Hey people, we're not talking about "what is the lens you hate the most" or "what is the worst-performing lens" or "what is your personal axe to grind." The topic was ostensibly "which Canon lens is most overrated."
And when I think about this, my answer really has to do with what I perceive to be the popular sentiment regarding the lens, compared to its actual performance and build quality. In short, does a given lens live up to its reputation?
Under this criterion, *any* lens has the potential to be overrated, even a good one. It's not a mark against the absolute performance, which could very well be superior to another lens. It's just that people seem to value it out of proportion to its actual abilities.
And that's why price comes into play. It is inevitable that people tend to use the price : performance ratio as a measure of overall value as opposed to the absolute performance. That's why the 50/1.8 gets accolades even though it really isn't that remarkable a lens. But a curious thing also happens at the other end of the price spectrum--very expensive lenses are sometimes overvalued in spite of their high price, and indeed, perhaps *because* of their high price (q.v. Veblen good). So it works both ways.
It's not like this poll has a single "right" answer. So much of it is subjective because everybody uses their own metric to define value, and then on top of that, some of us may have been burned by bad copies.
who said anything about f8? what about just f2? ok, if you aren't comparing the 50/1.8 to 35mm or 50mm L lenses then which ones are you saying we have to try to realize how aweful our photos from the 50/1.8 are? Are you saying that we should be shooting a 600mm lens to compare with the 50? 135L? I guess I don't get your point.
wickerprints wrote:
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.
wickerprints wrote:
Under this criterion, *any* lens has the potential to be overrated, even a good one. It's not a mark against the absolute performance, which could very well be superior to another lens. It's just that people seem to value it out of proportion to its actual abilities.
This is the point I was trying to make earlier about the comparison between the 85 f/1.8, 100 f/2 and 135 f/2. The 135 f/2 is almost 3x more expensive than the 85 f/1.8 and 100 f/2, but is it almost 3x better than either?
I thought the 100 USM macro was the most overrated lens around here (that I've owned)... nice quality lens, no doubt, but not the amazing unbelievable lens it gets touted as IMO (I really did prefer the 50CM).
I've owned 3 different copies of the 135/2 at various times and still own one. Build quality is good, autofocus is fast and sharpness is excellent, even on FF and wide open. However, I've always found it lacking in contrast to the point where, IMO, it's no better than average in that department. My 200/2.8, 300/4 non-IS, 60/2.8 and 17-55/2.8 all show much better microcontrast. Same story for all 3 copies of the 135/2 I've had.
If Canon were to update the coatings with 2010 technology (assuming this would improve contrast) and maybe add weather sealing at the same time, I think I'd be much more inclined not to feel that this lens was in some way overrated.
The 50 f/1.8 II is a POS but optically it is every bit as good as a L prime, and I have the 35L, 85LII and 200 f/2L IS to compare it against. The 50mm f/1.8 II is as good as the 200mm f/2.8L IS when at f/2.8, as are the other 2 lenses. Wide open on FF, the 50 f/1.8 II is as good as the 35L and a tad behind the 85LII
If you find that your 50 f/1.8 II is not good optically, it is because:
1. Sample Variation
2. User error
claiming a 50 1.8 II is good optically as an L prime is just silly. I know you are defending your beloved 50 1.8 II but you are way overboard
he has and uses all the L primes listed, what does he have to gain by saying the 50/1.8 is as good?
garycoleman wrote:
claiming a 50 1.8 II is good optically as an L prime is just silly. I know you are defending your beloved 50 1.8 II but you are way overboard
Whoever said that students shouldn't begin with a fast prime, when possible, must have never taught an average student.
In my experience, most students shoot indoor photos to start with. A fast lens is invaluable inside, especially if you don't have an external flash. I'm constantly told, by students, that they don't like the way their flash looks.
An an 18-55 kit lens will not teach a student much about depth of field, and the 5.6 aperture will do them no favors. It also has a tendancy to encourage kids to just "fill the frame with the subject" and put no thought towards composition.
We bought 10 of the 50mm f1.8, and my students were immediately getting better results, getting more creative with composition--and more importantly, they noticed it, too. They aren't nearly as frustrated as they were when they used the kit lens.
It isn't an amazing lens--the bokeh is nervous, and the pentagonal highlites can be ugly. But, in the end, a slightly soft photo at f1.8 is going to look a million times better than horribly blurred photo with the kit lens--or a photo that has harsh shadows everywhere and blown out highlites from the onboard flash.
135L - don't think its possible to overrate this lens. Its full aperture sharpness is astounding, and even photographing stars wide open I haven't noticed any CA even in the extreme corners. This is a Rolls Royce lens, the quality will be remembered long after the price is forgotten.
85mm f1.8 - very sharp, compact and affordable. Not as good as the 135L because the 85 does have noticeable colour fringing at full aperture, but the overall performance is wonderful particularly on portraits IMHO.
Canon 50mm lenses, the 50mm f1.4 is often unpleasant to use at f1.4, but from f2 onwards I loved it. Might pick up a new copy next year, or might try the Sigmalux.
In relation to the 50mm f1.8 maybe my copy is untypical, I don't know, I'm certainly not going to buy multiple copes to find out. I suspect it would be great on a crop as the center is very sharp. Sadly the corners with this lens on my 5D2 are clearly unsharp before f8, and only L sharp by f11, far far too late in the day in my opinion.
tanglefoot47 wrote:
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
mh2000 wrote:
at any common aperture, the 50/1.8 should meet or beat your 2 zooms at 50mm. Yes the 24-70L has some subtle imaging properties that are nicer than the 50... but it comes at a price, lack of speed and with a huge amount of added weight.
I have tried many copies I didn't say it was a bad lens for a f/4