My very first 'L'

[fathomfive]

Well, after deciding I wanted a good macro lens / flash setup I asked on here and then spent some time reading up and choosing the gear I wanted.

All was well right up to the point where I handed over the cash for a Canon 70-200 F4L USM

But, boy, am I chuffed with the image quality between it and my other non-L stuff on the quick test shots I ran off just before the light failed. Fingers crossed it's a bright day tomorrow.

I feel like a kid at christmas waiting for the sun to come up tomorrow!

[4hero]

Slippery slope now Andrew! Good choice though, I hear it's an excellent lens!

[jon-]

Uh oh, that's the cheapest of the 4. In 3 weeks flat you're convince yourself you NEED the 2.8 IS version.

Oh, check out the 100mm L f2.8 IS. It's dreamy

[4hero]

the 70-200 f2.8 IS is a lovely lens

[fathomfive]

I already know I need the f2.8. HMRC and the mortgage company think otherwise though



Luckily I have access to the 200mm f2.8 prime plus the 300mm & 400mm Ls from my father, so maybe the account will be safe. For a while...

Edited by fathomfive on Friday 12th February 21:50

[RobDickinson]

70-200f2.8 L IS mkII is ooooh even more dreamy!

[fathomfive]

[fingers in ears]nanananananananananana can't hear you[/fingers in ears]

Looks like I'm going to be blessed with at least a little sunshine today

Did everyone else have this excitement when they got that first 'L'?

[4hero]

RobDickinson said:

70-200f2.8 L IS mkII is ooooh even more dreamy!

Stop it!

Yes, remember get my 100-400, picked it up from jessops and went straight to knockhill with it. I then suddenly realised that it was a bit too much for up there, and how I would definitely need the 70-200 f2.8 IS to use at the areas where the 100-400 was too much.

Edited to add, the second zoom meant a second body was required

Edited by 4hero on Saturday 13th February 08:04

[LukeBird]

fathomfive said:

Did everyone else have this excitement when they got that first 'L'?

Yeah!
The 70-200 F4 is still my first & only 'L' as well....!

[andyroo]

Just shelled out on a 70-200 f2.8 IS myself... ouch, it stung my wallet, but boy was it worth it! The L stuff is just wonderful to use, from the solid feel, to the tactile controls, the intuitive layout... my favourite bit has to be the way the AF can be overridden at any time, and that the manual focus ring doesn't require a turn of a zillionth of a degree to pull something into focus. Oh, and I love the speed of the AF and how quiet it is... and how good the IS is... etc etc etc!

The only trouble is, I want more...

[RobDickinson]

andyroo said:

my favourite bit has to be the way the AF can be overridden at any time,
The only trouble is, I want more...

You dont need 'L' for that tho usualy you get it with an L.

No L here yet, 17-55 is an almost, one dy I may replace the sigma 70-200 with a canon.

400/5.6L will be mine soon too.

[andyroo]

RobDickinson said:

andyroo said:

my favourite bit has to be the way the AF can be overridden at any time,
The only trouble is, I want more...

You dont need 'L' for that tho usualy you get it with an L.

No L here yet, 17-55 is an almost, one dy I may replace the sigma 70-200 with a canon.

400/5.6L will be mine soon too.

I did hear that the 17-55 is essentially an L lens, the EF-S part meant it didn't earn itself a red ring. I currently have a Tamron 17-50 but the call of that Canon is strong

[RobDickinson]

17-55 is almost an L, not quit built as well (tho close to some), not weathersealed (tho some L's arnt), no lens hood bundled.

And the bokeh doesnt match up to the 24-70.

[andyroo]

RobDickinson said:

17-55 is almost an L, not quit built as well (tho close to some), not weathersealed (tho some L's arnt), no lens hood bundled.

And the bokeh doesnt match up to the 24-70.

Better cash in and get a 5dmkii and a 24-70L then

Bloody money sucking cameras...

[RobDickinson]

Heh considered that! The additional body/lens cost vs almost negligable quailty increase (for me) didnt make it worth it.

Better spend the extra on a nice prime for the 7D.

[andyroo]

RobDickinson said:

Heh considered that! The additional body/lens cost vs almost negligable quailty increase (for me) didnt make it worth it.

Better spend the extra on a nice prime for the 7D.

OT, but what advantage have you found on the 7d over the 50d? Not a dig or anything, genuinely interested in your opinion

[RobDickinson]

For some reason I never realy was intrested in the 50D, when it came out the 40D done 95% of it at 60% of the cost.

7D I liked the AF system, viewfinder, ergonomics, 8fps, IQ seemed good with it.

[andyroo]

RobDickinson said:

For some reason I never realy was intrested in the 50D, when it came out the 40D done 95% of it at 60% of the cost.

7D I liked the AF system, viewfinder, ergonomics, 8fps, IQ seemed good with it.

Hmmm... food for thought methinks... thanks

[*Fletch*]

I feel your excitement, I'm currently looking for the same lens! It's the cheapest 70-200L and of course we will want need to upgrade at some point, but seems like a good starter

[fathomfive]

I'm very impressed, almost stunned, by the difference in image quality to my non-L lenses. It has to be akin to having cataracts removed