Most overrated Canon lens.

FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
1 2 3 4 … 9 10 end

Archive 2009 · Most overrated Canon lens.

joewoo
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #1 · Most overrated Canon lens.

I don't get how price seems to be a factor in something being overrated.. To me, overated means that lots of people talk nothing but good things about a certain object but turns out that it's performance is not all that... like saying a certain football team is overrated... Never mention of price... Strictly performance...

Dec 22, 2009 at 06:12 PM

Sir_Loin
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #2 · Most overrated Canon lens.

Don Clary wrote:

For me, the 100 mm f2.8L IS macro is worth every penny of its extra cost, over the previous two lenses.

+1

Dec 22, 2009 at 06:19 PM

timbop
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #3 · Most overrated Canon lens.

Have to agree that the 50/1.8 is way overrated optically - it can be sharp if you stop it down enough but there is a lot more to image quality than sharpness. For the very same reason I disagree with the 70-200/2.8IS being considered overrated - yes wide open it is a little soft but it is the most versatile portrait/wedding/event lens in the Canon lineup.

Edited on Dec 22, 2009 at 06:35 PM · View previous versions

Dec 22, 2009 at 06:29 PM

Breitling65
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #4 · Most overrated Canon lens.

AaronNegro wrote:
Breitling65 wrote:
Overrated? Yes, some L's I could put on list too

200mm F2.0L IS - Huge price tag for not as usefull focal to me. Will never buy!
85L mk II - Size/weight/price/slow AF. Sold!
14L mk II - Huge price tag, limited use as ultra wide prime. Will never buy!
70-200 F2.8L IS - expensive, not as sharp, heavy and big. Sold!
180L - expensive, heavy/big. Sold with big lost $ since not as popular.

Agree with the 14 L but got to be also in agreement on the 180 L wich I bought for around 800 euros second hand. Love the lens and it IQ capabilities but yes, it is a very ugly one to dance with if wanting to sell it.

the other ones I would leave it as:
200--great photo portrait hunter. Head portraits in low light while not being seen.
85L Mk 2-- great in church for me when weddings are around
70-200 F2.8 IS--I find very expensive to pay 400 or more for IS so I agree.

They are all great as any L's, but overrated as been asked in post.

Dec 22, 2009 at 06:31 PM

kakomu
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #5 · Most overrated Canon lens.

joewoo wrote:
I don't get how price seems to be a factor in something being overrated.. To me, overated means that lots of people talk nothing but good things about a certain object but turns out that it's performance is not all that... like saying a certain football team is overrated... Never mention of price... Strictly performance...

Your definition of overrated is a little too extreme. Rather, a lens can also be overrated if it's considered the pinnacle of some area of photography, where other options exist that are similar in quality.

A good example would be the 135mm f/2L. People seem to salivate over the lens 24/7 and 135L love threads pop up all the time. Meanwhile, the 85 f/1.8 and 100 f/2 are similar in design, cost far less and produce quality that is very similar (source), yet they fall to the wayside quite frequently (the 85 less-so than the 100) and are overlooked. As such, being "overrated" could merely be that there's a disproportionate amount of favoritism for one lens compared to other similar choices.

Edited on Dec 22, 2009 at 06:36 PM · View previous versions

Dec 22, 2009 at 06:31 PM

joewoo
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #6 · Most overrated Canon lens.

Hmm ok I can take the 70-200 back on those accounts... It's color and contrast are very good for something so versatile..

Dec 22, 2009 at 06:33 PM

saaketham
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #7 · Most overrated Canon lens.

Over-Priced ...
- Canon 500mm f/4 and 600mm f/4 .. since I'm looking for one

- Canon 85mm f/1.2 ... maybe around $1000 for a prime would be a better price, considering it's AF speed, weight and bulk

Hype
- Canon 50mm f/1.8 .. why's everyone so gung-ho about this one? I used mine for a few days and sold it and don't miss it at all

Dec 22, 2009 at 06:34 PM

kakomu
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #8 · Most overrated Canon lens.

saaketham wrote:
- Canon 50mm f/1.8 .. why's everyone so gung-ho about this one?

Considering the amount of money you've spent on your current set of lenses, plus the amount of money you may drop on future lenses (500mm and 600mm), I'm not quite sure you can appreciate the price to quality ratio of the 50 f/1.8. For someone who spends about 1/2 the price of your 70-200 f/2.8L on their entire kit, the 50 f/1.8 is quite a bit more appreciable.

Dec 22, 2009 at 06:38 PM

saaketham
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #9 · Most overrated Canon lens.

I agree about the price to quality ratio ... but not enough to hype this lens as a "must-have" lens. I've seen this term used quite often, about the 50 f/1.8. Guess its a good one for really low-light. I'd rather use the 85 f/1.8 though .. beautiful portrait lens for a cheap price.

Dec 22, 2009 at 06:41 PM

joewoo
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #10 · Most overrated Canon lens.

you had me going until the blasphemy about the 135...

kakomu wrote:
joewoo wrote:
I don't get how price seems to be a factor in something being overrated.. To me, overated means that lots of people talk nothing but good things about a certain object but turns out that it's performance is not all that... like saying a certain football team is overrated... Never mention of price... Strictly performance...

Your definition of overrated is a little too extreme. Rather, a lens can also be overrated if it's considered the pinnacle of some area of photography, where other options exist that are similar in quality.

A good example would be the 135mm f/2L. People seem to salivate over the lens 24/7 and 135L love threads pop up all the time. Meanwhile, the 85 f/1.8 and 100 f/2 are similar in design, cost far less and produce quality that is very similar (source), yet they fall to the wayside quite frequently (the 85 less-so than the 100) and are overlooked. As such, being "overrated" could merely be that there's a disproportionate amount of favoritism for one lens compared to other similar choices.

Dec 22, 2009 at 06:43 PM

kakomu
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #11 · Most overrated Canon lens.

saaketham wrote:
I agree about the price to quality ratio ... but not enough to hype this lens as a "must-have" lens. I've seen this term used quite often, about the 50 f/1.8. Guess its a good one for really low-light. I'd rather use the 85 f/1.8 though .. beautiful portrait lens for a cheap price.

Thing is, $400 for a lens isn't considered "cheap" by many people. I know it isn't for me. Thus, the sub-$100 price of the 50 f/1.8 really makes it shine. I know I really like my 50 f/1.8 for just about all facets of photography...but I don't really want to drop the cash on an EF 50 f/1.4 (but, I did get a Nikon 50 f/1.4 Ai for even lower light photography).

However, even looking at it for what it is (ignoring price), the build quality is low, but image quality is still quite high. It suffers from Spherical aberration artifacts wide open, but sharpens up quite a bit before f/2.8. When you factor in price, you'll be hard pressed to find a lens of similar quality for 2x the price.

Edited on Dec 22, 2009 at 06:51 PM · View previous versions

Dec 22, 2009 at 06:44 PM

saaketham
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #12 · Most overrated Canon lens.

kakomu wrote: Thing is, $400 for a lens isn't considered "cheap" by many people. I know it isn't for me. Thus, the sub-$100 price of the 50 f/1.8 really makes it shine. I know I really like my 50 f/1.8 for just about all facets of photography...but I don't really want to drop the cash on an EF 50 f/1.4 (but, I did get a Nikon 50 f/1.4 Ai for even lower light photography).

True ... But $400 is not an expense, because you can get most of it back when you sell it. So, for less than the cost of a 50 f/1.8, you can use a 85 f/1.8 or a Tamron 28-75 and sell it when you're ready to move up. If you consider lenses as expenses, then yeah .. That's why most newbies (myself included) go through cheap lens after cheap lens initially and move up, losing money in the sale of each cheap lens in between.

In my case
- Can 28-135, Tam 28-75, Can 17-55 for $870 and I can still sell it for $800 and am really happy with it
- Can 70-300, Sig 100-300, Can 70-200 f/4, Can 70-200 f/2.8 for $950 and I can still sell it for $850-900 because it's a sharp copy in great condition

I could've just saved myself lots of $ by just going with really good lenses, got better IQ than my 28-135 or 70-300 for years and still have spent less than the route I took. But, I was a student then and couldn't justify paying big bucks for lenses. So, I see what you're saying, even though in the long run, you actually save money and get more IQ by buying a good lens in the first place and sticking with it.

Easy for me to say .. but I am still not practising it in my search for a super-tele.

Edited on Dec 22, 2009 at 06:55 PM · View previous versions

Dec 22, 2009 at 06:50 PM

joewoo
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #13 · Most overrated Canon lens.

Yup I agree... There's an initial price to play... But you recoup most of it after selling... So the time you had the lens only costs the difference... And if you get a paid gig, then most of the time it's paid for by itself... Just buying any lens outright is really expensive... All of this crap is overpriced...

That's why when I say something is overrated, it's strictly about it's PERFORMANCE

Dec 22, 2009 at 06:55 PM

kakomu
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #14 · Most overrated Canon lens.

saaketham wrote:
kakomu wrote: Thing is, $400 for a lens isn't considered "cheap" by many people. I know it isn't for me. Thus, the sub-$100 price of the 50 f/1.8 really makes it shine. I know I really like my 50 f/1.8 for just about all facets of photography...but I don't really want to drop the cash on an EF 50 f/1.4 (but, I did get a Nikon 50 f/1.4 Ai for even lower light photography).

True ... But $400 is not an expense, because you can get most of it back when you sell it.

If you sell it and you have the avenue to do so and someone wants it for your price (many do not).

saaketham wrote:
I could've just saved myself lots of $ by just going with really good lenses, got better IQ than my 28-135 or 70-300 for years and still have spent less than the route I took.

Sure, if you were clairvoyant and could predict the future. However, myself (probably you) and most amateurs and beginners I know and meet have absolutely NO IDEA what they want to photograph when they start. They have little idea how the focal length affects anything beyond angle of view. They don't even know if they'll stick with photography next year! Thus, cheap lenses are an easy source of education, especially if a small amount of cash is allotted to the hobby.

Unfortunately, many people suggest to buy expensive immediately, but to suggest that a beginner should immediately upgrade to an expensive lens is ludicrous as it will probably be an uniformed decision that can easily make the beginner unhappy, especially if they're still struggling with getting their kit lens to function.

So, for many experienced people, cheap lenses = growing pains, I suppose. Me, I'm perfectly happy with my cheap zooms and MF primes. On my 5D, my 50 f/1.8 easily became my most used lens because it offers great quality and a wide aperture. When I don't need AF, I'm sure my 50 f/1.4 will replace it soon enough.

joewoo wrote:
Yup I agree... There's an initial price to play... But you recoup most of it after selling... So the time you had the lens only costs the difference... And if you get a paid gig, then most of the time it's paid for by itself... Just buying any lens outright is really expensive... All of this crap is overpriced...

That's why when I say something is overrated, it's strictly about it's PERFORMANCE

This applies only if someone gets paid for their work or if someone wants to resell their stuff. In my opinion, reselling is a pain in the butt. I don't like it, thus I purchase things with the intent of keeping them for long periods of time.

Also, I'm not a "pro", nor intend to be one anytime soon. I photograph things for my enjoyment and sometimes as a volunteer for a local cat shelter. It's my hobby and I plan on keeping it as much for now as I'm perfectly happy with my current career.

Edited on Dec 22, 2009 at 07:04 PM · View previous versions

Dec 22, 2009 at 06:59 PM

droopy1592
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #15 · Most overrated Canon lens.

To me, A good example would be the 135mm f/2L. People seem to salivate over the lens 24/7 and 135L love threads pop up all the time. Meanwhile, the 85 f/1.8 and 100 f/2 are similar in design, cost far less and produce quality that is very similar (source), yet they fall to the wayside quite frequently (the 85 less-so than the 100) and are overlooked. As such, being "overrated" could merely be that there's a disproportionate amount of favoritism for one lens compared to other similar choices.

I've owned all 3 including the 85L II and while those other two are close the minute you get some sunlight in the picture it's a different story. Plus wide open the 85 f/1.8 and 100 f/2 just aren't anywhere near as sharp. I have wide open shots with the 135L where u can see threads within threads of clothing. It's not close.

Edited on Dec 22, 2009 at 07:24 PM · View previous versions

Dec 22, 2009 at 07:04 PM

kakomu
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #16 · Most overrated Canon lens.

droopy1592 wrote:
I've owned all 3 including the 85L II and while those other two are close the minute you get some sunlight in the picture it's a different story. Plus wide open the 85 f/1.8 and 100 f/2 just aren't anywhere near as sharp. I have wide open shots with the 135L where u can see threads within threads of clothing. It's not close.

So, basically, it's your word against the review's word?

Edited on Dec 22, 2009 at 07:07 PM · View previous versions

Dec 22, 2009 at 07:06 PM

joewoo
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #17 · Most overrated Canon lens.

Yes, the 135 is a freak of a lens kakomu... Take it back!

Dec 22, 2009 at 07:07 PM

kakomu
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #18 · Most overrated Canon lens.

joewoo wrote:
Yes, the 135 is a freak of a lens kakomu... Take it back!

Take what back? I'm not even sure what I said that offended people.

Dec 22, 2009 at 07:08 PM

saaketham
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #19 · Most overrated Canon lens.

kakomu wrote:Unfortunately, many people suggest to buy expensive immediately, but to suggest that a beginner should immediately upgrade to an expensive lens is ludicrous as it will probably be an uniformed decision that can easily make the beginner unhappy, especially if they're still struggling with getting their kit lens to function.

I agree. I didn't follow that advice either. And none of my friends listen when I tell them the same thing either.

It's always learned first-hand at the expense of a lot of $ buying and selling cheap gear and wondering why the IQ is so bad.

You're right .. it's something everyone has to go through, I suppose.

Dec 22, 2009 at 07:08 PM

joewoo
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #20 · Most overrated Canon lens.

I'm just messin!

Dec 22, 2009 at 07:11 PM

kakomu
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #21 · Most overrated Canon lens.

saaketham wrote:
kakomu wrote:Unfortunately, many people suggest to buy expensive immediately, but to suggest that a beginner should immediately upgrade to an expensive lens is ludicrous as it will probably be an uniformed decision that can easily make the beginner unhappy, especially if they're still struggling with getting their kit lens to function.

I agree. I didn't follow that advice either. And none of my friends listen when I tell them the same thing either.

It's always learned first-hand at the expense of a lot of $ buying and selling cheap gear and wondering why the IQ is so bad.

You're right .. it's something everyone has to go through, I suppose.

I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that the IQ is bad on most kit and cheap lenses. They certainly suffer their share of flaws (spherical aberrations, chromatic aberrations, softness, etc), but most lenses still perform quite well in the right hands. The ease of getting good quality from cheap equipment may be quite low, but you can still get good pictures out of cheap equipment.

I'm of the opinion that most bad pictures tend to come from a lack of experience. There are plenty of bad pictures that stem from using the wrong equipment (slow lenses in low light without a tripod or flash, for instance), but bad pictures in favorable light are probably not from the kit. There are plenty of examples of great photos using old Rebels and the EF 75-300 f/4-5.6. Moreover, expensive equipment isn't going make an inexperienced photographer better.

I just think that cheap equipment gets a bad rap most of the time because it's more difficult to get good results from it.

Though, if you want really bad image quality, try the opteka 58mm screw-on lenses. Those are genuinely horrible.

Edited on Dec 22, 2009 at 07:17 PM · View previous versions

Dec 22, 2009 at 07:14 PM

gotak
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #22 · Most overrated Canon lens.

Pissing into the wind contest are overrated cause everyone ends up wet. And this thread's starting to feel like one.

Different people take photos of different things. What sit unused in a bag or where the features don't get used for one photog can be the thing that gets another person all excited. So I don't think there's a single lens listed that really are overrated. What's overrated is people telling others what they should think. I prefer to suggest some facts and leave it at that.

Dec 22, 2009 at 07:16 PM

Conner999
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #23 · Most overrated Canon lens.

135/2, 70-200/2.8

Dec 22, 2009 at 07:21 PM

mh2000
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #24 · Most overrated Canon lens.

at any common aperture, the 50/1.8 should meet or beat your 2 zooms at 50mm. Yes the 24-70L has some subtle imaging properties that are nicer than the 50... but it comes at a price, lack of speed and with a huge amount of added weight.

timbop wrote:
Have to agree that the 50/1.8 is way overrated optically - it can be sharp if you stop it down enough but there is a lot more to image quality than sharpness. For the very same reason I disagree with the 70-200/2.8IS being considered overrated - yes wide open it is a little soft but it is the most versatile portrait/wedding/event lens in the Canon lineup.

Dec 22, 2009 at 07:22 PM

sixby6ix
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #25 · Most overrated Canon lens.

I'm not sure why the 50mm f1.8 mk I hasn't been mentioned yet. Sure, the build of the mk II makes it feel like an L by comparison, but out of that context the mk I surely isn't worth the excessive price tag the used market demands.

Dec 22, 2009 at 07:24 PM


FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 … 9 10 end