Is it still worth buying Canon L lenses?

[tanishbel87]

Hi, Hoping to hear your thoughts on my problem, before I purchase new stuff. I'm currently looking to invest into some new glass, mainly the 24-105mm L lens by Canon. It seems to be perfect for my current needs, however looking at the future... Will this still be the case? More and more brands are adding 4k cameras to their lineups, with the exception of Canon (unless you're spending big amounts of money). I am aware that you can use adapters to get the L lenses working on the GH4 and what not, however is that really a good idea? I don't want to be stuck in the past in a year from now with a lens that will only really work great on a Canon camera that doesn't have 4k. Even though 1080p will be around for a while, it will fade away eventually. Then again, the Canon 14-105mm L lens shoots beautiful video and stills right now. If you had the option right now to spend about ~€1000 on glass, would you save up and get the GH4 or equivalent instead? Or would purchasing a GH3 be a better idea, because the micro 4/3 glass has a better future? Thanks for the help!

[kvbarkley]

I would not buy expensive Canon glass if you have no plans to stay in the ecosystem.

[JohnLo]

My $0.02. Because of my age and the ability to haul around a lot of equipment plus shaky hands, I completely rearranged my setup. Old setup; EOS 1Ds Mk III, EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II, 24-70mm f/2.8L and 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. New setup; 6D Mk II, 16-35mm f/4L IS, 24-105mm f/4-5.6 IS STM and 70-200mm f/4L (V1). I chose the 24-105 STM because of weight and reviews. I would have to say it has been an absolutely wonderful performer. It does go to f/5.6 but I shoot mostly outdoors. If you don't plan on being a paparazzi photographer or shoot in the rain, this lens is a winner. The newer 24-105mm f/4L IS II is close to the weight of my old 2/8L which was a brick.

[ebiggs1]

If your goal is to do 4k with cheap gear you need to go that way, Not do a part way adventure. The up side is Canon L lenses are, and will always be, great options. However, good they are today, they will still be that good in five years from now and beyond. The thought of buying any photographic or electronic gear with the intention it will still be top of the mark in an extended future time period is probably fool hearty.

[JohnLo]

Just to add to my post above regarding the EF 24-105mm f/4-5.6 IS STM, I do nothing but still photography. 

[wq9nsc]

And JohnLo makes a very important point about the use of a camera.  If you are primarily shooting video then you are likely to be happier with a camera that was designed to be primarily a video camera instead of a DSLR or mirrorless that can also shoot video.

All three of my 1DX series bodies and my 5DS and 5DS R can shoot video but I really don't like shooting video with a camera ergonomically designed primarily for stills.  For video I bought an XF-400 that is very convenient to either hand hold or tripod mount for video and with an active cooling system there is no concern about it overheating while shooting high frame rate video or having a time limit for video. 

Most modern camcorders can also take stills and most current mirrorless and DSLR models can also shoot video but it really makes the most sense to buy a product oriented towards your primary use.

Rodger

[FidoQ]

@Johnlo

"The newer 24-105mm f/4L IS II is close to the weight of my old 2/8L which was a brick."

ah but man is it a beast and takes some awesome photos and video too lol.

the constant F4 is also a big plus but as you say we all have different needs, I love that lens on my 6DMK2, awesome combo.

Cheers

[Waddizzle]

"Or would purchasing a GH3 be a better idea, because the micro 4/3 glass has a better future?"

Really?  I suspect that this post is SPAM.  

[shawnphoto]

You should get the Canon EOS RP with the RF 24-105 f/4-f/7.1 and actually have something that will make nice videos for $1,000.