Are Canon "L" lenses worth the extra cost?


rowarrior 12 4.4k 9 Scotland
6 Jan 2009 7:48PM
But the difference creeping in now is whether or not you make any of your living from your lenses. If you make money from them, then you will want something of better quality build and glass wise. If it's just a hobby and you make no money from it whatseover, that's a slightly different thing. In which case, I guess if you can afford L lenses to amuse yourself, that's fine, I doubt I'll ever get to find out Wink (actually I have no inclination to find out either right now)

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

steve_p 14 1.2k England
6 Jan 2009 8:21PM

Quote:If it's just a hobby and you make no money from it whatseover, that's a slightly different thing.

I think that is the point I was originally trying to make.
I originally went for the 70-200L as I was advised on this site a couple of years ago.There was no doubt in my mind then that L was the right way to go. as I said earlier the only reason I am selling the 17-40 is because it just does not have the range I wanted.
My replacement choice has most of the features I want, such as FT manual focus & non rotating front element. The build quality is not as good, but I don't make a living from my photography and my equipment does not have a hard lifeSmile
Maddie 14 2.7k 2 United Kingdom
6 Jan 2009 8:41PM
keep Wowing Ade, Sweaty Perseverance pays dividends Smile

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.