Which lens???

[Nevermore1]

I've been reading through the forums and guess I'm not searching the correct words. I am curious how big of a difference getting an "L" lens is. I am currently bouncing between the Canon EF 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM and the Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L is USM Lens. I know the 24-105mm will give me more zoom but I already have a 75-300mm that I figure would cover that range. Is it worth spending the extra for the L lens? It will be used with a 70D and most likely a 6D Mark II for outdoor/landscape/wildlife/zoos/aquariums/architecture. Thanks again...

 

[nokk]

personally i'd go for the 24-70 f/4 L. i had the f/2.8 version and loved it. physically the L lenses are a little better construction. the front element doesn't rotate, which means you don't need to constantly readjust a circular polarizer or move if you're shooting through a fence or some other barrier close to the front of your lens. optically the L lenses were much better than most of my non-L lenses.

if you already have the 75-300mm then go for the L lens.

other cheap L lenses in the same price range as the 24-70mm f/4 L:
17-40mm L
70-200mm f/4 L (non-is)

 

[Space Face]

If you can afford the L lens then go for it every time. Not only is the construction better but the quality of the actual glass is better too.

 

[weepete]

L lenses are great. Super sharp, fast AF, weather sealed quality lenses.

But the focal ranges are not really meant for crop sensor cameras. Personally I wouldn't go for a 24-105mm focal length as a walk around lens on a crop sensor, because you can get stuck in a middling short telephoto to mid telephoto look with the crop factor. For me, something like the 15-85mm is much more useful, as it covers the traditional (equivalent) focal lengths of 24-135mm rather that the somewhat oddball 38-170mm (equivalent). If you want sharper, then a 17-55mm f2.8 is what I'd be looking at.

Just how much sharper they are varies, my 16-35mm is amazingly sharp, but compared to my Canon 10-22mm on my 7D is roughly about the same in the centre. It's much sharper in the corners, but only at 1:1 and not really noticeable to the average person (present company excluded ).

I think the L series lenses make more sense at the telephoto end for crop sensor camers, so the 100-400mm, the 70-300mm, 70-200mm, the big primes and the like.

YMMV, especially if you mostly shoot portature in the 50-135mm (FF) range, or close up/abstracts. As it will do if you have an ultrawide like a 10-22mm and can cover the wide end.

 

[jcdeboever]

17-40 f4l is a wonderful lens for the money but I have only used it on 5D classic.

I also have a 28-80 f/3.5-5.6 USM version 1 and it is awesome but you got to get a hood for it (EW68A). They're hard to find (v1), but very sharp. It flares bad without the hood.

 

[Nevermore1]

17-40 f4l is a wonderful lens for the money but I have only used it on 5D classic.

I also have a 28-80 f/3.5-5.6 USM version 1 and it is awesome but you got to get a hood for it (EW68A). They're hard to find (v1), but very sharp. It flares bad without the hood.

Thanks. I'm going to my local shop tomorrow to speak with them as well. I've now added the EF 28-135 IS USM as an option. I do want to get an L lens but am thinking it may be better to get a cheaper lens now (either my daughter or best friend will inherit it if they want it) and get the EF 24-105mm F4/L IS II USM this summer as one I could use for travel and hopefully not need to bring any other lenses with me. I could get the 17-40mm F/4L now but am thinking it may be better to wait and get the 24-105mm first. I intend on slowly upgrading to L lenses over the next few years but want to make sure my first one will be a good every day walking around type lens for when I don't want to have to worry about carrying multiple lenses with me (for example I have a tentative trip to the Everglades NP and the surrounding area in late October if it doesn't get delayed again and I would prefer to just carry one lens as I will be with my kids who don't like waiting on me to change out lenses).

 

[ac12]

It can be HARD selecting a lens that will work on both an APS-C and FF camera, because of the format difference.

Comments for the FF, 6D.

Depends on where your priority lies, wider 24-105 or longer 28-135.
For a GP "walk about" lens, I would personally go wide with the 24-105/4 L, but others may rather have more reach with the 28-135. That is a personal decision.
IMHO, the 24-70/2.8 is kinda big and heavy for a GP "walk about" lens.

Holding it for 5 minutes in the store is not the same as carrying it for 5-10 hours a day for several/many days, on vacation.​

For the APS-C, 70D

I would go with the EFS 18-135 STM or USM as your GP "walk about" lens.

I use the Nikon equivalent 18-140, and I LIKE it.​

IMHO, the EF 24-105 is not quite wide enough (for me), to be a GP lens on an APS-C camera. I will want a wider lens to get down to about 16-18mm. So then we have a 2nd lens to carry.
The EFS 17-50/2.8 would be a nice lens, but it isn't long enough for me, to be a GP lens. I would want a longer lens for more reach, then we have a 2nd lens to carry.​

As you can see, it is difficult to select a single GP lens that will work well on both APS-C/70D and FF/6D.

 

[Soocom1]

The core of the question is what the difference is between a reg. and a "L" lens is.

The L stands for "Luxury" by Canon's own admission.
the glas typically is designed with better material and finer machining. the construction of the lens unlike the regular run of the mill stuff is typically more robust and stout. (some exceptions apply)
the L series is really designed with professionals in mind intended for higher end photography and professional environments from studios to photojournalism.

It doesn't mean that you cant have them, or that the lower grade lenses are bad.
Theya re simply designed with higher level quality in mind. The CA is paid more attention to and the structure of the lens is for a higher end job.

 

[Nevermore1]

I wanted to thank everyone once again for their input. After speaking with the gentleman at my local camera store I ended up going with the EF 24-105mm IS STM and plan on upgrading to an L lens in a few months. I also lucked out and found a 17-40mm f4/L on the FB marketplace and met that gentleman this morning (not sure if he's on here but if he is thanks again). The lens was very well taken care so it looks almost new, the owner had posted he is switching over to a mirrorless system. Now I just need to make the time to head out sometime in the next few days to test everything out.

 

[paigew]

Go for the L You won't regret it. I have a used 24-70L version 2 that I have been thinking about selling since I switched to sony, let me know if you are interested! It's super sharp and a real workhorse, I just need to get a sony one.

 

[beagle100]

I wanted to thank everyone once again for their input. After speaking with the gentleman at my local camera store I ended up going with the EF 24-105mm IS STM and plan on upgrading to an L lens in a few months. I also lucked out and found a 17-40mm f4/L on the FB marketplace and met that gentleman this morning (not sure if he's on here but if he is thanks again). The lens was very well taken care so it looks almost new, the owner had posted he is switching over to a mirrorless system. Now I just need to make the time to head out sometime in the next few days to test everything out.

Ok -- but I'm not sure both a 24-105 and a 17-40 is necessary
I'd settle for just the 24-105 STM

 

[Nevermore1]

I wanted to thank everyone once again for their input. After speaking with the gentleman at my local camera store I ended up going with the EF 24-105mm IS STM and plan on upgrading to an L lens in a few months. I also lucked out and found a 17-40mm f4/L on the FB marketplace and met that gentleman this morning (not sure if he's on here but if he is thanks again). The lens was very well taken care so it looks almost new, the owner had posted he is switching over to a mirrorless system. Now I just need to make the time to head out sometime in the next few days to test everything out.

Ok -- but I'm not sure both a 24-105 and a 17-40 is necessary
I'd settle for just the 24-105 STM

The 17-40 was too good of a price to pass up and is in excellent condition which is why I decided to get that one as well. I plan to eventually upgrade to L-series lenses and figured this one was a good start.

 

[photoflyer]

L lenses are really special. Even when you pixel peep you see little or no chromatic aberration. Be careful. Once you have one....

I have the 24-105 f 4 L and it is excellent though many say the 24-70 f 2.8 is even better. It is usually on the 6D Mark II or the R6. It is a very good flexible walking around lens. There are times when I wish I also had the 24-70 f 2.8 just for the speed but the R6 is so good in low light that, except for the 2.8's bokeh versus 4.0's, I can get almost anything I want and the extra 30mm comes in handy.

Back to L quality. I once sat on a flight next to the program manager for Hubble. I study astrophysics for fun so chatting with him was interesting. He told me about a telescope that is an array Canon 400mm f 2.8 L lenses. Here's an article. It is a good read and somewhere out there is a lecture by one of the astronomers to other astronomers. One of them asks "Why would a photographer need a lens of such high optical quality?" Hilarious.

An array of Canon 400mm F2.8L II lenses is helping astronomers discover new galaxies

 

[weepete]

24-70 L