First time shooting with an L Lens

[zakslm]

I shot quite a bit of film at with an EOS camera.  I had a few zoom lenses some nice primes like the 50mm f1.8 and the 85mm f1.8 that were extremely sharp and that I loved using.  15 years ago, I stopped shooting film and disposed of the EOS gear.

Earlier this year, I got a Rebel T7 kit and have added a handful of lenses and accessories and have been doing a fair amount of shooting.  I found that my Photo.net sign on still worked and became a participant on this site again.  I'm having a great time thus far. 

In listening to photography podcasts, one piece of advice kept coming up.  If you want to try a piece of equipment, rent it first (if possible).  In visiting the website of the local landmark camera store, I found they had a rental department stocked with some very nice stuff including a bunch of L lenses.  Having never shot with an L lens, I was intrigued and rented 24-70 f4L Macro to play with for a day or so.  Why that lens?  The macro capability intrigued me and the price per diem was right.  If you think it's nuts to shoot with professional grade glass on a basic consumer grade crop sensor body, then your idea of fun differs from mine.    

Here are my observations thus far:

• The Lens is big and heavy and built like a tank.
• The ultrasonic motor is pretty much silent and focuses extremely fast and accurately.
• The lens is indeed very sharp at all apertures.
• The macro mode works great!
• It is easy to nail autofocus quickly with the L lens.

It was a lot of fun experimenting with the L lens and I can see why they are the tools of choice for professionals and serious amateurs.  The L lens I rented is one of the smaller L zooms but it was still big and heavy.  I get fatigued after a day of walking around and shooting with my camera and one of my lenses around my neck while carrying my other lenses in a camera sling.  I think doing the same thing with the 24-70 f4L on the camera and maybe another L lens in the sling would be a quite a workout for me. 

So, my preliminary assessment is that I knew using L lenses requires a financial commitment but having not shot with them before I was oblivious to the fact that it also requires a physical commitment. 

My unscientific and subjective opinion is that the images I produced with the L lens look really nice and it's easier to get a "better image" with one than with consumer lenses - particularly when shooting wide open.   But it's not impossible to get a nice image with a consumer lens - maybe not as easy to do so in all circumstances vs. an L lens.  

I've attached some samples taken with the L lens if you are curious.

 

Edited July 4, 2023 by zakslm

[mike_clinard1]

Shots look good, very sharp, which is an attribute to the Canon L lens. The only non-L lens I have is the 85mm 1.8. It too, is very sharp.

[zakslm]

1 hour ago, mike_clinard1 said:

Shots look good, very sharp, which is an attribute to the Canon L lens. The only non-L lens I have is the 85mm 1.8. It too, is very sharp.

I wish I would have kept the 85mm f1.8 that I sold 15 years ago. It was a very sharp lens indeed.

If I kept it, it wouldn’t have been used until recently which would have been a shame. Hopefully the person that bought it enjoyed using it as much as I did.

[Mark Keefer]

Looks good. In my experience some of those L lenses really are built like tanks. Congrats. Looks like a winner. Looking forward to seeing more. happy shooting.

 

[Robin Smith]

Maybe time to consider some of the excellent smaller formats (m43, Sony/Fuji APS) which are generally speaking, smaller, lighter, and less expensive?

[zakslm]

12 hours ago, Robin Smith said:

Maybe time to consider some of the excellent smaller formats (m43, Sony/Fuji APS) which are generally speaking, smaller, lighter, and less expensive?

Before getting back into an EOS camera and system, I considered a couple of different systems (including 4:3) around Amazon's "Black Friday" when they pushed DSLR camera ads at me and piqued my curiosity.  However, Nikon APS-C and Canon APS-C cameras interested me most.

Having shot Canon and EOS cameras for quite a while before my hiatus, I chose Canon after handling a Rebel DSLR.  It was felt familiar and comfortable in my in my hands.  The only downside was the wave of regret I felt for disposing of some of the lenses (EF 50mm f1.8 "plastic fantastic" and EF 85mm f1.8 in particular) as well as some of the accessories I accumulated during my EOS film days.

With regard to weight, if I really want to own an L zoom lens, I'd suck it up and get used to it.  The results would probably mitigate whatever minor aches and pains that result in having the lens on my camera or in the bag. 

I did get a EF-S 24mm f2.8 STM "pancake" lens for my camera.  It's small, light and appears to be extremely sharp (see the attached example taken @ f4 with flash, 1/60th of sec, ISO 800) .  Using that little lens on the Rebel a blast!

[dmanthree]

Yeah, "L" lenses are generally worth the price. In addition to the nice IQ, the build quality means that the IQ won't degrade with heavy use. I have three RF L lenses and all three are excellent. As the saying goes, "the bitterness of low quality remains long after the sweetness of low price."

Or something like that...