let's see... this really got started with the comment, "[the EF 50/1.8 II] feels every bit as cheap as it is, and for people saying how sharp it is...well, clearly they've not shot with an L prime." The L-snobbery runs so deeply in this forum that it is no better than a Leica User Group...
rhorta wrote:
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.
+1000 I think 35mm on FF is the worst compromise length... not wide enough to really be wide and not long enough to be used to isolate most subjects without getting an annoying perspective... but I fall into the 50mm side of the decades long 35mm vs. 50mm debate.
>>[re: 35mm] The FL is just 'meh' - not wide enough and only tight enough if you want to crop.
Speaking of weird... "most people buying Canon L -lenses are just techno geeks?" Say what?
Or maybe your ironic sense of humor is just too subtle for me... ;-)
Dan
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...
mh2000 wrote:
+1000 I think 35mm on FF is the worst compromise length... not wide enough to really be wide and not long enough to be used to isolate most subjects without getting an annoying perspective... but I fall into the 50mm side of the decades long 35mm vs. 50mm debate.
>>[re: 35mm] The FL is just 'meh' - not wide enough and only tight enough if you want to crop.
Incredible ( upon you guys ) ....
I actually voted few pages back that the 35L is overrated for its sharpness. It is not sharp at all. period. However, the 35mm field of view on FF is very insightful. It is talkative or chatty like ladies. You've gotta compose a frame that has multiple stories.
mh2000 wrote:
+1000 I think 35mm on FF is the worst compromise length... not wide enough to really be wide and not long enough to be used to isolate most subjects without getting an annoying perspective... but I fall into the 50mm side of the decades long 35mm vs. 50mm debate.
>>[re: 35mm] The FL is just 'meh' - not wide enough and only tight enough if you want to crop.
interestingly back in the film days i shot with a 35-70 for a while and found that almost none of my photos were at 50mm, the worst focal length for FF , 50mm was never remotely wide enough nor remotely long enough (to be fair though, 35mm sometimes wasn't wide enough, nor 70 long enough either)
anyway i'd strongly shoot 35mm over 50mm if forced to use only one of those two lenses on FF, sorry to hear that you fall on the wrong side of the debate
mh2000 wrote:
+1000 I think 35mm on FF is the worst compromise length... not wide enough to really be wide and not long enough to be used to isolate most subjects without getting an annoying perspective... but I fall into the 50mm side of the decades long 35mm vs. 50mm debate.
>>[re: 35mm] The FL is just 'meh' - not wide enough and only tight enough if you want to crop.
Jeez, we've heard what you approve of and what you disagree with, so we should just end the thread, is that right?
Personally, I like the 35mm FL, and find it more interesting than the 50mm in some cases, but again, it's all what you want and need at any particular time. One of my favorite shots (not my image) was taken with a 50mm f/1.4. I've just seen the image printed large, in B&W, and it's stunning (Canon thought so too BTW).
There's no good/bad FL, there's only the opportunity and skill to use it.
huh? Posts are going both ways on FL and you are slamming me for joining in? ...but I guess you've countered my oppinion and we should leave it at that.
...so you are really saying is, "we've heard what YOU approve of and what you disagree with, so we should just end the thread, is that right?"
jamesf99 wrote:
Jeez, we've heard what you approve of and what you disagree with, so we should just end the thread, is that right?
Personally, I like the 35mm FL, and find it more interesting than the 50mm in some cases, but again, it's all what you want and need at any particular time. One of my favorite shots (not my image) was taken with a 50mm f/1.4. I've just seen the image printed large, in B&W, and it's stunning (Canon thought so too BTW).
There's no good/bad FL, there's only the opportunity and skill to use it.
mh2000 wrote:
huh? Posts are going both ways on FL and you are slamming me for joining in? ...but I guess you've countered my oppinion and we should leave it at that.
...so you are really saying is, "we've heard what YOU approve of and what you disagree with, so we should just end the thread, is that right?"
No, that's not what I'm saying. This thread was originally about overrated lenses but now we're talking about FL I guess. My point is that any FL can be perfect; it all depends on vision, situation, opportunity, knowledge, and skill.
The most overrated Canon lens is the lens you never use. There's are plenty of nice lenses at different FL the some use all the time and some don't or can't use at all. A 10-22 or 16-35 is pointless for wildlife photogs and birding but great for landscape and automotive. And a landscape shooter or wedding photog would have no use for a 500mm+ lens. But I bet the lenses are great, sharp and does what it needs to
