Just bought my first L lens!

[beanbag]

Showing off I know but we all do it!

I've just ordered my very first L lens for my Canon 40D and I can't wait for it to arrive!!!

It's a lovely EF 17-40mm f/4L. Over time I'll probably buy a 24-70mm f/2.8L and finally a 70-200m f/4L IS but that's over quite a time period as the next lens (24-85mm), requires a little saving, however I got the 17-40 for an absolute bargain as I got it in the US.

Along with the lens, I've ordered a UV haze filter but I'll most likely buy a circular polarised lens to go with it as well....

I've just got to wait for my mate in the US to bring it back for me!

2 weeks to go.....

Edited by beanbag on Wednesday 23 July 14:51

[4hero]

congrats, it's a lovely lens

[bramley]

I got one a week ago, I love it already!

On my 5D it is nice and wide and really opens up some new scope for creative shots.

[beanbag]

bramley said:

I got one a week ago, I love it already!

On my 5D it is nice and wide and really opens up some new scope for creative shots.

It's a slightly different lens on a cropped frame like mine, but still very capable.

I read many reviews on what lens to buy and was initially tempted by the 17-55mm f/2.8. Especially since it's 1 stop faster but at twice the price a little steep.

Cameralabs.com has a very good review of the lens for both FF and cropped sensors which makes a buying decision very easy.

Over time, I'll improve my lens collection and I'll sell the EF 55-200mm I have.

What I have on the list in order of buying is:

- EF 17-40mm f/4L USM - BOUGHT!!
- EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM
- EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM
- EF 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

The nice thing about all these lenses is the fact that they're all 77mm fittings for the filters so I only need one set of circular polarising filters and a UV haze filter and I can share it between the lenses.

Finally, I'll replace my 430EX flash to a 580EX but that's a while away yet....

Edited by beanbag on Wednesday 23 July 14:51

[Shadytree]

beanbag said:

What I have on the list in order of buying is:

- EF 17-40mm f/4L USM - BOUGHT!!
- EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM
- EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM
- EF 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

Save a bit longer and get the EF 70-200 f2.8 IS , best lens Canon do imo.
Awesome piece of kit

[beanbag]

Shadytree said:

beanbag said:

What I have on the list in order of buying is:

- EF 17-40mm f/4L USM - BOUGHT!!
- EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM
- EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM
- EF 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

Save a bit longer and get the EF 70-200 f2.8 IS , best lens Canon do imo.
Awesome piece of kit

It's pretty heavy I heard though.....my friend just bought the f/4L IS version and it's a beautiful lens. He too was put off by the weight of the f/2.8L.

[Shadytree]

beanbag said:

Shadytree said:

beanbag said:

What I have on the list in order of buying is:

- EF 17-40mm f/4L USM - BOUGHT!!
- EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM
- EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM
- EF 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

Save a bit longer and get the EF 70-200 f2.8 IS , best lens Canon do imo.
Awesome piece of kit

It's pretty heavy I heard though.....my friend just bought the f/4L IS version and it's a beautiful lens. He too was put off by the weight of the f/2.8L.

Pah, get some mussels. The quality of glass is worth the weight!



or get some muscles even

(funny enough just been looking at a seafood menu)

Edited by Shadytree on Wednesday 23 July 16:13

[dcw@pr]

Shadytree said:

beanbag said:

What I have on the list in order of buying is:

- EF 17-40mm f/4L USM - BOUGHT!!
- EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM
- EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM
- EF 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

Save a bit longer and get the EF 70-200 f2.8 IS , best lens Canon do imo.
Awesome piece of kit

seconded.

I don't understand why you would want those three lenses (excluding 70-200) - then you would have three lenses covering almost exactly the same thing???

[miniman]

Another vote for the 70-200 2.8 - awesome.

[beanbag]

dcw@pr said:

Shadytree said:

beanbag said:

What I have on the list in order of buying is:

- EF 17-40mm f/4L USM - BOUGHT!!
- EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM
- EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM
- EF 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

Save a bit longer and get the EF 70-200 f2.8 IS , best lens Canon do imo.
Awesome piece of kit

seconded.

I don't understand why you would want those three lenses (excluding 70-200) - then you would have three lenses covering almost exactly the same thing???

I should have mentioned the 17-55mm is an optional lens. I'm not sure how I'll get on with the 17-40 and 24-70. For one I made a typo and the 24-70 has no IS and this is my biggest gripe about it.

For that reason, the 24-105mm f/4 IS is a better option but then I'm still stuck with no low-light lenses unless I get the 70-200mm f/2.8L.

On that basis, it may be worth ignoring the 17-55mm f/2.8 and getting a 24mm f/1.4L fixed lens for indoor shots. They are both around about the same price.

On top of that, the 70-200 is not exactly a walk around lens. I take my camera everywhere and sometimes I like to travel light. At least with the first two lenses would offer me 17 to 105mm (x1.6), range.

[Dr MAD]

70-200 f2.8 L IS ROCKS. Yes it's heavy but worth it

Congrats on your purchase. You can't beat L glass

[dcw@pr]

beanbag said:

dcw@pr said:

Shadytree said:

beanbag said:

What I have on the list in order of buying is:

- EF 17-40mm f/4L USM - BOUGHT!!
- EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM
- EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM
- EF 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

Save a bit longer and get the EF 70-200 f2.8 IS , best lens Canon do imo.
Awesome piece of kit

seconded.

I don't understand why you would want those three lenses (excluding 70-200) - then you would have three lenses covering almost exactly the same thing???

I should have mentioned the 17-55mm is an optional lens. I'm not sure how I'll get on with the 17-40 and 24-70. For one I made a typo and the 24-70 has no IS and this is my biggest gripe about it.

For that reason, the 24-105mm f/4 IS is a better option but then I'm still stuck with no low-light lenses unless I get the 70-200mm f/2.8L.

On that basis, it may be worth ignoring the 17-55mm f/2.8 and getting a 24mm f/1.4L fixed lens for indoor shots. They are both around about the same price.

On top of that, the 70-200 is not exactly a walk around lens. I take my camera everywhere and sometimes I like to travel light. At least with the first two lenses would offer me 17 to 105mm (x1.6), range.

Ignore the rest and get the 70-200 2.8. You're not going to be travelling light if you start getting a prime for this and a prime for that.

Personally I use a 16-35 2.8, 50mm 1.4 and 70-200 2.8. The 50mm only gets used to make use of the funky sub f2 DOF, 97% of situations are covered by the other two lenses. Oh yes, I have a macro too, but that's a different ball game.

[beanbag]

dcw@pr said:

beanbag said:

dcw@pr said:

Shadytree said:

beanbag said:

What I have on the list in order of buying is:

- EF 17-40mm f/4L USM - BOUGHT!!
- EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM
- EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM
- EF 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

Save a bit longer and get the EF 70-200 f2.8 IS , best lens Canon do imo.
Awesome piece of kit

seconded.

I don't understand why you would want those three lenses (excluding 70-200) - then you would have three lenses covering almost exactly the same thing???

I should have mentioned the 17-55mm is an optional lens. I'm not sure how I'll get on with the 17-40 and 24-70. For one I made a typo and the 24-70 has no IS and this is my biggest gripe about it.

For that reason, the 24-105mm f/4 IS is a better option but then I'm still stuck with no low-light lenses unless I get the 70-200mm f/2.8L.

On that basis, it may be worth ignoring the 17-55mm f/2.8 and getting a 24mm f/1.4L fixed lens for indoor shots. They are both around about the same price.

On top of that, the 70-200 is not exactly a walk around lens. I take my camera everywhere and sometimes I like to travel light. At least with the first two lenses would offer me 17 to 105mm (x1.6), range.

Ignore the rest and get the 70-200 2.8. You're not going to be travelling light if you start getting a prime for this and a prime for that.

Personally I use a 16-35 2.8, 50mm 1.4 and 70-200 2.8. The 50mm only gets used to make use of the funky sub f2 DOF, 97% of situations are covered by the other two lenses. Oh yes, I have a macro too, but that's a different ball game.

I see what you are saying. Perhaps then I just stick with the 17-40mm and then get the 70-200, and then if I feel I need something in-between, I could consider the extra lens.

It was just such a chore deciding on the 17-40mm that it's almost an experimental buy. If I don't like it, I'll sell it and buy the 17-55mm f/2.8.

Considering the price I paid in the US and the price it's available for in EU, I certainly wouldn't loose any money.

Edited by beanbag on Wednesday 23 July 17:22

[dcw@pr]

Do that - I guarantee you won't want anything in between on the grounds of focal length.

[beanbag]

dcw@pr said:

Do that - I guarantee you won't want anything in between on the grounds of focal length.

Just so I get your opinion on this too....

A lot of my friends have criticized me on getting an f/4 lens instead of an f/2.8.

I know this will have little effect outdoors and might not provide with the same DOF as the f/2.8, but is it really such a compromise indoors? This is the main reason why I would consider a 24mm f/1.4L, or perhaps sell the 17-40mm and replace it with a 17-55mm f/2.8 at a later stage.

Like I said, there have been many opinions from different people but as a pro-photographer yourself, what would you suggest?

[dcw@pr]

I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times per year I use anything less than f/4 on my 16-35, primarily because If I do so the picture quality is turd. If I was buying again I would get the 17-40 f/4

f2.8 on the 70-200 is much more useful, although to be honest I don't use that a huge amount either, I tend to find the DOF too shallow.

Don't get a 2.8 because your friends tell you its better, get one because you need it.

PS I don't know what you would actually want to use a 24mm f1.4 for, but I suspect you would find actually using it at anything much below f2.8 that the DOF (or lack thereof) would be a real pain in the bum.

Edited by dcw@pr on Wednesday 23 July 17:45

[Mick429]

dcw@pr said:

Do that - I guarantee you won't want anything in between on the grounds of focal length.

I have the 17-40mm F4L ... I find it great for close up work. It's also fine indoors when accompanied by a decent flashgun.

I also have 70-200 f2.8L IS lens (which really is wicked). This means that the F4 version of this which it replaced stays at home permanently! There is a big difference between the two lenses IMHO.

However, I do quite often miss the bit between 40mm and 100mm

I often wonder why they don't do a 24-105mm f2.8L ... that would be a perfect addition to the kitbag for me

[dcw@pr]

Mick429 said:

However, I do quite often miss the bit between 40mm and 100mm

try turning the zoom ring a bit more until you get to 70mm then

[Mick429]

dcw@pr said:

Mick429 said:

However, I do quite often miss the bit between 40mm and 100mm

try turning the zoom ring a bit more until you get to 70mm then

Between 40 and 70mm even

And I do often wonder whether there is a reason that they only make an F4 version on the 24 - 105mm lens

[dcw@pr]

Mick429 said:

dcw@pr said:

Mick429 said:

However, I do quite often miss the bit between 40mm and 100mm

try turning the zoom ring a bit more until you get to 70mm then

Between 40 and 70mm even

have you considered using your legs???