So I will say I am glad nobody mentioned the 16-35. I have heard lots of people say "If I could do it again I'd get the 17-40 andf save the 800$." And then I have heard people say canon doesn't do great UW zooms and that the 17-40 isn't great either. The fact that nobody said the 16-35, which I may soon own, makes me a happy camper.
Travelinbri wrote:
The fact that nobody said the 16-35, which I may soon own, makes me a happy camper.
Spoke too soon.
IMO color contrast etc are all there on this lens, and some great results have been and qill always be produced with this lens, but with a scrutinizing eye (well, even a mildly alert one) the corners turn into mashed potatoes way too quickly for a lens of its price and hype.
Most MKI's are going for around $150... don't think that is so excessive. I'm fine with my MKII, but I'd consider getting a MKI if I actually broke my MKII. I've owned a MKI for years before selling it and it is much nicer and is known to be a more robust design than the MKII or the EF 50/1.4.
sixby6ix wrote:
I'm not sure why the 50mm f1.8 mk I hasn't been mentioned yet. Sure, the build of the mk II makes it feel like an L by comparison, but out of that context the mk I surely isn't worth the excessive price tag the used market demands.
Canongarcon wrote:
We have the topic of the most underrated Canon lens, let's go for the other side and look at the overrated Canon lens.
My nominations.
85mm 1.2 L.: Expensive, slow focusing. Mainly a one dimensional portrait lens.
EF-S 10-22mm. Expensive compared to 3rd party alternatives. Build quality is inconsistant.
24-105
convenient, very much
but kinda pricey for the optical quality (at least with many copies)
when it came out i seem to recall most though it very, very avg
once they started kitting them all of suddent people started saying stuff like "perhaps one of the sharpest zooms canon has ever made", "sharper than a knife"
50L 1.0 don't have it but everything i've seen implies worse IQ at any f-stop than any of the other 50mm's by anyone, although if you need 1.0 i guess it is not overrated since it does deliver that
perhaps the 17-40L in that for APS-C the tamron 17-50 is a little better overall and costs noticeably less, although so many seem to agree with this these days taht i'm not sure it can be called overrated anymore
i dont have the 85 1.2 but from everything i have seen it has exceptional performance so it seems odd to call it overrated
the 135 f/2 is pretty fine
maybe they are a bit specialized but they do a fantastic job at what they are supposed to do
Hands down a lens that sells for ALL the wrong reasons.
1) Brand name - the Tokina 11-16 is a MUCH BETTER lens in EVERY WAY, but there are still people out there that need to be convinced that they don't need to buy a Canon lens to get the best option out there... DUNCES
2) "Range" - Who the HELL cares about 17-22mm on an UWA, for God's sakes thats NOT what you got this lens for. Also, the concept of overlap is terrible too... especially when it comes at such a heavy price of lens speed.
3) Build - its NOT built that well. Yeah its nice, but its nothing special.
I'm tempted to reply by writing that you are all wet.
But I won't.
gotak wrote:
Pissing into the wind contest are overrated cause everyone ends up wet. And this thread's starting to feel like one.
Different people take photos of different things. What sit unused in a bag or where the features don't get used for one photog can be the thing that gets another person all excited. So I don't think there's a single lens listed that really are overrated. What's overrated is people telling others what they should think. I prefer to suggest some facts and leave it at that.
Sean Mills wrote:
Spoke too soon.
IMO color contrast etc are all there on this lens, and some great results have been and qill always be produced with this lens, but with a scrutinizing eye (well, even a mildly alert one) the corners turn into mashed potatoes way too quickly for a lens of its price and hype.
Whaaaaa....
I'm counting the hours until Fedex drops^Wdelivers it on my doorstep. Don't be cruel...
What else is there for wide angle zoom for Canon? Something for interior architecture? Zeiss primes?
abam wrote:
the 135/2 might has become overrated since the 100L and 70-200 F4IS are so stellar.
ymmv
I don't know I would never take a 70-200 4 IS over a 135 f/2 for the bokeh alone as a matter of fact the 4 IS is my least favorite lens of the 70-200'2s
nads wrote:
A hugely expensive plastic lens EF-S that takes itself far too seriously
A bit over-priced and bad construction as dust gets in easily. Still .. good IQ.
saaketham wrote:
A bit over-priced and bad construction as dust gets in easily. Still .. good IQ.
True... problem is that I got mine a couple years ago with the intention to make the move to FF. Since I'm still on a crop I'm finding the 17-55 to be superior to the 24-105 in almost every way.
If I ever manage to get a FF body, I'll revert to bashing the 17-55 and loving the 24-105.
mh2000 wrote:
What L prime? The 50/1.0 or 50/1.2? The 35L? They will not "trounce" the 50/1.8 for sharpness, especially stopped down a bit. Leica primes are generally a lot better than L-primes and the 50/1.8 stands up to them pretty well. Yes, the II is cheap feeling... but nothng that shows up in the your photos. It's a very decent cheap lens.
Agree that a III upgrade would be nice... or just go back to the MKI design would be fine.
>>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. ...Show more →
I'm not comparing 50/1.8 to any of the other 50mm lenses in Canon's lineup. Did I say "50mm L" or did I say "35mm L"? No.
Just about any lens is "reasonably sharp" when stopped down to f/8. That doesn't mean everybody ought to shoot at f/8 and use that as a basis for comparison.
droopy1592:
have wide open shots with the 135L where u can see threads within threads of clothing. It's not close.
It is not as clear cut as you are saying. 135 f/2.0 L wide opened is only marginally better than a good copy of 85 f/1.8. I did a lot of tests comparing 85 f/1.8, 135 f/2.0 L and 70-200 f/4.0 L IS and I ended up with 85 f/1.8 and the zoom.
kakomu wrote:
No good? I beg to differ. Even the photozone.de review begs to differ, which marginalizes the purple fringing and places the 85 f/1.8's quality at only half a star lower than the 135 f/2.
I took shots at a soccer game and a team had white and black jerseys. I couldn't process ANY of the shots from the 85 that were wide open. ANY. IT was if every jersey was made from chrome.
Put on the 135L and every wide open shot was great.
Maybe I just had the worst copy ever but looking through mixed images after using all 3 (was trying to decide between them) I ended up with the 135L.
