Are the Canon L Series lenses worth it?

[sinjans]

to add to this thread again my Canon 2x mkIII extender just showed up and I managed to crack off some test shots on my 70-200 2.8 IS L. I'm a happy man with this for grabbing a few eagles.

[GWashington1732]

I think I'm going to get the 70-200 non IS L to try it out, and a new 75-300mm for dropping into lakes and such because it worked pretty good until it went all weird colors on me.

[bdmicarta]

The better lenses will perform better at the extremes, such as when you must use them wide open or when you must use them at the maximum zoom. For more normal use there is less difference.

Of course you will find this in a lot of areas. For instance I have a cheap 7megapixel Canon point and shoot that I carry because it is about the size of an altoids tin. It will make acceptable images outdoors in good light, but in bad light or indoors it really suffers. For those conditions my Nikon D300 works fine just like it is supposed to. Or there are lots of people that carry lower priced knives. For instance today I am carrying a Kershaw Blur, I could have bought a ZT for 3 or 4 times the price but I don't know under what circumstances I would know the difference. Of course if the money didn't mean anything to me I would have bought the more expensive knife, or something even more expensive than that. But money does mean a lot to me so the $50 knife works just fine.

Coop mentioned that he uses a Sigma fixed focal length. A fixed focal length lens will always have an advantage over a zoom in terms of sharpness and other qualities, but it is also known that Sigma and Tamron macro lenses are as good or nearly as good as any lens that you can buy for any amount of money. So depending on your focal length and aperture requirements there might be a lot of difference between the expensive lenses and the not so expensive lenses, or there might be very little difference. To fully research this I would recommend going to the brand specific forums on a site such as dpreview.com or fredmiranda.com.

[ZJChaser]

Since I dont make my living with photos I find it hard to justify the extra cost. I've had great luck with and now use primarily all Sigma EX series lenses. I have not been sorry about my decision at all. the only thing I do wish is that the sigmas were weather sealed like the Ls but I never really shoot in the rain or moist conditions so its not a big deal for me.

drifting photos, on track photos are with the 10-20 EX or the 70-200 EX while the pit shots are with a borrowed Tamron 17-50 2.8: http://www.flickr.com/photos/8741190...7629401577558/
Japan photos using 70-200, 30mm 1.4, and the 10-20: http://www.flickr.com/photos/8741190...7627889099484/

[sinjans]

Agreed the sigma ex series is a great option. I have the 50mm 1.4 EX and its very creamy.

[Beile]

I think they're worth it, I just got the 70-300L, super sharp and fast focusing. I'm getting a lot more keepers with this lens and the size isn't a lot bigger than my 24-105L, a little fatter and a little heavier, well maybe a lot heavier.
I was shooting my sons baseball game when this flew over.

[mrn8]

I second the recommendation to try a couple lenses out by renting them. I saved myself some money by renting a Tamron 17-50 from them and realizing that it wasn't what I wanted.

When I got rid of my 75-300, which I never liked one bit, I picked up a used 70-200 f/4L for $350 on FM Forums. It's a great piece of glass, even though I sometimes wish for that extra aperature range from the 2.8.

[timbit]

Oh gawd yes. Once you go "L" you'll never go back. My two primary 'always on' lenses are 24-70 f/2.8L and 70-200 f/2.8L IS. I wouldn't trade them for the world. I used to use a 18-24 kit lense and a 75-300 jobby. I used on recently, and nearly threw the camera against a wall putting up with the lenses. It was my friends camera, so it is a good job that I didn't!

The 70-200 f/2.8L takes fantastic headshots. Tight framing, amazing bokeh. You can't go wrong with a forest background out of focus with perfect specular highlights. Just buy it, I guarantee you will not have buyers remorse.

I also use the 14 mm f/2.8L USM II on occasion. A great and relatively inexpensive lense is the 50mm f/1.4. It isn't an L series, but holy cow is it sharp. Especially stopped down to f/1.8