everything lens for a long time, until I started moving away from zooms and towards primes. My tendency was to shoot either wide at about 30mm or all the way at 70mm. It was a great do-it-all lens but I started to feel like it didn't do any one thing particularly well. 

Sold to fund an 85mm f/1.2 II. Can't say I regret it. I also won't say I "outgrew" the lens but my needs and priorities changed.


----------



## arjay27 (Jun 12, 2014)

I'm still looking to buy my first Canon L lens and i saw some L lens on sale here at Don's Photo flyer http://www.flyertown.ca/flyers/donsphoto?type=3#!/flyers/donsphoto-flyer?flyer_run_id=27292

Any advice which one to get? its a big investment so i want to purchase the right one for starters like me.

Thanks


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 12, 2014)

arjay27 said:


> I'm still looking to buy my first Canon L lens and i saw some L lens on sale here at Don's Photo flyer http://www.flyertown.ca/flyers/donsphoto?type=3#!/flyers/donsphoto-flyer?flyer_run_id=27292
> 
> Any advice which one to get? its a big investment so i want to purchase the right one for starters like me.
> 
> Thanks


arjay, welcome to CR. I'm sure we can help you, but we need to know what type of shooting you do (general, weddings, wildlife, etc.) and we can advise you from there.


----------



## arjay27 (Jun 12, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> arjay27 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm still looking to buy my first Canon L lens and i saw some L lens on sale here at Don's Photo flyer http://www.flyertown.ca/flyers/donsphoto?type=3#!/flyers/donsphoto-flyer?flyer_run_id=27292
> ...



I want to shoot weddings and portraits. Right now i only have a 50mm on a Canon 5d. I'm just starting so i want to take the right path.


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 12, 2014)

arjay27 said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > arjay27 said:
> ...


I think your best bet would be the 24-70 f/2.8 II, if you can afford it, as that would cover everything from wide shots to group shots, to tighter portraits than the 50mm. That and a 70-200 f/2.8 IS II sometime in the future would cover 90% or more of normal wedding work. If that's too expensive, you might consider the 135 f/2 or 85 f/1.8 for head shots, 24, 28, or 35 f/2 IS for wider shots, or perhaps the 17-40 for the same.


----------



## arjay27 (Jun 12, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> arjay27 said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



Thank you for the advice!


----------



## lightthief (Jun 12, 2014)

My first L was the 100-400. I love it. The 70-300 IS was too soft at the long end.

The next one was EF 70-200 2.8 L IS. When i switched from 400D to 50D the weaknesses of the 70-200 became visible - it was "soft" and had less contrast at the long end. I tried both F4 versions and both were better at f4 than the big one at 4.5.  I sold it after one year of collecting dust.

The next was the 100 L Macro. At the same day, i gave the 70-200 2.8 II a chance - and was blown away. Bought both, followed by the 35 L.

When i bought the 5DIII i sold my sigma fisheye and got the 8-15 L - again at the same day.
The last one was the 17-40. It is one year old now and i will trade it and the 17-55 to fund the 16-35 IS.
I used the 85 L II for four days. It is great - but too expensive for a fun-lens. I hope, there will be a 85 2.x IS some day... my first non-L


----------



## EOS rebel (Jun 16, 2014)

My first L was a tie for both the 100mm macro and the 70-300mm in 2012. I was still new to photography and wanted a large range for telephoto but didn't like the push-pull zoom of the 100-400. The reason for the macro is self-explanatory.

Still love the IQ from both the lenses although I find I'm using the macro more than I thought I ever would since it is fun to shoot with a prime and it has wonderful sharpness and bokeh. The 70-300 only sees occasional use when I know I need the reach and because it's just too heavy to always justify carrying it.


----------



## Eldar (Jun 16, 2014)

My first L was a FD50mm f1.2L, mounted on a NewF1, bought in 1987. I was shooting Kodachrome 25ISO. First trip was 2weeks of sailing in Greece. Those images look good even today.

It's been down hill (for my bank account) ever since ...


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 17, 2014)

Eldar said:


> My first L was a FD50mm f1.2L, mounted on a NewF1, bought in 1987. I was shooting Kodachrome 25ISO. First trip was 2weeks of sailing in Greece. Those images look good even today.
> 
> It's been down hill (for my bank account) ever since ...


If you started in 1987, I'm surprised you still have any money  I bet those photos look great!


----------



## friedrice1212 (Jun 17, 2014)

24-105 in a 5D2 kit. Then 70-200 IS mk1, 50L, 24L. L is a drug...


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 17, 2014)

friedrice1212 said:


> L is a drug...


So true, the only cure is to collect them all


----------



## wopbv4 (Jun 17, 2014)

100 mm macro IS. I am surprised who many people picked this as there first L lens. It is one of the "cheeper" L lenses , so that probably helps.

Anyway, this was the start of spending a lot of money. I bought (not in that order) 8-15 fisheye, 16-35, 24-70, 70-200, 85 F1.2, ts 24, 30 f2IS. I know that the 30 F2 is not an L lens, but it pretty damn good, I just love it.
Only disappointment I had was 17-40, just couldn't make it work for me and sold it.

Most used 24-70 and 70-200


----------



## tayassu (Jun 17, 2014)

My first and up until now only L Lens is the 70-300.  I bought this in addition for my (now sold) 15-85 to get some bird and flower shots. It handles very nice with its 1.2m MFD for "macro" work (I used it almost exclusively for that purpose before I got my real macro lens) and I love the autofocus speed and IQ at 300mm.


----------



## dhr90 (Jun 17, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> friedrice1212 said:
> 
> 
> > L is a drug...
> ...



What happens then? I'm sure owning all L lenses will in no way prevent G.A.S


----------



## Eldar (Jun 17, 2014)

dhr90 said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > friedrice1212 said:
> ...


I know this guy called Carl ... Zeiss I think ... :


----------



## benperrin (Jun 18, 2014)

First was the 17-40L then it was the
24-105L
85L
35L
135L
100L Macro (had the non L version but sold it to buy a 1dmk3)
24-70L 2.8 ii
and now the 16-35 f4 on order

I'm going to sell off the 17-40 and 24-105 though. I won't need them anymore. I feel like I'm well covered now unless I want to go on safari ;D. After going through the 17-85 and 50 1.4 I can safely say that I'll never buy a non L lens again. Unless it is made by a guy called Carl.


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 18, 2014)

Eldar said:


> dhr90 said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...


Eldar, you and Ben are correct, although I would like to consult Dolina - given his posts, it looks like he really does own all of the L lenses...


----------



## Menace (Jun 19, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > dhr90 said:
> ...



GAS never stops, once I have all the L lenses I'd probably start looking for 'vintage' or obscure lenses! It will never stop !


----------



## Roo (Jun 19, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > dhr90 said:
> ...



Ohhh it is a drug....

Last night I attended a Canon lens event put on by a local camera shop. During the course of the night I had over $40k in different L glass attached to the front of my camera. Despite their best efforts at plying me with alcohol and offering 10% off purchases on the night I walked out with my credit card (and dignity) intact...but, but there were some I really, really wanted!

Anybody want to buy a kidney? ;D


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 19, 2014)

Roo said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...


No on the kidney, but I would like to buy your resolve  Be honest, though, what percentage off would have made the difference?


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 19, 2014)

Menace said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



+1


----------



## NancyP (Jun 19, 2014)

Yes, the manual lens enthusiasts start collecting all sorts of vintage lenses. This used to be a cheap collector's hobby, but prices have increased lately for good stuff.


----------



## johnhenry (Jun 19, 2014)

First was a 24-105L for my 40D, to which I added a 200mm 1.8L. I still want a FF body with at least 42M pixels to see full resolution of the 200mm's images


----------

