I have not done any statistical processing of all submissions, but it would appear that the venerable EF 135 f/2.0L USM is the top lens when it comes to exceeding its owners' expectations. Little wonder, I suppose !
And then there are the big bad boys: 200 1.8, 300 2.8, 400 2.8, etc...probably very high expectations in proportion to high price, and yet their owners keep getting enthralled by the performance of the superteles.
Lest we forget, there are EF non-L lenses out there that deliver a surprisingly (to some folks) huge bang for the buck, such as 50 1.8, 50-60-100 macro, 50 1.4 , etc.
The 70(80)-200 zooms often seem to surprise us very pleasantly. What a stallwart lens that is ! BTW, I wish I have been using mine more often !
And there are others......I am sorry if I failed to mention your favourite, but there are quite a few lenses that seem to deliver in spades..
In the end, I feel those are just about the nicest moments in photography when images we take-make turn out "special", much better than we expected, be that due to qualities of the lens/ camera used, special light of that moment, inspired composition/framing , or just plain old luck !
For me, the "unexpected" WOW factor came from the following:
85L -- my first prime. Totally blew me away. Turned me to a prime guy.
200/2.8 caught me off guard especially given the price.
TS-E 90 floored me -- unbelieveable sharpness (thanks rcmanoj)
MP-E 65 -- wasn't expecting anything special but ended up with that "special" feel.
I expected to be WOW'ed by the 200/1.8, 300/2.8 IS and 70-200 IS and they did not disappoint.
Edited by keeda on Feb 13, 2006 at 12:26 AM GMT (Reason: typo)
The first real wow experience I had was when I picked up a 400DO mounted to a 1D. I am sure you know the feeling: you reach for something that you instinctively know, and your muscles have "prepared" a certain level of force. Then however the object proves to be of completely different mass than expected. Well, that happened with the 400DO: I almost flung it in the air; I expected it to be much heavier. That moment I knew I must have that lens.
Optically, the 70-200LIS and the 35L had a wow effect on me. I owned the 135L and liked the quality, but I found it to have a focal length that I simply didn't need much, so I sold it.
trenchmonkey wrote: Sedalia636 are you using a filter?, neither of my 70-200's liked 'em one bit.
If not I'd think about returning it because it's a sick sharp sucker for most.
No filter being used. I have heard a lot of people say they don't help and actually hurt the images so I avoided putting one on it.
I took some photos with the lens and where I tried to focus looked as if it was out of focus. I shot a wooden fence and it was angled. The plank over from where I tried to focus looks in perfect focus and is sharp. This led me to question is it the camera, the lens, or my lack of good photography skills.
In the picture, the plank to the left is what I focused on and this is confirmed with the ZoomBrowser EX. The plank on the right looks in focos though.
I didn't do any post processing other than trim it to show this, and this is the JPEG version of the file. I also shot it in RAW at the same time.
If I decide to send it in to Canon, how do I contact them?
sedalia636
Try your 28-105 @ 70mm...same test. If the results are the same-it's your XT. If it
turns out to be the 70-200's fault I guess get on Canon's site and they'll have a #
to call or the info you'll need. If your in NJ or CA it might be worth the drive. Good
luck and I hope it's a simple fix...Will
Biggest wow was the 200 1.8L...though a close second was the first L I ever got - my old 70-200 4L. The first picture I looked at after getting the camera home the night I got it just blew me away. The colors, detail, saturation, everything that makes an L and L is what made me love the lens, and since that day I've had L fever...
Yes, I thought about making a similar comment... but some lenses do have a certain wow factor that you notice... it doesn't make it worth while to compromise your *vision* and shoot the wrong focal length lens, but it is nice when you get that plus an excellent photo.
mbwkrause wrote:
shouldn't it be the pictures, that make people say "wow" and not the lens
WOW for me was the 70-200 f4. At times I'm amazed how sharp it is and even without IS at 200mm you can get deadly sharp shots. This lens was one of my first "Ls" and it started the never ending quest of "What lens should I get next"
50mm f1.4 for sharpness. It might not be an L but man it is crisp.
24-70 2.8L Overall the best lens I have. It is so useful on the 20D. The speed and zoom range make it my most used lens now. It seems to have the highest resolving power of all of my lenses. There is something magical about the pictures it produces.
100-400 IS Well this my only lens with IS so I WOW at the fact that I can hand hold a 400mm lens on a crop camera at 125/s. The other thing is the zoom range. This may sound dumb or obvious, but it can be a 100mm, 200mm, 300mm, 400mm lens and everything inbetween in about 2seconds. It is so versatile and it is L glass.
17-40 f4 I WOW at how good it actually is for the money.
So to summarize I guess all of my lenses WOW me for different reasons, I think it is kind of easy to forget how great lenses are these days and while there are always going to be fantasy lenses like the 21mm distagons, 85L's, 200mm 1.8's, 400mm 2.8L's etc. at least there are lots of other lenses out there to WOW about.
Sedalia636 wrote:
No filter being used. I have heard a lot of people say they don't help and actually hurt the images so I avoided putting one on it.
I took some photos with the lens and where I tried to focus looked as if it was out of focus. I shot a wooden fence and it was angled. The plank over from where I tried to focus looks in perfect focus and is sharp. This led me to question is it the camera, the lens, or my lack of good photography skills.
In the picture, the plank to the left is what I focused on and this is confirmed with the ZoomBrowser EX. The plank on the right looks in focos though.
I didn't do any post processing other than trim it to show this, and this is the JPEG version of the file. I also shot it in RAW at the same time.
If I decide to send it in to Canon, how do I contact them?...Show more →
I'm having a similar problem with my 80-200 f2.8L. I did tests today on my 20D with most of my lenses (using a chart @ 45 degrees) and they all varied slightly (the 85 1.8 being the most accurate) but were pretty close, except for the 80-200 "Magic". It back-focuses consistantly unless it is at 200mm.
Don't know what to do at this point. Shots are hit and miss.
