Canon L lenses or not?

Covey · 09-01-2008 11:21am #1

Was looking for something on the internet and found this gem. Obviously works the other way around as well.;)

"Camera lenses are a little like women: An average looking woman (lens) is perfectly acceptable to date (attach to your camera), kiss (print pics taken with the lens) or even marry (actually buy the lens). So long as you never see (look through) her (lens) standing next to a beautiful woman ("L" lens) then life is bliss. Then one day your buddy shows up with his new girlfriend ("L"). You look at her (his "L") then you look at your girl (lens) and even though she (lens) has been a great companion and satisfies you, you no longer think of her (lens) the same. You NEED a girl (lens) like your buddy's. It's all downhill from there..."

T.

Paulw · 09-01-2008 11:24am

How true it is.

sheesh · 09-01-2008 12:55pm

its the same with everything I was perfectly happy with my pictures from a canon powershot a620 until I had a go of a 400D. now I have a 400D.:o

Fortunately the next step up is currently out of my price range. so as far as i know the 400D is the best.

ignorance is bliss and I plan to keep it that way.

elven · 09-01-2008 1:21pm

Looks aren't everything

If someone were to offer me a 200mm f2.8 L for free I'd turn it down because i wouldn't want to drag a hunk of glass (pun not intended) like that about the place...

Should we start a separate gear porn forum for you lot? :rolleyes:

Paulw · 09-01-2008 1:30pm

Ah Elven ... the 200mm isn't a big lens at all. It's about the same as the 70-200mm or a bit smaller than the 100-400mm lens.

elven · 09-01-2008 1:41pm

Ah yes I meant the 70-200mm. Was paying my soup too much attention

Anyway, it's too cumbersome. Doesn't matter what the quality is like, if it's too heavy and I leave it at home, it won't be taking any pictures at all!

mathias · 09-01-2008 4:47pm

Got me a 17 -40 L this year , it hasnt been off the camera since , sure it was expensive , but its a lovely lens , pin sharp and versatile ,and not too big, theres truth in the original post though , the brother was happy with the kit lens till he got a go of my L glass , now the kit lens will live forever in a dark lowepro bag.

rymus · 09-01-2008 4:52pm

elven wrote: »

If someone were to offer me a 200mm f2.8 L for free I'd turn it down

I always knew you were off your rocker..

stcstc · 09-01-2008 5:00pm

you should look at the 70-200 f4 its actually sharper than the 2.8 and a lot smaller and lighter, easy carry round

the 17-40 is a great lens i have one on my camera a lot of the time, BUT see if you can get to try the 16-35 one and you will be amazed at the difference much sharper to the edges than the 17-40 but not sure its worth twice the price

Canon L lenses or not?

Comments