mh2000
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.10 #3 · Most overrated Canon lens. | |
groan...
I mentioned a Leica Summicron as my "reference point" for sharpness... I don't need to shoot a long L lens to see "what is *really* sharp." (I don't like long lenses anyway)
wickerprints wrote:
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...
mh2000 wrote:
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...
These are your ridiculous statements. Alleging that L lenses are mostly bought by techno-geeks without providing supporting evidence, and then saying that my statement that L primes are sharper than the 50/1.8 II implies "L-snobbery," when it is a statement of fact...well, let's just say that you have a habit of sticking your foot in your mouth.
FWIW, there are plenty of L lenses that I think don't perform particularly well; the 50/1.2L is one such example. I mean, why design a lens that is clearly meant to be shot from f/1.2-f/2, but be afflicted with focus shift issues and softness at these apertures? Canon could do better (and some people would say they actually DID do better with the 50/1.0L). I'm also not a huge fan of the 16-35/2.8L II, or the 24-105/4L IS, or the 70-200/2.8L IS, despite the fact that I own the latter two. They're not quite "overrated," but they're not particularly impressive performance-wise, either. They're good for zooms, to be sure. But I definitely prefer what I can get out of the primes.
My statement about the 50/1.8 is meant to convey the idea that if you don't have a reference point for what is *really* sharp, then you can't really say that any lens is truly sharp. If the same people who say the 50/1.8 is "sharp" saw the results of, say, a 200/2L IS or 300/2.8L IS shot wide open, then they'll really see what a lens is capable of in terms of resolving power. Is it an obvious statement? Sure. Is it fair to compare a $100 lens against a $4500 lens? No, but that was never the point of my statement, neither was it about L versus non-L. It is about having an understanding of just how well *any* lens is able to perform--having a baseline reference of what is possible, and using that as a standard for what is "sharp."
|
So flame me, I´m human! 
