L series?

I am buying my first dlsr but have been doing photography for years. I plan to get either a t2i or t3i as I have a limited budget. I have read countless lens reviews trying to find my best options. Would it be crazy to buy a Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Telephoto Zoom Lens for a t3i as my first telephoto. I also looked at some earlier models such as the 70-300 with IS and the 55-250 IS but from what I’ve read these don’t compare to the image quality of the L series. What do you recommend? I enjoy taking nature, landscape, people, wildlife…pretty much everything

<p><a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/buy/canon-70-200mm-f4l-is-serial-number-356803">http://www.lensrentals.com/buy/canon-70-200mm-f4l-is-serial-number-356803</a><br>

The above link is for a used 70-200 f4 if you wanted to go that route. If you bought used you could very likely sell it for what you paid for it if you didn't want to keep it.<br>

No... it is never crazy to buy a great lens for photography and a top of the line lens on either of the mentioned bodies will be a joy to use.</p>

<p>No, not crazy at all. Go for it, if your budget allows it. But be aware that IS trumps minor differences in resolution, for handheld shooting.</p>

<p>For tele lenses buying an L lens for an APS-C body is not crazy at all. For medium range and wide angle, L-lenses tend to have awkward zoom ranges for APS-C bodies, since they are designed with full frame bodies in mind. All L-lenses are EF. EFs lenses don't get the L designation. Many people use APS-C bodies with medium range and wide angle lenses for full-frame cameras just because they crave the L. I often think those folks are missing out on the real advantages APS-C offers. But again, in the tele range that's not an issue.</p>

<p>It's not true that all L-lenses are EF. 17mm TS-E and the 24mm TS-E are L-lenses but do not have the EF designation since they are manual focus only.</p>

<p>It is not nuts to use an L lens with a rebel body. And contrary to what one poster wrote, i find the 70-200 range very useful on an APS-C camera, although it is certainly too long to have that as your only lens. What may not be sensible, however, is to spend that much for a lens when you are beginner with an SLR. One expensive lens could be replaced by two, or more than two, cheaper ones. I would usually recommend that people start with several cheaper lenses and get a lot of experience with different types of lenses so that they can decide when it is worth investing serious money in expensive lenses. Also, unless you are shooting at fast speeds or with a tripod or monopod, you could end up with better photos from a cheaper lens with IS than an expensive one without. The 70-200 f/4 can be bought with IS too (I have one, and it is a great lens), but that is much more expensive.</p>

<p>I'll give you a concrete example. I shoot a lot of macro, and I use an APS-C camera. I have both the EF-S 60mm and the 100mm L macros. is the L better? Yes, in several ways. Could you reliably tell me which photos I took with each, without looking at the exif? Nope. Perhaps if I printed very large you could, but online and at modest print sizes, the differences attributable to things like aperture and lighting are much larger than the differences attributable to the lens.</p>

<p>Had a 70-200 F4L for years on my 20d. Loved it. <br />Having an IS version would be even much nicer.<br />But at that point I did not regretted having the non IS version.<br />Never had a situation that I could not handle without IS.</p>

<p>The images it produces are just amazing and on top of that<br />it is a really nice lens to walk around it all day (not that heavy as other L lenses).</p>

<p>Agree for non tele L lenses. Not so suited on a 1,6 crop body due to their range.<br />But there I would probably have gone for the EF-s 17-55 f2,8 IS<br />Also not that cheap though. :-(</p>

<p>And if budget still allows : buy the EF 50 f1,8 (will cost around 104 USD).<br />With the 1,6 crop factor of your body totally not a wide lens...but for that price a steal.<br />Looks like a toy though...but the image it produces can match the EF70-200 at ease.</p>

<p>Might look around for a good 2nd hand EF 70-200 f4L.</p>

<p>When I bought a 5Dmk2 last year I sold mine because I wanted to keep the range,<br />so bought a EF 70-300L IS to replace it (store bought it from me, since they have a 2nd hand lens program).<br />Am pretty sure the new owner is a happy person (these things cost loads of money so a lot of people really take care of their gear and handle it with care).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>It is a very good lens indeed- noticeably crisper than my other Canon L lenses. So no-not at all silly unless the cost is way over what you can afford or the opportunity cost is too high. Further the lens is good enough and flexible enough to travel with you into more expensive or full-frame bodies.</p>

<p>Not nuts, but trying to do landscapes w/ a 70-200/4 on a crop rebel might be somewhat... challenging. </p>

<p>Absolute IQ will be great w/ that combo. Too bad the widest you'll be able to shoot will be equiv to 112mm on your 35mm camera. Unless your T2i/T3i also comes w/ a kit lens (18-55) you <em>would</em> be crazy to try to do general purpose work w/ only a 70-200/4L on the crop.</p>

 

<p>The 70-200/4 L IS is the lens I use outdoors by far the most on my full frame and crop bodies. It's is one of the optically finest SLR zoom lenses ever made, and I would recommend it without reservation above any other zoom in its focal length range (except, perhaps, the 70-200/2.8 II), and even above some primes.</p>

<p>I understand the budget is limited.<br>

Stretch the budget, go without espresso coffees or work a few hours extra overtime and buy the <em>EF70 to 200F/4L <strong>IS</strong> USM</em>.<br>

You are not anywhere near nuts, you are making a very, very sensible approach to lenses.</p>

<p>WW </p>

<blockquote>

<p>What do you recommend? I enjoy taking nature, landscape, people, wildlife…pretty much everything.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Even though you are new to digital you are already a step ahead of many other photographers new to digital with respect to the fact sensor size / format size isnt as important as the lens and other factors...so kudos to you for diving right in and considering a "L" lens! Almost any "L" lens prime/zoom for Canon is superb. I have shot with several Canon L primes/zooms and they were all superb!</p>

<p>In your case I would go even further in the Canon L glass lens territory. Instead of the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L which is a outstanding lens why not go for L glass that has the focal length coverage you mentioned from landscape/wildlife/people... in other words everything? In your case, I recommend the Canon EF 28-300 f3.5-5.6 L IS USM which sounds perfect for you. Its pricey and I know you are on a budget but if you want a lens that can do it all then this Canon L zoom is for you.</p>

<p>Canon EF 28-300mm f3.5-5.6 L IS USM<br>

<a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-28-300mm-f-3.5-5.6-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-28-300mm-f-3.5-5.6-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx</a><br>

<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/319784-USA/Canon_9322A002AA_28_300mm_f_3_5_5_6L_IS_USM.html">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/319784-USA/Canon_9322A002AA_28_300mm_f_3_5_5_6L_IS_USM.html</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>I do not beleive that is a good suggestion.</p>

<p>There are too many compromises in a one stop shop, even with an L Badge on it.<br />The 28 to 300 is a very specialist Lens.</p>

<p>I have used its predecessor, the EF 35 to 350F/3.5~5.6L.</p>

<p>Granted the 28-300 is improved and I have not used this lens - but it is heavy, varying maximum aperture and although “L” it is a compromise when compared to that FL range, split into two or three lenses – as it too, is a specialist lens like the 35 to 350.</p>

<p>Notwithstanding these facts:<br>

28mm is not really all that wide on an APS-C camera and at times "wide" is required for Landscape work.</p>

<p>And it is not the best lens to use (white, fat, long and about 1½Kgs) at the children’s birthday party it is sort of “intrusive”</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>The Canon EF 70-200mm F4L IS USM was the first L-series lens I bought when I had my Canon 400D (or Rebel XTI) and I have never looked back.<br>

So my advice is that if you can stretch far enough to get <strong>ANY</strong> of the Canon EF 70-200mm range then go for it. However, as others suggested don't buy this as your only lens. On an APS-C body it is much too long and inflexible.<br>

On a side note, I have since bought other non-L primes and specialty lenses. Whilst not up to the same pixel peeping quality I am yet to be disappointed in the output of anything I've bought (as long as it didn't have a silver ring, I loved my nifty fifty too).</p>

<p>This is the root I took with my first Rebel (and later on with 40D) and two L-series lenses: 17-40 and 70-200 without IS. Pictures speak far louder than any lofty sentences. Check the link:<br /><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/70235145@N02">http://www.flickr.com/photos/70235145@N02</a></p>

<p>I agree with most of the responses here. You're getting a good enough camera. It's all about the lens. If you're truly confused what to buy, rent them at the many available companies throughout the country. I probably spent about $150 on rentals before I decided what I really wanted. Totally okay before dropping $1000 on a great lens. You'll now what you like. I'd rent them for a week and use them A LOT to really get a feel.<br>

You really can't go wrong with the 'L' series as long as you get the range you need. I've used the 35mm f1.4L and 24-105mm f4L and think they are fantastic. The 70-200mm 2.8L is on my short list too :-D</p>

<p><em><strong>The 28-300mm f3.5-5.6 L zoom is the best Canon do-everything-with-one-lens lens available.</strong> Uses: landscapes, group pictures, portraits, outdoors sports, zoo animals, wildlife, flowers.</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

According to the description above in the link above I mentioned, the Canon EF 28-300mm f3.5-5.6 L IS USM is NOT a specialist lens but rather a general use lens. Its the lens you use when you dont need or want a speciality lens but rather one lens that will shoot just about everything (without taking the time to change different lenses). Yes its heavy and expensive!...I personally would NOT own one because of the weight alone (expensive is a given for any of the L lenses) but most of the reviews (5 stars) have only praise for this excellent "super zoom" lens. Even for wide angle landscapes..28mm on a sub-frame Canon camera is much more suitable, it is equivalent to 44mm on 35mm full frame than the 70-200mm range...70mm on subframe which is the equivalent of 112mm on 35mm full frame. That said, this zoom is perfect for the OP. The OP asked for ONE lens that would cover <em>everything </em>and this is the best Canon L zoom lens available right now that will cover ALL those focal lengths.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The opinion of the lens and interpretation of the words in the thread is noted and respected.<br />A simple response, after which I shall not continue the conversation, lest it become a side topic:</p>

<p>Firstly: <br />The lens is specialist lens.<br />It is mainly used as a specialist lens by every photographer I know who has used it (or the 35 to 350).<br />It is touted as specialist lens.<br />Even the description you supplied implies exactly that: please note –<br />"The 28-300mm f3.5-5.6 L zoom is the best Canon <strong><em>do-everything-with-one-lens lens available</em></strong><strong>.</strong><em> Uses: landscapes, group pictures, portraits, outdoors sports, zoo animals, wildlife, flowers."</em><br />It is a specialist lens because it will fit the bill as the best lens to do everything <strong><em>when only one lens being available.</em></strong> <strong><em>(i.e. in the event of only having ONE lens).</em></strong><br />That’s I exactly the use I put the 35 to 350 – because I was limited to ONE lens (and preferred NO lens changes) for about 15 days.</p>

<p>Secondly:<br />Nowhere in the OP’s commentary did he make a request for ONE lens which would cover everything. Nor did the OP imply that he would only have or want ONE lens.<br />In fact he ONLY asked for opinions on <strong><em>a telephoto lens</em></strong> for an APS-C camera, please see:</p>

<p>“<strong><em>Would it be crazy to buy a </em></strong>Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Telephoto Zoom Lens for a t3i <strong><em>as my first telephoto.</em></strong> I also looked at some earlier models such as the 70-300 with IS and the 55-250 IS but from what I’ve read these don’t compare to the image quality of the L series. What do you recommend? I enjoy taking nature, landscape, people, wildlife…pretty much everything”</p>

<p>Thirdly:<br />The FIRST mention of a lens to do everything is by <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3835189">Marcus Ian</a> where he responds to the question the OP asks about if he (the OP) is “nuts?” – and Marcus Ian responds here establishing that it would be silly, to only have a telephoto lens:</p>

<p><em>“Unless your T2i/T3i also comes w/ a kit lens (18-55) you </em><em>would</em><em> be crazy to try to do general purpose work w/ only a 70-200/4L on the crop.”</em></p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Well we are probably both right. :) The OP hasn't chimed in since the first post... so who knows? if he wanted one or more lenses... he doesnt say either way. Also the 28-300mm f3.5-5.6 L zoom has been described as both a general purpose and speciality lens (specifically travel and press/paparazzi).</p>

<p>Thank you for responding.<br />I agree it would be very nice to hear from the OP.<br />He made an <a href="../digital-camera-forum/00Zfle">initial post here</a>, which does shed some light.<br>

WW</p>

<p>BTW – my original comment about the 28-300 was never driven by “being right" - though my post could have been misinterpreted so.<br>

Best back to you.</p>