I think it's really interesting that in this thread I started out getting slammed for sticking up for the lowly EF 50/1.8 and then end up being slammed for being a Leica snob.
And if you are blind to it, there is just as much L-snobbery floating around here as there is BMW, Leica and Zeiss snobbery... just open up your eyes.
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."
mh2000 wrote:
I think it's really interesting that in this thread I started out getting slammed for sticking up for the lowly EF 50/1.8 and then end up being slammed for being a Leica snob.
And if you are blind to it, there is just as much L-snobbery floating around here as there is BMW, Leica and Zeiss snobbery... just open up your eyes.
Yes, "L-snobbery" exists but that doesn't mean saying the 50/1.8 is not as sharp as L primes implies one is an "L-snob."
Let's put the 50/1.8 assessment another way. It's $100 for a plastic lens--i.e., plastic mount and plastic internal gearing. It has no USM. It won't stand up to wear and tear. Is that $100 really all that cheap anymore? I'd much rather put that money toward a $350 85/1.8 that has a metal mount, USM, and it's sharper with more pleasing bokeh all around.
What people have to understand is that there's a danger to buying at the very lowest end because there's a point where so many corners are cut that you just can't rely on the product. People say such a product would be "disposable" but that $100 isn't really disposable--it could have been used toward something that would last you a lot longer had you bought the better quality to begin with. I've been curious about netbooks, for example, but the super-cheap ones just don't provide enough value for me for me to "dispose" of the relatively small amount of money to buy them. $200 is still $200 I could have used toward an $800 laptop. I'd rather buy more expensive and have something that lasts me a while, than something super-cheap that breaks in a year.
I have shot with one Leica user ever (personally), and he was great. I have trouble saying that If X then Y when it comes to brand preference. I got such a kick out of the great images he was turning out of his tiny Leica, made me want to look harder at M4/3rds as a companion to my DSLR kit.
well... both my cheap EF 50 I & II have lasted longer and worked more reliably than my EF 50/1.4 did. Yes, the 85/1.8 and 100/2 are nicer lenses, but they are not 50mm lenses, so comparing them is meaningless. The 50L has focus issues in some ranges that can effect the usefulness for *some* people (not going there). The reason Leica came into this in the first place (I think) is that someone made the statement that "only people who have never used an L-prime could be satisfied with the 50/1.8." (Note the L-snobbery there!). Nearly everyone will agree that all Leica 50's are better than Canon 50's at any common aperture (whether they are worth the money is an entirely different matter). I can shoot my 50/1.8's and my Summircon... and am happy with both (even recognizing that the Summicron is by far a better lens)...
Both the EF 50/1.8 and the EF 50/1.4 are somewhat unreliable products... but aside from the 50L "specialty lens" that's all Canon is offering us for a fast 50. If you chose a lens based on FL (which I think you really should be, not using the wrong FL because you like the cosmetics and BQ of a different FL lens) you have to work with what is made available to you.
My EF 50/1.8 MKI had "plastic gearing" too and lasted 20 years (actually it is more a filiment belt friction device more than a geared device). The main mode of failure of the EF 50/1.8 MKII is from a hard impact to the protruding lens block. If you can avoid damaging your lens in this manner these things are actually pretty reliable. Going out with 2 50/1.8's would be much safer from a reliablity stand point than going out with just one 50/1.4 IMO... though I'm sure that if the 50L focuses for your usage then it would be by far more reliable than the non-L option.
IMHO reviews of lenses, and in general for that matter, are horribly overrated, not the lenses themselves. Who can decide the net value of a lens but you yourself using the lens for your own purposes (photographing, bragging, collecting, Lens Graal hunting)?
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:
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."...Show more →
... but let's leave it at this... in this forum, only those shooting Canon L lenses can appreciate quality optics. If you aren't shooting a select few Canon L primes you should just sit down and shut up. Canon is photographic god... and those that have found the truth can only shoot with these... long worship the "holy trinity!"
dragonfly5 wrote:
In defense of the 17-40 f4L - I don't think it is one of those lenses that people feel strongly enough about. You do not hear people speaking about this lens like they do about the 851.2, or the 135L. There are likely sharper lenses out there - but it is a great workhorse lens at almost half the price of the 16-35 and essentially every bit as sharp. It is a solid lens, on my camera most of the time that I'll actually making money with it and has no pretensions of being so great as to be potentially overrated....Show more →
This is a great lens.....I use it regularly with a 40D in the studio and models love the results...as do I. Anyone who has a bad experience with this lens mus have a defective one!
mh2000 wrote:
The main mode of failure of the EF 50/1.8 MKII is from a hard impact to the protruding lens block. If you can avoid damaging your lens in this manner these things are actually pretty reliable.
I've done this a few times unfortunately. I found that as long as I didnt' lose the little plastic hooks that snapped off, I could superglue the whole thing back together
I keep a rubber hood on my 50/1.8 MKII and think that the rubber absorbs small impacts really well... maybe that's why I haven't broken mine... the expensive dedicated hood and adaptor look like they make a direct load path to breaking the lens (unlike most hoods).
Dawei Ye wrote:
I've done this a few times unfortunately. I found that as long as I didnt' loose the little plastic hooks that snapped off, I could superglue the whole thing back together
Ed Sawyer wrote:
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
+1 Ed. Exactly right. The 85 1.2L is a reason for people to go to Canon instead of Nikon.
Sure, it's a portrait lens, but a very unique one. Anyway, this is photography, so to disparage a lens down as a "portrait lens" is quite absurd.
I simply cannot see $2.5k worth of IQ compared to the equally capable f1.8 version.
Infact, I can't tell images apart from thse 2 lenses.
The difference is pretty vast when both are shot wide open
But the 1.8 is the real sleeper in Canon's lineup, even more bang for your buck than the 50 1.8 IMHO. L quality in non-L (but plenty substantial) build.
So flame me, I´m human! 