how long before L lens?

clintham

clintham

clintham

Associate
Joined
30 Jan 2010
Posts
263
just to satisfy my curiosity really - how long had you been doing photography before you bought your first L (or equivalent) lens? im talking mainly to people that have photography as a hobby rather than a career.

i didnt realise how addictive photography could be! i have no idea how amateurs can 1) afford & 2) justify L lenses to their wives, any tips please let me know!
 
I bought my first about 6 months after getting my first SLR camera (Canon 350D), it was the 24-70 and it was and still is awesome. I do tend to just focus on certain parts of my life and spend on them and neglect other parts like some of my clothes are over 14 years old (not boxer shorts/socks). :o

Since the 24-70, it fuelled the want for more L and I now have a whole collection of L glass but I do photography as a career and my clients only deserve the best (nothing to do with me wanting it as well...) to try and claw some of that money back. :D
 
Last edited:
who needs clothes when you have L lenses?! im yet to buy an L lens, with a child thats nearly 1 my funds are limited to say the least. only had my camera for a few months and have already spent way more than i had budgeted for.
450d, 18-55is, 55-250is, 50mm f1.8. bag, tripod, battery grip, all the ususal accessories. only wanted to spend £300-£400, oops.

not the best kit but as a hobby setup i really like it - good enough (for now!)
 
the battery grip is a great piece of kit. i was a little unsure when i bought it but i dont regret it at all - highly reccommended. my portrait shots are not only easier but i believe they are better too
 
robertgilbert86 said:
L isn't much more than marketing. You can get great results from lenses less than half the price. Capitalism ftl.
Click to expand...
Agreed but you often get much faster lenses in the L range.

I thought L glass was amazing until I bought my M9. The sharpness, even wide open, is truly staggering.
 
The glass that attaches to Leicas does seem particularly excellent although I don't have much knowledge on Leica glass, I just love the look and feel of the results I've seen.

I guess the difference with L lenses is you get quality but also fast zooming (virtually snaps to focus on some L lenses) and they're built to take a beating. Great work horse lenses.

If they did a 50mm Summicron for Canon with fast autofocus I'd be all over that like something that's all over that.
 
Last edited:
There are some examples (e.g. 50mm, 85mm) where there are arguably as good non-L lenses, but to claim L is nothing more than marketing is a bit silly. Notable exceptions aside, the results are superior. Or at least the results would be superior if all other factors have been addressed. A physically better lens does not directly translate into improved images unless the user has the required skill and knowledge to get the better results. Often people use gear purchase as a crutch to make their photography better, where in reality they themselves are the limiting factor to improvement rather than their equipment.

But somebody suitably talented (not neccesarily me :() will produce better results with an L than a cheaper counterpart.

In answer to the question, about 2 weeks :). I bought a 70-200 F4 for additional reach and at ~£320 (a number of years ago now!) thought it's a very accessible L lens that warrants the extra cash over the cheaper options. Did I need an L? Nope :)

Rather than viewing attainment of an L lens as an objective, it's better to think of improving your art as the objective, and attaining an L lens may be one of the many things along the way that contributes towards that (i.e. it's not automatic). Gear doesn't define you as an artist, it's merely a tool.

ps it's very easy to justify spending money on something that you enjoy and are passionate about. I used to spend all my money at the pub. Now I buy L lenses and a carryout :)
 
I don't have a wife to answer to :p

I got my 30D in 2006, and my L in 2009, which was after I got my 5Dii, in the last 6 months of 2009 I managed to get 3 Ls...was an expensive year !
 
Only around 3 months. Had a 350D and then needed a longer lens so sold my Tamron 70-300mm and bought a 70-200L F4 non IS. Since then i've upgraded to the F2.8 IS.

Next L lens I get will be the 24-70L with the 5DII when I eventually take the plunge :)
 
lewiscarrington said:
who needs clothes when you have L lenses?! im yet to buy an L lens, with a child thats nearly 1 my funds are limited to say the least. only had my camera for a few months and have already spent way more than i had budgeted for.
450d, 18-55is, 55-250is, 50mm f1.8. bag, tripod, battery grip, all the ususal accessories. only wanted to spend £300-£400, oops.

not the best kit but as a hobby setup i really like it - good enough (for now!)
Click to expand...

You have exactly the same kit as me :) although i've had the 450d for nearly a year now. Personally speaking the money i earn is all my own but i'd say if you want an L lens and can afford one (or will be able to soon) go for it - photography is a long learning curve so if you want an L lens now there is no reason why you shouldn't get one :)
 
Last edited:
I hadn't purchased L glass till I obtained my EOS 5d mk ii, before that I had a 300d and a 40d, the former I used the kit lens (18-55mm) and the latter solely a 50mm f/1.8. Now I'm using a 17-40, 70-200 f/4 and have never looked back.

The only problem is that I want to upgrade to the f/2.8 version of the 70-200mm, buying L glass is seriously addictive!! :D
 
tbs said:
The questions isnt when you buy. Its, do you think youre good enough that you need it.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't agree with that. There's situations in my sports photography where an f2.8 L lens would be better than the current zoom that I've got. I would have thought its more to do with knowing why the L range of lenses would suit your needs over other lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom