p.3 #2 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
philber wrote:
Sony-Zeiss 24mm f:1.8. I really expected that lens to be my workhorse on my NEX 5N, a trifecta of a lens. It is my favorite focal length, it would have been my lens for low light, and my high-quality AF lens. So I really lusted for it, yearned for it, coveted it. And without any worry, for I had previously bought every Zeiss lens I tried!
What a letdown. I finally met a Zeiss lens I neither liked enough nor bought, and it happened to be the one that was going to give me the greatest mileage!
Technically, it is not a bad lens, far from it, and others have bought it and are delighted with it. Simply, when I compared it with other alts, admittedly among the better regarded ones, it didn't measure up. I was so disappointed that I tried a second copy, hoping that I had been sold a bad apple. But no, the second copy was more of the same....Show more →
I had it in my cart, three times now...and every time I keep looking a samples, then the price tag...then I can't buy it.
It will be really interesting to see what alt opinion is on this lens. I positioned at dpreview that it didn't look so special and was brandished a troll in seconds.
p.3 #3 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
C/Y 28/2.8 on 5D
This may surprise many, but I was major disappointed with this lens in its lack of sharpness at the edges and corners, close or far. Yes, the sharpness improved when stopped down, but at f/8 and smaller? The light bulb went on when I got the Leica R 28 Elmarit II. Sharp corner to corner wide open.
p.3 #4 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
h00ligan wrote:
I had it in my cart, three times now...and every time I keep looking a samples, then the price tag...then I can't buy it.
It will be really interesting to see what alt opinion is on this lens. I positioned at dpreview that it didn't look so special and was brandished a troll in seconds.
i'm in the same boat. it looks like a solid lens, but nothing special, plus it's autofocus.
i need to find some place that will let me test it out before i buy.
p.3 #5 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
My Sony-Zeiss 24 f1.8 should arrive here Saturday, so in a few days I should have something to post. I am worried that the AF will get in the way. We'll see...
p.3 #6 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
I've been wanting the new Sigma 120-300 2.8 OS since it was introduced earlier this year. Luckly, LensRentals got a batch in and I had the opportuninty to "try" before "buying". 1st one came, got to the soccer field and shot a whole match. Almost no keepers, it just would not properly focus, even though it told you it was. LensRentals was very understanding. I sent it back at no charge, waited a bit to get some feedback from a couple of others they had out on rent during which they confirmed the lens was faulty. Tried the 2nd one and the best I could get was a reasonably sharp shot at 240mm, other ranges were all worse. The lens' range is perfect for how I shoot soccer and I really wanted this to be "the one".
p.3 #7 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
sebboh wrote:
i'm in the same boat. it looks like a solid lens, but nothing special, plus it's autofocus.
.
Solid but nothing special it ain't IMHO. That, I would have bought in a flash. Problem is an unfortunate colour palette, something like a dark gray could cover, giving the impression that the lens underexposes. And MTF cognoscenti tell me that this lens is optimized for wide open up close, which I never shoot, as opposed to stopped down infinity. When I showed the comparative shots, snowboarder thought the kit lens was actually better.
p.3 #8 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
telyt wrote:
My experience with the FD 400mm f/2.8 L reminded me that expectations and how well they're met are heavily dependant on the user's past experience. Until I used that lens I didn't understand the appeal of high-saturation films like Velvia. Neither did I understand the appeal of AF and IS; the ergonomic design of that lens pretty much requried electronic help. I'm accustomed to lenses that are close to diffraction-limited at full aperture, don't produce muddy colors, and are easy to use manually.
I recognize that a sample size of one isn't enough to paint with a broad brush but after using that lens my prejudice is that the hype that seems to be accepted about Canon "L" lenses is just that: hype....Show more →
I have heard that the FD 400 2.8 and the first EF 400 2.8 are the same optically, or very similar. I bought the EF version new in 1993 and used it for several years. During that time I became increasingly frustrated with its general lackluster quality and poor performance with teleconverters, compared to what a friend with the Nikon 400 2.8 was producing. And I later discovered that one of the elements appeared to have had a manufacturing defect on the surface that appeared as a huge scar in all images with out of focus specular lights... not sure if that had any influence on the overall image quality. The lens could be sharp if stopped down, but I bought it for 2.8, which was where it was mostly used and frequently exhibited an overall mushiness that didn't inspire. This lens is one of those that some love but many don't. Perhaps it's copy variation. But it doesn't have a stellar reputation among Canon users. Anyway, I managed to sell it to fund the upgrade to the Mark II non-IS version in 1997, which was optically much, much better.
Having been strictly a Canon user between the early 90s until 2010, my experience lies there, and other lenses that merit an 'honorable mention' include:
TS-E 45: Overall OK, but huge amounts of CA, which is difficult to clean up if the lens has been shifted, because the CA shift is not even throughout the image for normal software correction. I recall reading a manual fix that involved a fair amount of work in PS, but never tried it myself...
TS-E 24 (first version): Again, an OK lens, but not all that sharp and a fair amount of CA. But it served a purpose...
EF 20-35 f/2.8L, 17-35 f/2.8L, 16-35 f/2.8L I, 16-35 f/2.8L II: Maybe I've been unlucky with these? All have been pretty weak into the corners. The 20-35 developed a tilted plane of focus that was fixed, but recurred again a few times thereafter. The version II 16-35 should be decent because the CPS loaners while mine was in for service were pretty good, but despite repeated servicing by Canon, my copy persists with uneven sharpness across the field of view and very strong field curvature at the wide end... I think this was the 'last straw' that got me looking at options outside Canon and resulted in the addition of an M9 and a growing number of lenses. I still use the Canon gear, though most of my 50mm and wider work is with the Leica kit.
EF 50 f/1.2L: I thought it would be more like the 85L, so was initially disappointed. But, as I got to know it more, found that I actually preferred it over the 85L...
p.3 #11 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
Quick comment on Canon super-teles. Their unadjusted color rendition is dull as dishwater. No argument. This can be corrected to your precice liking in Lab colorspace.
This is why we have PP. Nobody does super-tele as well as Canon, IMO.
My disappointing lens was the Contax 18 f4. I could never get the corners to sharpen up. I got a few nice shots with it, so I didn't regret buying it. And I sold it for more than I paid for it. So I didn't regret selling it. I was just disappointed in it.
p.3 #13 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
davidearls wrote:
Quick comment on Canon super-teles. Their unadjusted color rendition is dull as dishwater. No argument. This can be corrected to your precice liking in Lab colorspace.
This is why we have PP. Nobody does super-tele as well as Canon, IMO.
"fixing" color in PP doesn't restore gradation. Try a Leica APO.
p.3 #16 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
philber wrote:
Solid but nothing special it ain't IMHO. That, I would have bought in a flash. Problem is an unfortunate colour palette, something like a dark gray could cover, giving the impression that the lens underexposes. And MTF cognoscenti tell me that this lens is optimized for wide open up close, which I never shoot, as opposed to stopped down infinity. When I showed the comparative shots, snowboarder thought the kit lens was actually better.
i got the same impression about it being optimized for close up and wide aperture, this isn't necessarily a bad thing for me as i would shoot it at wide aperture and short distance much more often than stopped down at infinity. it needs to be decent at infinity and f/5.6 for me though, and i'm not sure about that from samples. both that and color i'll need the raw files to judge myself. no rush though, i've survived this long with just my rokkor 24/2.8.
Jman13 wrote:
Rokkor 58/1.2. I owned 3, and none of them really impressed me. It was decent, but was very let down.
i'm surprised i don't hear more people complain about this lens (given it's hype), maybe the excitement about f/1.2 and the funky bokeh makes people forget their sharpness fetishes (or maybe they don't want to hurt resale value as they sell it). i can't think of one measurable lens property in which the rokkor king isn't bested by at least 3 other normal lenses in my bag. nevertheless, after owning it for only 8 months or so, it is almost certainly my favorite lens. it just draws beautifully when looking at the full image at any aperture. the magic goes away when i look at 100% crops (usually), but that's not the way i look at pictures. i'm afraid to cure it's yellowing because, you know, maybe that is part of it's magic. the wonderful build and feel of the lens doesn't hurt either.
p.3 #17 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
My disappointment is the CZ AS200 C/Y: not a cheap lens, and one with great promise based on the MTF. It certainly delivers on sharpness, build and color purity, but the letdown is background bokeh even worse than that of the P50/1.4. While that improves nicely when stopped down a couple of stops, that's not why one buys an f/2 supertele. This glass is superceded by the Apo-Summicron-R 180 and latest equivalents from Canikon.
p.3 #18 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
Canon 24-70L. Sent this one back to Canon, still inconsistent focusing. Sold it after buying a Tamron 28-75 which provided better IQ by f5.6, and consistent (but slower) focusing at a fraction of the cost/weight.
Loved the Zeiss 85/1.4 on film - but could never get it 'right' on a 5d, with adapter issues. 85/1.2L II much more useful (although longitudinal CA is sometimes annoying). 90/2 Summicron APO is stunning on the 5dII, so reluctantly sold the Zeiss.
Canon 70-200 f4 - just plain boring. Sold it and bought an L 2.8L/IS a year later - and it gets used. Contemplating the mark II.
Still working on this - f1 (last) Nocti. Need to get the M9 adjusted (lens has just been calibrated). Don't like focus shift - but I'm working on technique. Not ready to give up and sell it, nor willing to go ($$$) to f0.95.
And the absolute worst lens I own is an EOS 50/1.8. Useful as a magnifying loupe, that's about it.
