Canon L lens.

N

Nate B.

Ok all so I have the opportunity to be able to snatch up a canon L lens. Now its time to decide which exact one I want.

Looking into:
24-70 f/2.8(most$)
24-205 f/4 (2ndmost$)
28-70 f/2.8(3rd$)
17-40 f/4 (cheapest)
50 f/1.4


I have been doing a ton of research online, but just to add to the pile, can I get some insider reviews on which one you would most likely by. I know a lot of main reasons, but it would be neat to hear all the small details on personal opinions. And if you think I should be looking into any other lens, chime in. All open ears here.
 
Last edited:
Sort by date Sort by votes
I don't think there is a 24-70mm f/4, is there? The 24-105mm f/4 has a great range and IS but I think it's probably too slow to be an all-rounder, as SinEater says.

What camera are you using? If you're on an APS-C DSLR (7D, 60D, 600D, 550D) I'd add to that list the 17-55mm f/2.8. It's not an L lens but the general consensus is that it would be if Canon gave that designation to EF-S lenses.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
chilipie said:
I don't think there is a 24-70mm f/4, is there? The 24-105mm f/4 has a great range and IS but I think it's probably too slow to be an all-rounder, as SinEater says.

What camera are you using? If you're on an APS-C DSLR (7D, 60D, 600D, 550D) I'd add to that list the 17-55mm f/2.8. It's not an L lens but the general consensus is that it would be if Canon gave that designation to EF-S lenses.
Click to expand...

I have the 17-55mm f/2.8 and it really is a decent lens. ASP-C lenses are never considered L series, unfortunately, but they'll take your $1100 with a smile. :)

I'm really getting sold on Zeiss ZF primes and my next camera will have to be able to accommodate them.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The 24-70 is an absolutely stellar lens!

The f/4 lenses are great for photography but like has been said too slow for most video purposes.

I haven't used the 17-55. It's a great range, but you can't use it on a 5D or other full frame camera. It depends in your plans for it I suppose.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
CamVader said:
I have the 17-55mm f/2.8 and it really is a decent lens. ASP-C lenses are never considered L series, unfortunately, but they'll take your $1100 with a smile. :)
Click to expand...

Now what makes it a decent lens' compared to a "luxury" lens. I only see them online/ebay for 900$ plus. For 300$ more, I can get the 24-70 2.8 & 50 f/1.4 and a bunch of filters. Would the 17-55 really be that worth it. Or maybe a future lens to get ahold of?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
What camera are you pairing it with?

17 is nice and wide. On a crop sensor Canon it acts like a 27mm, where the 24 is still wide, but on the crop acts like a 38mm.

It's really all about the range you want. Wide - Standard or Not as wide to short telephoto.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Nate B. said:
Now what makes it a decent lens' compared to a "luxury" lens. I only see them online/ebay for 900$ plus. For 300$ more, I can get the 24-70 2.8 & 50 f/1.4 and a bunch of filters. Would the 17-55 really be that worth it. Or maybe a future lens to get ahold of?
Click to expand...

It's a crop factor zoom lens. If you're shooting a typical indie flick, time on location is limited before getting kicked out or jeopardizing the insurance policy, never mind losing 11mm wide indoors. 17mm is 27.2mm and that is minimum wide. 24mm is 38mm with an ASP-C camera and is medium wide. If you're shooting in a house, how far can you back up?

It does what it does well.

Most indie shoots get annoyed when I say I need more light and take the time to adjust the ISO and aperture. :lol:
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top