This might be a somewhat limiting topic, but I'm curious to see postings of the "humble" EF primes, such as 20, 24, 28, 35, (new!) 40, 50, 85, 100, 135 (and any others). Although some of these lenses have better "L" siblings, they are still capable of impressive imaging.
I'll start with a couple dull ones that should be easy to top!
Been playing with the original 28/2.8 recently, using everyday surroundings -- it's quite a good lens, actually. Here on the 1D2 body, wide open @ f/2.8, ISO 200. Minor adjustments in LR4, but I didn't adjust the lens profile or reduce the natural vignetting. With the lens profile activated, there is no vignetting.
I'm not a big fan of posting little jpgs of various lenses, in that whatever differences there might be among them are rarely visible in this sort of presentation.
However, you bring up a very important point about the existence of quite a few fine non-L primes from Canon. While I own some L primes, I also own and love and would not trade away several non-L primes that work tremendously well for my work.
A list of outstanding lenses in this category could include some of the following and, no doubt, others: 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2...
As Dan mentioned, the 50/1.4 (AF by far not as good as with the f/1.2 L lens but IQ-wise very nice), the 85/1.8 (my most less used lens so far since I rarely shoot in this FL), and the 60/2.8 EF-S macro lens.
Here's a pedestrian shot of a homebrew wort using a 35 f2. I've gotta say, it's my go-to lens for nice detail in a small package. I owned it before the 40mm was released.
I was pretty excited to see a thread for some non-L prime love!!
retrofocus wrote:
As Dan mentioned, the 50/1.4 (AF by far not as good as with the f/1.2 L lens but IQ-wise very nice), the 85/1.8 (my most less used lens so far since I rarely shoot in this FL), and the 60/2.8 EF-S macro lens.
If you are right about the "by far not as good," my 50mm f/1.4 would have to AF really, really poorly (it doesn't) or the f/1.2 would have to AF so well that it could focus on things behind me while the camera is still in the bag.
gdanmitchell wrote:
If you are right about the "by far not as good," my 50mm f/1.4 would have to AF really, really poorly (it doesn't) or the f/1.2 would have to AF so well that it could focus on things behind me while the camera is still in the bag.
Hyperbole alert!
Dan
Don't get me wrong, the AF of the 50/1.4 is decent enough - one reason why I keep this lens in addition to my 50/1.2 L (the other is simply the weight). Under normal shooting conditions with good light, both AF systems work fine - the difference is very visible in dim light and as well in the close-up range (even here MF might be the best anyway). Under those conditions the AF of the 50/1.4 hunts a lot more in my experience.
gdanmitchell wrote:
If you are right about the "by far not as good," my 50mm f/1.4 would have to AF really, really poorly (it doesn't) or the f/1.2 would have to AF so well that it could focus on things behind me while the camera is still in the bag.
Hyperbole alert!
Dan
Dan, have you used both lens? I believe retrofocus has and is describing his experience with both.
I've noticed a lack of opportunities to post general images on the Canon forum, unlike the Alternative forum. We have a tremendous range of optics (and bodies), so it seem worthwhile to promote a few other threads along the lines of the recent Autumn offering.
This subject of non-L lenses isn't meant to disparage L, but to highlight the bread and butter EF optics at relatively reasonable prices. This could be an particularly interesting thread with the new arrivals becoming popular: 24IS, 28IS, 35IS, and maybe improved versions of the 50 and 85. It will be interesting to see a place where we can do comparisons of old/new for these lenses.
The topic is wide enough to feature the 15mm FE, all the way to several macros and the 45 and 90 TS-E -- they all technically fit. Hey, whatever you want -- I just wanted to provide a place to post images that don't have to be from the newest or most expensive to qualify.
Thanks again for contributing your images and ideas.
chez wrote:
Dan, have you used both lens? I believe retrofocus has and is describing his experience with both.
Don't want to go into an intensive pro/con discussion of both of the 50 mm lenses here at this point, but after I microfocus adjusted the 50/1.2 lens, it is one of my most reliable and best IQ lenses. I read many posts here from members who have/had problems with this lens, so far since a year of usage I don't have any. It has become my most often used prime lens. I have used the 50/1.4 for many years before, and took great shots with it, too. Biggest advantage to me is that the 50/1.2 is much better in low light conditions.
Here's one of my first shots with the 100 f2. Great lens; I especially love the USM. I think I might need to MA it a little bit but other than that, the colors are just great to me.
I also love the 100/2.0. It is very "L" like IQ, very fast focus, and great color. This was the first lens (purchased years ago) that really gave me a "Wow" factor - I could really tell a difference between it and my other (low-end third party) lenses. It is the only non-L lens in my line-up (I have two other non=L, but they are up for sale).
I have to admit my 50mm f/1.8 II is one of my favorite lenses. Its poor build quality and harsh bokeh just seem to add to its charm. I'll post some of my favorite below:
