The Zuiko 50/1.8 is nice enough, but I prefer images from the EF 50/1.8... sharper, better contrast... and let's face it, AF is nice. On my OM-1, I liked the Zuiko well enough, but not like it is a Leica or anything.
How can 50mm be "over-rated?" If the FL length works for you great, if not, not, but over-rated? It's just a FL. I guess I'd say the creative potential of super-wides is over-rated as well then... or f1.2 too... used in the wrong hands...
rhorta wrote:
Sure in the right hands the EF 50/1.8 will produce stunning results.
But I'd add that you can get the same and even better results from cheap old alternative MF lenses like the Zuiko 50/1.8 (with just a little extra work). The main merit of the "plastic fantastic" is its low price and AF, apart from that it is just run of the mill in 50mm land, imho (which is overrated anyway).
Breitling65 wrote:
Don't you like this Vers? All been started by you and one like you here on FM ...
Now your turn to say: "I don't get his English ..."
I see those English lessons are paying off, as in the ones your not taking which you should be.
M Vers wrote: I see those English lessons are paying off, as in the ones your not taking which you should be.
Well, in compare to you Vers I could speak in 4 different languages. Any of them having same meaning for word "assho.." as English just different letters or pronunciation, always keep this in your limited mind ... Or I might have to remind you time to time about
Breitling65 wrote:
Well, in compare to you Vers I could speak in 4 different languages. Any of them having same meaning for word "assho.." as English just different letters or pronunciation, always keep this in your limited mind ... Or I might have to remind you time to time about
...because you know I only speak but one langauge Your constant prodding and childish nonsense is tiresome--Again, your idiotic antics has gotten the best of you. Perhaps you should choose not to quote or converse with me from here on out. Happy Holidays
Actually, the main merit of the EF 50/1.8 is that it works on my Canon bodies and provides AF, auto-stop down and takes good photos... other than that it's a POS!
>>The main merit of the "plastic fantastic" is its low price and AF...
Well, yeah, the lens is very good, no two ways about it. However, one often finds it elevated to the best Canon made lens ever......not infrequently by those who have not used it at all (internet forum echo noise ), or used it little, or those folks who have a small base of comparison with other Canon's good lenses.
I don't think it is by accident that 300 f/2.8 IS is one of the highest turnaround supertelephoto lenses......at any one time on the B&S board there seems to be at least one minty 300 f/2.8 IS for sale. The reason for that is probably not in lack of performance. Most often I believe people find the 300mm FL to be either too long or too short. Furthermore, those that expect the lens to deliver "magic IQ" out of the box are often a bit disappointed too.
Well, yeah, the lens is very good, no two ways about it. However, one often finds it elevated to the best Canon made lens ever......not infrequently by those who have not used it at all (internet forum echo noise ), or used it little, or those folks who have a small base of comparison with other Canon's good lenses.
I don't think it is by accident that 300 f/2.8 IS is one of the highest turnaround supertelephoto lenses......at any one time on the B&S board there seems to be at least one minty 300 f/2.8 IS for sale. The reason for that is probably not in lack of performance. Most often I believe people find the 300mm FL to be either too long or too short. Furthermore, those that expect the lens to deliver "magic IQ" out of the box are often a bit disappointed too. ...Show more →
isnt it the th BOX that gives its..."Magical IQ"
I still don't understand people saying the 85L isn't sharp...get your copy checked. Mine, while slow to focus, is ultra sharp. Having that kind of DOF control is invaluable. I think my most overrated lens that I have owned was the nifty fifty. I really was not all that impressed, and my dissatisfaction with it grew after I picked up the Sigma 50/1.4 (that's a great lens if your copy is good).
Dec 25, 2009 at 11:41 AM
Jonathan Huynh Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
I've dropped into this thread a few times - it's interesting. But - honestly - I'd be hard pushed to nominate a most over-rated lens, from my own experience. I've found, when shopping for a lens - already having a fair idea what I want & need - that feedback on forums like this (esp. the review section) has thus far steered me away from any big disappointments - or at least I've bought with an awareness of the lens' points of weakness. I have avoided several that do have quite good - albeit contested - reputations though (like the 50L). I'm not sure that qualifies for "over-rated" however...
Its very nice but hardly something to go gaga over. The FL is just 'meh' - not wide enough and only tight enough if you want to crop. Might as well get a 24 or a 50 and call it a day.
All Canon lenses suck. Terrible. No good. I hate them ALL. I'd sooner shoot through the end of a coke bottle. They're all overrated. I only shoot Leica lenses that cost more than $6000, because I am a Leica man and I deserve only the most expensive all-metal barrel construction. I don't need AF because the only thing I do with my lenses is lie alone in my bed at night in complete darkness with my Summicrons and Noktons, turning the MF ring and feeling the Leica build quality of the bearings, like a fine Swiss watch movement. And in the daytime, I put my $6000 lens on my $8000 M9 and strut around South Central LA bragging about how I have the best camera money can buy, and how nothing else gives me the 3D look.
where did this weird anti-Leica thing come from? Their lenses are great, mostly way better than Canon lenses and very expensive... most people buy them to take photos with, maybe they aren't all brilliant, but ... most people buying Canon L-lenses are just techno-geeks who have recently been bitten by the digital bug and use all their new gear for taking snap-shots and performing worthless lens and focus tests...
mh2000 wrote:
where did this weird anti-Leica thing come from? Their lenses are great, mostly way better than Canon lenses and very expensive... most people buy them to take photos with, maybe they aren't all brilliant, but ... most people buying Canon L-lenses are just techno-geeks who have recently been bitten by the digital bug and use all their new gear for taking snap-shots and performing worthless lens and focus tests...
My Leica lenses take superb photos...
A little prodding and things can get ugly...
It is not like no snob ever bought Leica because of the "image" that goes with the brand.
Sure Leica has a special look, but that doesn't make its buyers superior in any kind of way...
I'm sorry that I have misjudged you, easy to correct though.
Its very nice but hardly something to go gaga over. The FL is just 'meh' - not wide enough and only tight enough if you want to crop. Might as well get a 24 or a 50 and call it a day.
+1
yes a nice lens, but not as good as you read here all the time
I see those English lessons are paying off, as in the ones your not taking which you should be.
Your constant prodding and childish nonsense is tiresome--Again, your idiotic antics has gotten the best of you. Perhaps you should choose not to quote or converse with me from here on out. Happy Holidays 