I vote for the EF 50/1.8 II. So what if it's only $100? It 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.
Now as for the EF 100/2.8L macro IS, I can't say it's the best value for the money, but it is hardly "most overrated." I regularly get amazing shots with this lens, and with the 1-2 stop image stabilization, at macro distances, I can use it in ways I couldn't with the 100/2.8 macro. I do agree that the corner CA could be better controlled for a lens in its price range, but in practice, it does not show up in my shots.
EF-S 10-22mm, I followed the hype and bought it - the most expensive paperweight ever!
EDIT: after veiwing the pictures on the PC they look OK, not great but OK - its not quite a paper weight but for £600 I expect a bit more! The 40D's screen takes some of the blame for the paper weight comment...
digitalbug30d wrote:
any M/F lenses on a A/F body....Zeiss come to mind
Hey that doesn't count (although I kinda want it to)... the thread title is "Most overrated Canon lens," which I took to mean Canon-brand...as opposed to EF mount. In which case, I could think of at least one ZE lens that doesn't really impress me.
Hey that doesn't count (although I kinda want it to)... the thread title is "Most overrated Canon lens," which I took to mean Canon-brand...as opposed to EF mount. In which case, I could think of at least one ZE lens that doesn't really impress me.
oh before someone chimes in...
oh its the bokeh
oh its got that look to it
oh that quality glass legendary
200/1.8L - A nice lens but nowhere near worth what it sells for. The 200/2 is better in every way.
I disagree with the 85/1.2L - that is a rock-star go-to lens for the Canon system. It's a reason people switch to Canon. Imagine if those were no longer made! The price would rocket to $3-4k easily. No one else has anything even close, really. An 85/1.2L mk1 is a great deal on the used market, certainly more so than many other Canon lenses.
Ed Sawyer wrote:
200/1.8L - A nice lens but nowhere near worth what it sells for. The 200/2 is better in every way.
I disagree with the 85/1.2L - that is a rock-star go-to lens for the Canon system. It's a reason people switch to Canon. Imagine if those were no longer made! The price would rocket to $3-4k easily. No one else has anything even close, really. An 85/1.2L mk1 is a great deal on the used market, certainly more so than many other Canon lenses.
-Ed
bump the ISO up one stop and get the 600.00 200mm f2.8L
"I vote for the EF 50/1.8 II. So what if it's only $100? It 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."
digitalbug30d wrote:
oh before someone chimes in...
oh its the bokeh
oh its got that look to it
oh that quality glass legendary
Wow, someone on the ALT forums make fun of you or something? Quite a chip on those shoulders.
On topic, I would have to say the 50/1.8 also. Its great, optically, but it seems to fall apart very easily. I'd rather not have to worry about gently taking off my lens cap just so I don't pull the front element off.
bluetsunami wrote:
Wow, someone on the ALT forums make fun of you or something? Quite a chip on those shoulders.
On topic, I would have to say the 50/1.8 also. Its great, optically, but it seems to fall apart very easily. I'd rather not have to worry about gently taking off my lens cap just so I don't pull the front element off.
I did do a
David Baldwin wrote:
"I vote for the EF 50/1.8 II. So what if it's only $100? It 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."
+97
Am hoping for the release of the EF 50mm/1.8 Mk 3
I wish canon would do this
I'd also vote for the 85/1.2. When I decided to drop $1700 on mine I had noticed that most people who had it were actually putting it up for sale so I thought I would jump on it. I got the beauty of a lens and played with it for a while and shot a corporate gig with it and realized it wasn't any better than my trusty 70-200/2.8 in a well lit condition. I used it for a couple creative shots in the dark and realized I didn't care much for it and I couldn't keep a 1700 hunk of collectors glass sitting around in my house. I sold it a month later.
Things I didn't like about it:
Fly-by-wire manual focusing
Slow, but useable AF speed
Emptied my wallet for a week
Hype
The 50/1.8 gets my first vote...It's good optically (NOT great), but it feels like crap! It can only be described as, "A good lens" if you add the final part, "for the money".
My second vote goes to the 1200/5.6...It was always a 'show-piece' lens from the very beginning. Originally made for the 1984 Olympics so Canon could say, "See what we can do!" Most impractical lens ever made...and I'm so tired of the semi-annual threads that pop up titled, "WOW, look at this lens!"
I'll second the 85 1.2. I also had one for about two months and sold it because I could not STAND how slow it focused, couldn't focus in low light, and the fly by wire manual focus. The Mark II is noticeably quicker, but still nothing great. To me it's a studio only lens.
Why +97? That is a very curious number to choose...
I hope I can be forgiven for not holding my breath on a Mark III. This lens is basically the same FD design from about 3 decades ago. It's like the optical equivalent of women's shoulder pads--not necessarily inappropriate or useless, but long since out of style. Canon hasn't shown any inclination to change the formula for this long...what's a few more decades in the scheme of things? Especially when people keep snapping them up like candy...
omarlyn wrote:
My second vote goes to the 1200/5.6...It was always a 'show-piece' lens from the very beginning. Originally made for the 1984 Olympics so Canon could say, "See what we can do!" Most impractical lens ever made...and I'm so tired of the semi-annual threads that pop up titled, "WOW, look at this lens!"
Yeah, but if they sold it for $3000 I'm sure you wouldn't mind picking one up?
Why +97? 