Canon L series lens

[pickle788]

Hi guys and girls its been a while since I had the camera out been so busy but was good fun to have a play again.
I am thinking about buying a new lens I have a 60d with the kit lenses (18-55) (55-250) now would i be better off saving my money a bit longer and
getting a L series lens? Is the quality of a photo with a L series much better than the kit lens?

 

[raphaelaaron]

yes, it is. in fact, i'd go far as to say to go for an L prime lens. that's where you get superior quality over any kit lenses. though the image quality is up for debate. some people say its the lens, some say it's the sensor. i'm in the camp that says both.

 

[pickle788]

I was thinking of the 17-40 f4l would that be much of an upgrade from my 18-55 kit lens?

 

[pickle788]

I should word that better is it worth the $800 or so on the 17-40l to upgrade my 18-55 kit lense (the one I use most)

 

[Dao]

I should word that better is it worth the $800 or so on the 17-40l to upgrade my 18-55 kit lense (the one I use most)

For those who go after better image quality regardless the cost, $800 is nothing as long as he/she is able to produce a better result with it.
For those who see photography gears as a tool to generate revenue, $800 is money well spend.
For those that cost is not a factor, (like their parent are driving Audi R8 or Ferrari), $800 for a lens could be a bargain.


As for you, you may need to answer that question yourself. Is it worth it? For me, it is not because my Tamron 17-50mm still do a decent job and I doubt I will gain much if I switch to 17-40mm f/4L. Don't get me wrong, the 17-40mm f4/L is better but I have different priorities.

 

[Buckster]

I should word that better is it worth the $800 or so on the 17-40l to upgrade my 18-55 kit lense (the one I use most)

What seems to be the problem with your 18-55mm? What won't it do that you think the 17-40mm will do?

 

[pickle788]

I thought I would get better quality photos out of a L lens than my kit lens a little sharper and is having the usm focus all its ramped up to be? If I don't replace the kit lens I was going to add a macro lens to my collection.

 

[mjhoward]

A sample of your work may help determine if the lens is a factor or if it is simply lack of knowledge/experience.

 

[Buckster]

I thought I would get better quality photos out of a L lens than my kit lens a little sharper and is having the usm focus all its ramped up to be? If I don't replace the kit lens I was going to add a macro lens to my collection.

I shot all of these (and many more) with an 18-55mm kit lens on an (ancient by today's standards) Canon 20D:

It's actually a very capable lens, especially if you're on a tripod and/or have good light.

Before investing in another "better" lens, consider working on your technique first, or you might not gain much, if anything from the new investment.

Do you have a tripod, remote shutter trigger and flash yet? Those will probably do you more good than a new lens, generally speaking.

 

[MLeeK]

Yes, an L lens is that much better in terms of IQ, but not so much to the average user most of the time.
It would really help to see what you are feeling is the problem to know if it's a problem other than your lenses or if you really are at the point that you can see the difference in a high quality lens.
The kit lens is capable of some great quality shooting if you take your time and do things correctly.

 

[pickle788]

This is a photo from my camera that's on my phone I just put up will upload from pc tomorrow

 

[pgriz]

The truth is that for most of us, investment in some lighting equipment, and knowledge how to use it effectively, will give much more in terms of visible results than would a lens upgrade.

Let's consider where you will be viewing the image. If you're printing a 300 dpi, you can get a 16x10 print out of a 15 mB image. If you're viewing on the computer screen, you're probably resizing the image to about 1200x800 which is .9 MB, and depending on the screen you use (vary from 60-140 ppi), you'll be looking at about 4-6 inches of screen image. Resolution of the better lenses does appear at the highest level of resolution, but is effectively hidden if you're downsizing for screen display. What WILL make the images much more appealing, is the amount and quality of light that you can surround your chosen subject with.

 

[raphaelaaron]

zoom L lenses in my opinion won't do as much differently than any kit lenses, at least the one you're going for. i have a 17-40L and find it's the least effective in the bunch. if you were to stick with zooms, then at least try for a 24-70L if it fits your style. that is the one i mainly use for my fashion and portrait work (works nicely with lighting setups). but i mentioned, if you're going to blow more cash, the least you could do is get some variation in your setup. having three zooms, while many probably would find it okay, there's a whole world out there when you stick prime glass on a camera. and a beautiful world it is.

just my opinion.

 

[fjrabon]

I've always felt that the only thing 'L' about the 17-40 f/4 L is the build quality. In optical quality it's worse than a lot of non-L glass. Heck, I think my Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 is sharper at 17-20 than it is at those distances. You have to stop down to about f/11 on the 17-40 L for it to be really sharp. You don't pay for L glass so that you have to sop down to f/11.

I shoot a lot with that lens for work, because its the wide angle that they bought, but I really have always felt its a disgrace to the L line and should just be recognized for what it is: a thoroughly average wide angle that's built like a tank.

 

[fjrabon]

zoom L lenses in my opinion won't do as much differently than any kit lenses, at least the one you're going for. i have a 17-40L and find it's the least effective in the bunch. if you were to stick with zooms, then at least try for a 24-70L if it fits your style. that is the one i mainly use for my fashion and portrait work (works nicely with lighting setups). but i mentioned, if you're going to blow more cash, the least you could do is get some variation in your setup. having three zooms, while many probably would find it okay, there's a whole world out there when you stick prime glass on a camera. and a beautiful world it is.

just my opinion.

Eh, I wouldn't say this is so much an 'L zoom thing' as much as it is that particular lens (17-40 f/4 L). For instance the 70-200 IS II f/2.8 L is an ABSURDLY good, sharp lens. I work with it most every day and am just continually stunned by how good it is. I adore my 80-200 f/2.8 Nikon, but that 70-200 L just BLOWS IT AWAY.