85L II I still have mine and will sell it as soon as a 70-200 f/2.8 IS II comes out.
70-200 f/2.8 IS - is not as sharp as the non- IS version and looks bad on croppers wide open, I don't care what anyone says. A new version is rumored.
50mm f/1.4 I still have mine but it's only good if you're looking for the dreamy look wide open, and even then some of the bokeh is funny.
If the 70-200 f2.8 IS II comes out I'll sell my 50 f/1.4, 85L II, and 70-200 f/4L IS and get the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and either the 50mm sigma or 30mm sigma, plus maybe the 10-22mm canon.
85L may not be the greatest but I didn't like the 2 copies of the 85mm f/1.8 I had. They were ok wide open but had a lot of purple fringing wide open, a lot more than the 85L even at 1.2
Geofn wrote:
The only Canon lens that I have ever been really dissappointed with was the 24-105L. Soft images, lots of distortion on the wide end, and the overall build quality just didn't seem up to the usual L quality. I sent it back after 3 days.
I think the quality varied widely on that model; I wasn't thrilled with mine either, but I've seen examples from it which are stunning. The IS was very effective, though. I may give it another shot one day.
The 85L isn't overrated, IMO, just overpriced. If you want to take pictures in the dark, it's hard to beat. I've never experienced the focus difficulty that's been mentioned; in fact, it's my most reliable focuser in darkness.
Beni wrote:
70-200 f4L IS, had it, really not prime sharp or prime bokeh. Nice IS and that's about it compared to the old one which I also owned.
You must have had a bad copy . I sold my 200mm f/2.8L prime which was Very Sharp because while testing it the 70-200mm f/4L IS was as sharp plus more versatile...... http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc150/blackies_owner/RSRS9713_edited-3copy.jpg
Most overrated 70-200 2.8 IS.... It only has conveniency going for it... Two copies at 200 wide open is only decently sharp... Not up to L caliber...
50 1.8 on a 1ds mkii showed me what crap is... Talk about stopped down all you want... I felt a little dirty ever since mounting that...
The 85 1.2 shouldn't be on the list and anyone that mentions it's speed knew that before they bought it... It's a specialized lens and it accels at what it does...
Canon 100 mm f2.8 macro L IS and 85 1.2 L lenses. Good ones, but fully overpriced and still very similar to their feasible EF counterparts.
I completely disagree about the 100 mm f2.8L IS macro. I owned both the 100 f2.8 USM macro and the 100mm f2. I used the macro for macro and f2 as a low light, short telephoto.
The 100 f2.8 USM macro may be the sharpest Canon lens I’ve ever owned, and the f2 was similar after being stopped down a little.
I replaced both for very little extra cost with the 100 f2.8 macro L IS. If it is possible, the IS version seems sharper yet. And it clearly has better contrast and color than the non IS version.
I could use IS in macro on jumpy little critters in a rainforest. But I bought it mainly as a low light short telephoto. I can get sharper handheld pictures with the IS at 1/5 sec, than I can get with the non IS at 1/100 sec. It is truly 4 stops and the difference is HUGE!
ALso, since I prefer to only own and use primes, until the 100 mm f2.8L IS macro, the only prime with IS shorter than 300mm is the $5300 200mm f2.
For me, the 100 mm f2.8L IS macro is worth every penny of its extra cost, over the previous two lenses.
this ought to be fun to watch. One thing I will guarantee you is that there will be NO consensus whatsoever. What is overrated to one person is not to the other and vice versa.
200mm F2.0L IS - Huge price tag for not as usefull focal to me. Will never buy!
85L mk II - Size/weight/price/slow AF. Sold!
14L mk II - Huge price tag, limited use as ultra wide prime. Will never buy!
70-200 F2.8L IS - expensive, not as sharp, heavy and big. Sold!
180L - expensive, heavy/big. Sold with big lost $ since not as popular.
Breitling65 wrote:
Overrated? Yes, some L's I could put on list too
200mm F2.0L IS - Huge price tag for not as usefull focal to me. Will never buy!
85L mk II - Size/weight/price/slow AF. Sold!
14L mk II - Huge price tag, limited use as ultra wide prime. Will never buy!
70-200 F2.8L IS - expensive, not as sharp, heavy and big. Sold!
180L - expensive, heavy/big. Sold with big lost $ since not as popular.
Agree with the 14 L but got to be also in agreement on the 180 L wich I bought for around 800 euros second hand. Love the lens and it IQ capabilities but yes, it is a very ugly one to dance with if wanting to sell it.
the other ones I would leave it as:
200--great photo portrait hunter. Head portraits in low light while not being seen.
85L Mk 2-- great in church for me when weddings are around
70-200 F2.8 IS--I find very expensive to pay 400 or more for IS so I agree.
I don't get how price seems to be a factor in something being overrated.. To me, overated means that lots of people talk nothing but good things about a certain object but turns out that it's performance is not all that... like saying a certain football team is overrated... Never mention of price... Strictly performance...
Have to agree that the 50/1.8 is way overrated optically - it can be sharp if you stop it down enough but there is a lot more to image quality than sharpness. For the very same reason I disagree with the 70-200/2.8IS being considered overrated - yes wide open it is a little soft but it is the most versatile portrait/wedding/event lens in the Canon lineup.
AaronNegro wrote:
Agree with the 14 L but got to be also in agreement on the 180 L wich I bought for around 800 euros second hand. Love the lens and it IQ capabilities but yes, it is a very ugly one to dance with if wanting to sell it.
the other ones I would leave it as:
200--great photo portrait hunter. Head portraits in low light while not being seen.
85L Mk 2-- great in church for me when weddings are around
70-200 F2.8 IS--I find very expensive to pay 400 or more for IS so I agree.
They are all great as any L's, but overrated as been asked in post.
joewoo wrote:
I don't get how price seems to be a factor in something being overrated.. To me, overated means that lots of people talk nothing but good things about a certain object but turns out that it's performance is not all that... like saying a certain football team is overrated... Never mention of price... Strictly performance...
Your definition of overrated is a little too extreme. Rather, a lens can also be overrated if it's considered the pinnacle of some area of photography, where other options exist that are similar in quality.
A good example would be the 135mm f/2L. People seem to salivate over the lens 24/7 and 135L love threads pop up all the time. Meanwhile, the 85 f/1.8 and 100 f/2 are similar in design, cost far less and produce quality that is very similar (source), yet they fall to the wayside quite frequently (the 85 less-so than the 100) and are overlooked. As such, being "overrated" could merely be that there's a disproportionate amount of favoritism for one lens compared to other similar choices.
Over-Priced ...
- Canon 500mm f/4 and 600mm f/4 .. since I'm looking for one
- Canon 85mm f/1.2 ... maybe around $1000 for a prime would be a better price, considering it's AF speed, weight and bulk
Hype
- Canon 50mm f/1.8 .. why's everyone so gung-ho about this one? I used mine for a few days and sold it and don't miss it at all
saaketham wrote:
- Canon 50mm f/1.8 .. why's everyone so gung-ho about this one?
Considering the amount of money you've spent on your current set of lenses, plus the amount of money you may drop on future lenses (500mm and 600mm), I'm not quite sure you can appreciate the price to quality ratio of the 50 f/1.8. For someone who spends about 1/2 the price of your 70-200 f/2.8L on their entire kit, the 50 f/1.8 is quite a bit more appreciable.
I agree about the price to quality ratio ... but not enough to hype this lens as a "must-have" lens. I've seen this term used quite often, about the 50 f/1.8. Guess its a good one for really low-light. I'd rather use the 85 f/1.8 though .. beautiful portrait lens for a cheap price.
you had me going until the blasphemy about the 135...
kakomu wrote:
Your definition of overrated is a little too extreme. Rather, a lens can also be overrated if it's considered the pinnacle of some area of photography, where other options exist that are similar in quality.
A good example would be the 135mm f/2L. People seem to salivate over the lens 24/7 and 135L love threads pop up all the time. Meanwhile, the 85 f/1.8 and 100 f/2 are similar in design, cost far less and produce quality that is very similar (source), yet they fall to the wayside quite frequently (the 85 less-so than the 100) and are overlooked. As such, being "overrated" could merely be that there's a disproportionate amount of favoritism for one lens compared to other similar choices....Show more →
this ought to be fun to watch. One thing I will guarantee you is that there will be NO consensus whatsoever. What is overrated to one person is not to the other and vice versa.