First Canon L-Series Lens recommendations

Discussion in 'Photography Equipment & Products' started by themurgs, Mar 4, 2012.

  1. themurgs

    themurgs TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2012
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Hi all, I'm looking to make more of a serious leap into photography and it's time to get some serious L-series glass. I'm looking around the $1000-1500 mark and some early considerations are the Canon 24-70mm f2.8 L or the 135mm f2 L. Options are further complicated by the new 24-70 mark 2... (worth waiting for it to get cheaper?)

    Currently I have a Canon 40D with 50mm 1.4, Tokina 11-16 2.8 and Tamron 17-50 2.8. I'm looking at upgrading to the new 5D Mark III next year and would like to build on my lens collection in the meantime. The 50mm is typically on my camera and I'm a fan of portraiture, low-light and event photography.

    Any suggestions/experience/advice would be great.

    Cheers!


     
  2. EIngerson

    EIngerson Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2011
    Messages:
    3,544
    Likes Received:
    1,647
    Location:
    San Diego, California
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    If you have $1500, I recommend the 17-55 F/2.8 and the 70-200 F/4 L. I don't think you'll have any complaints with that combo.
     
  3. Big Mike

    Big Mike I am Big, I am Mike Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    33,901
    Likes Received:
    1,862
    Location:
    Edmonton
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    That's a bad suggestion IMO. The 17-55mm F2.8, while it's a great lens, is an EF-S lens, and thus is not compatible with full frame cameras like the 5D series. Nor is it an L lens, like the OP said they wanted.

    The 70-200mm F4 is a good lens, especially the IS version. Although, you may find yourself wanting the F2.8 version, sooner or later.

    I might suggest the 17-40mm F4L. It could be used in place of your Tamron (which could be sold) and then will make a great wide angle when you upgrade to the 5DmkIII.
     
  4. TheBiles

    TheBiles TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2010
    Messages:
    869
    Likes Received:
    69
    Location:
    MCB Quantico
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    You can't go wrong with the 24-70 or the 24-105. The 24-70 II isn't even close to worth the price tag, IMO.

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk
     
  5. gsgary

    gsgary Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    16,144
    Likes Received:
    2,966
    Location:
    Chesterfield UK
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    That would be the EF-S lens that would be no good when upgrading to 5D ?
     
  6. Robin Usagani

    Robin Usagani Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Messages:
    10,348
    Likes Received:
    2,176
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    It is really depend what you want to do with photography. I would get a 70-200 f/2.8L IS mk 1 (used) for around $1300.
     
  7. EIngerson

    EIngerson Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2011
    Messages:
    3,544
    Likes Received:
    1,647
    Location:
    San Diego, California
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Yup, I didn't catch the "upgrade to the 5D MKIII" part. I was stuck on the 40D and $1500 limit.
     
  8. table1349

    table1349 Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Messages:
    0
    Likes Received:
    4
    Pick the focal length or focal length range you need and go from there. The 300 mm f2.8 and 400 mm f2.8 are as sharp as any L glass on the market. Problem is, they don't sound like they fit your needs. Pinpoint the need then look at what fills the need. From what you mention my first choice would be the 85mm f1.2L. I have it and I love it, especially for portrait work. Not the best low light lens if you are looking at action but otherwise not bad.
     
  9. Tony S

    Tony S Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    May 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,094
    Likes Received:
    598
    Location:
    Eatonville, Washington
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    So what is your main subject you like to take photos of? This will greatly influence which lenses you should be looking at. Macro, event, portraits, sports, scenic ??? All have different requirements and there is no one "do it all lens".

    FWIW, I would seriously look at the 70-200 2.8 IS . For me and my general shooting it's the one that's on my camera all the time that I use the most, after that it's the 24-70 2.8, but I have the luxury of two bodies so they both have full time homes on a camera.
     
  10. analog.universe

    analog.universe TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2011
    Messages:
    1,923
    Likes Received:
    330
    Location:
    Vermont
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I'm a prime junkie, so I like your idea of the 135L :)

    You could get the 135 f/2 and the 85 f/1.8 for <$1500...
     
  11. penfolderoldo

    penfolderoldo TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2011
    Messages:
    337
    Likes Received:
    23
    Location:
    Edinburgh
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    For me it would be the 24-70 2.8L - I use it pretty much every day for my press work and it's sharp as a tack. I'd go for that and the Sigma 85 1.4, tho that may well take you over the $1500. Killer combo tho.
     
  12. themurgs

    themurgs TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2012
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit


    Thanks for the suggestions everyone. I'm pretty much sold on the 24-70. Mostly as the mark I is a great price at the moment and I can set my sights on a good set of primes + a 70-200 later down the track.
     

Share This Page