Which Canon L lenses offer a big advantage over their non-L counterparts?

Question

A "what lens" thread with a twist:

While buying the Canon D5III, I can get any Canon L lens 3000 NOK cheaper (roughly $490 or €400)!

I already have these lenses that I will use with the new camera: 16-35mm f/2.8L (not II), 50mm f/1.4, and 70-200mm f/4L. What Canon L lenses would you suggest? Obviously I have some gaps in the ranges below 70mm, but I'm not too concerned about filling these, and I do like primes. I'm thinking about maybe a macro lens could be fun, too.

I do all sorts of outdoors photography (nature and city, with and without people in it), and usually take all my equipment with me in a semi-big Lowerpro backpack when I'm on a trip. I don't mind big lenses, but as the backpack is getting fuller, compactness certainly is a plus.

There is not really a set budget for this, but I'll have to keep it within reasonable limits, i.e. no 400mm f/2.8L IS USM...

The offer only applies to L lenses, and generally I don't consider the red ring a must-have on my glass. So, I'm mostly looking for lenses where the L version gives a big advantage over non-L counterparts.

---

^{Photo gear is generally a bit more expensive in Norway. I did a comparison between the Norwegian store in question and B&H for a randomly chosen L lens: The difference is about 23%. So you may think of the offer as 3715 NOK off ≈ $600 or €500, if my logic holds.}

Answer 1

If you can get 400 Euro off the price of an L lens, I would be mighty tempted to get the 70-200 f2.8L lens, and sell the f4L you have. You can get at least 400 Euro for your f4L, so that's a 800 Euro off the f2.8 IS!

Otherwise, the excellent 24-105 f4L is my second choice and the perfect 'walk around' lens for your new full frame body.

Congratulations on the purchase, and enjoy!

Answer 2

Only you can answer this question. What gaps do you have in your bag for the type of photography you enjoy? When you visualize a scene and go to grab the appropriate lens, what range is limiting you currently?

Do you frequently see motion blur in your subjects? Maybe that indicates that you need to chose something with a wider aperture then you have currently, such as upgrading to a f/2.8 70-200mm lens.

"Outdoor photography" encompasses nearly every lens type in the book. You could pick up a tilt shift lens, macro, or fisheye. You already have roughly 16-200mm covered, but what about 200mm +? Outdoor photography many times requires upwards of 400mm which you don't have covered at all right now.

Canon currently offers around 20 "L" series lenses. Lets review each of the criteria you set:

• Good for outdoor photography - Basically all lenses fit this
• An L lens - 20+ lenses
• Offers a great advantage over non-L lenses - True of all L lenses or the market wouldn't have a need for them at the price they demand
• Doesn't overlap with your existing kit of three lenses - So this just leaves out really the three you already have, and maybe the 50 f/1.2 and the 70-200mm f/4 IS

So after filtering out all of the criteria that you provided, I'm down to a short list of only 15 L series lenses that are currently in production. That is why we are back to the idea that only you can answer this question. What do you want to do tat you can't right now? What are your needs? Where would a piece of equipment help improve your photography?

Answer 3

I don't even think that an L series lens exists in your price range, so I cannot find a lens to recommend that meets you requirements.

If I had your setup, I think that I would spend a little more on the lenses and get the 24-105mm or the old 24-70mm (not the II) lens, as these would fill the gap of very usable focal ranges that you have only covered by your 50mm. After all, you are spending around £3000 on a body, why not spend a little more on lenses. They go for about £850-1000. I personally have the 24-105 and I am extremely happy with it.

But as I understand it, your reseller will let you pick a lens for free up to the price of NOK3000? Perhaps you could convince him to just pay for what the lens costs in excess of NOK3000?

But if the price is more or less set, you might go for the 100mm non-L macro lens. It should be almost as sharp as the L counterpart, but lacks the image stabiliser. But having the L version myself, I wouldn't want to have the non-L version as I have shot many macro shots hand-held, something I would never be able to without the image stabiliser. But that could be a good bet considering the given circumstances.

Answer 4

If you do a lot of landscape you could go for something wider, but wide angle lenses although they yield great results are not much fun to use. Also the 14mm prime is over $2000. You could try the fisheye EF 8-15mm f/4 L. I am sure that would be fun.

However, I borrowed the 100m f 2.8 L macro for the weekend and that was fun! In fact according to this review it might very well be the "Most fun per dollar lens". Quoting: "I called the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Lens Canon's "Most fun per dollar lens". While that lens is less expensive, I'm thinking the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM Macro Lens may be the new holder of this title."

Answer 5

I just purchased (as in 5 seconds ago) the Canon 100mm macro L lens. From what I've been reading the big advantage in getting the L version, other than the standard bump in the quality of the glass, sharpness, etc, is that it has IS if you want to use it handheld.