Bought an L Series lens

[matt]

Couldn't resist the temptation any longer and decided to splurge on my first L Series lens to go with my 40D.

After much consideration I chose the 24-70mm f/2.8 USM.

So far, I have to say I am very impressed with it performance. It's also built like a tank and feels very nice on the camera and in the hand, if a tad on the heavy side. I guess that's the price you pay for top build quality and first-class optics.

I'll be in the market shortly for a wider angle lens (possibly the Tokina AF ATX 12-24/4.0 Pro DX SD) and something at the longer telephoto end...perhaps the Canon 70-200 2.8L IS USM.

Anyway...looking forward to posting many images using this lens.

[RB]

Fantastic choice !

Congrats Matt.

[matt]

Thanks, Andrew....and the decision was certainly helped by advice from yourself and Humayun:thumbsup:

Many thanks.

[Octane]

Matt,

Welcome to the club. :)

Prepare for oodles of enjoyment. :)

Regards,
Humayun

[Dennis]

Hi Matt

Congratulations – those L lenses sure deserve the reputation they seem to have garnered over the years. Yes, they are heavy; the other day I picked up my old Pentax *ist DS outfit and almost threw the bag over my head as I had subconsciously braced myself to lift the Canon camera gear.

Have you seen the review of the Tokina (http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/272-tokina-af-12-24mm-f4-at-x-pro-dx-canon-lens-test-report--review)on Photozone (http://www.photozone.de/)?

You can also see the Canon 10-22mm review (http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/174-canon-ef-s-10-22mm-f35-45-usm-test-report--review)there.

Cheers

Dennis

[matt]

Hi Dennis.

The 24-70 is a particularly heavy lens, even when compared to other L series lenses.

I compared it in weight to the 17-40mm f/4 L and the 24-105mm and these felt lightweight by comparison.

The 24-70 comes in at close to 1kg...while the 17-40 is 475g and the 24-105 is 670g.

Yeah...have been checking many reviews on the Tokina and the Canon 10-22...and other lenses.

I still like the look of the Tokina and it has been recommended by a number of photographers whose opinions I regard highly. I've not made my mind up yet, though.

Cheers.

[citivolus]

We've had the 24-70 f/2.8 L for about 5 years, and it is by far our favourite lens. It spends about 80% of the time on the camera, despite also having a selection of other lenses of various focal lengths between 15 and 200mm. Good choice!

A 16-35mm f/2.8L or 17-40mm f/4L would probably be a good partner for the 24-70 if you desire to go a bit wider and still have a zoom, depending on your budget.

[matt]

Yep. Have been looking at both the 16-35mm f/2.8L and 17-40mm f/4L....and will more than likely spring for the 17-40...because of budgetary constraints....probably:whistle:

But what are the odds the 16-35mm will end up in my kit after all??? LOL

[AlexN]

Congrats Matt! Great choice for your first L lens!!

16-35 is awesome.... 17-40 is a fantastic cheaper option though...

I too have read great things about the Tokina 12-24, and also their 11-16 (or is that Tamron) I dont recall right now, but both are great performers.. apparently the 11-16 F/2.8 is shaper all round than the Canon 10-22, Tokina 12-24, Nikon 12-24 and Sigma 10-20... Food for thought I suppose!!

[matt]

Placed an order for the 17-40mm today:)

Should be picking up the lens next weekend.

[AlexN]

Wooohhooo!!

Yep... You're an L addict! :)