File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Hey /p/, is Canon's L-series of lenses really worth the money?

Planning on buying a 40D, and I've been looking at lenses. The EF 24-70 f/2.8L (plus a 2.0x extender) would be my first choice, but is it really worth $1000? (yes it's got an MSRP of nearly $2k, but amazon has new ones for one thousand)
>> Anonymous
>>133444
24-70 is kinda stupid on crop-sensor cameras, it's neigher good telephoto nor wide enough for an all-round lens. Spend that $1000 on the 17-55 IS, it only lacks an L designation because it's an EF-S lens.
>> Anonymous
>>133444

I own this lens (used for about $800 from a reputable fellow) and the 40D.

The 70mm is nice on a crop, but I do wish its low end was a little wider. 24mm on the crop isn't terribly wide.

I've actually been known to carry my old Rebel's kit lens with me sometimes for those situations I just really, really want/need something wider.
>> newsflash !Ep8pui8Vw2
>>133493
You've been know by who?
These lenses are worth the money if you actually sell prints (a lot of), not just whore for attention on the internet.

There are unequally high quality alternatives that are third party (in b4 sigmonster) but are not weathersealed, look nice, nor make /p/ jealous.
>> Anonymous
>>133499

it's an expression
>> Anonymous
The 2x teleconverter will not work with the 24-70 if that's what you're thinking.
>> Anonymous
>>133512

Not OP. What stops it?
>> Anonymous
>>133499There are unequally high quality alternatives that are third party (in b4 sigmonster) but are not weathersealed, look nice, nor make /p/ jealous.

name some
>> newsflash !Ep8pui8Vw2
>>133528

Watch me. But after I pass my optics class...
>> Anonymous
>>133542
You'll know shit all about making good lenses unless your optics course covers more than a single optics course covers. You'll need to learn the physics behind EM stuff and chemistry for lens coatings and choosing glass dopants. You'll also need to learn how to design lens housings that actually allow you to focus. If you want to do any sort of autofocus you'll need to learn some electronics and do some electromechanical design, which will involve control theory, also unless you can get a spec for the autofocus system you'll have to reverse engineer the inputs for that as well. And who knows what else; that's just what I can think of off the top of my head.

Pretty much you're just an idiot for thinking you'll know even a smidgen of what it takes to design a quality lens after taking this class.

Of course, if you don't care about producing shitty work then you'll be all set.
>> Anonymous
>>133524
The rear element of the lens.
>> Anonymous
>>133567

Can you be more specific?
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
They are worth the money if you have the money. ;)

If you don't have the money to spare get a cheaper one and work with that and its (possibly minor) limitations. You'll still grow as an artist and be able to make photos that you can be proud of. As long as you don't make a very bad choice (there are some out there with the odd model or brand, I suppose) with the lens then you should be okay. There are a lot of really good lenses out there that are optically nice but just don't have the weather sealing and build quality of these L lenses.

>>133524

What 133567 said. Canon's design of it. You'll have to get third party if you want one to work with it. If you have the money for it I'd suggest a Kenko 1.4 and a Canon 1.4 if you could and they would work with just about anything and combine to give similar results from the samples I have seen. Although I don't know how useful a x2 would be with this lens. It's not a combination I hear being used often. Just a thought.
>> newsflash !Ep8pui8Vw2
>>133564
Yes, next time I make a joke, I'll pour as much knowledge into it so I can come off as a smugfag instead of an idiot.

Of course camera objectives are just 2 glass lenses! And transparent too!
>> Anonymous
>>133645
Wow, you must be taking a shitty optics course if you're only learning how to handle two lenses.
>> Anonymous
>>133744

I think that was sarcasm.