One of Canon's most overrated lenses has to be the 400mm 4.0 DO. The reviews are fair to awful, and the pictures I've seen posted from it just aren't sharp. I've seen a few fairly good images from it, but not many. The kicker is it costs almost $6000.00! When I compare this lens with the images I've seen (and reviews I've read) from the 400mm 5.6, there's no doubt which is the sharper lens. And the 5.6 costs about $1200.00.
Cadaver wrote:
One of Canon's most overrated lenses has to be the 400mm 4.0 DO. The reviews are fair to awful, and the pictures I've seen posted from it just aren't sharp. I've seen a few fairly good images from it, but not many. The kicker is it costs almost $6000.00! When I compare this lens with the images I've seen (and reviews I've read) from the 400mm 5.6, there's no doubt which is the sharper lens. And the 5.6 costs about $1200.00.
it should be called a 400mm Dont...
I thought it was a decent enough lens. Used it for many years with the EOS-A2. Highly touted as a great walkaround lens in the film SLR days.
Finally got around to trying out the Nikkor 28-105/3.5-4.5 a few years ago. Now that's a nice lens! Night and day difference with the Canon version. Better colors, better contrast, better sharpness. It is one of the few Canon-Nikon lens comparisons where I could see the difference.
Ok, I've been using one of the EF 50/1.8's for over 20 years and a lot of other lenses as well... aside from the sometimes annoying bokeh, my 50/1.8's produce prints that can be hung next to those made from the best lenses in the world... and they have. I never pulled out my 24-70L over the 50/1.8 because the IQ of the zoom was better, I pulled it out when I wanted to use a zoom.
I've only owned 2 50/1.8's, a MKI and MKII... maybe I just got lucky and they were both superb copies... but I've been happy with all my Canon lens purchases...
I'm not saying the 50/1.8 is a spectacular lens, but aside from BQ it holds its own against similar lenses... I don't think that is overrating it. I like it much better than the Oly 50/1.8... and samples I've seen from nikon and pentax f1.8 50's don't seem to blow it away.
I have shot Canon-L and Leica lenses for many years so I am far from a noobie... could be that I shoot primarily b&w and the lens works well for this... I don't know why we have such opposite experiences, especially compared to the 24-70L. I really liked the 24-70L, but it didn't make me think my 50/1.8 was producing crappy photos...
How are TS-E's overrated? My 45 and 90 are among my very favorite Canon lenses... just the most beautiful optics available IMO, especially the 90... and the new 17 & 24 are supposed to be supperb as well.
I don't know about overrated, but the two I was most disappointed with were the 85/1.8 and the 24-105L.
mh2000 wrote:
How are TS-E's overrated? My 45 and 90 are among my very favorite Canon lenses... just the most beautiful optics available IMO, especially the 90... and the new 17 & 24 are supposed to be supperb as well.
see... one hypothosis I have is people get the their feet wet with the 50/1.8 and then move on to more expensive lenses and attribute their own improvement with the more expensive lenses... can't say if it pertains to you... but I'm sure it does for more people than they are willing to admit.
Also, I've never heard anyone "overrating" the BQ of the MKII... everyone will tell you it feels like a POS... but if you are looking at prints, if you can't take world class photos with it then you clearly are not a world class photographer... and no L-lens will make you into one either.
MTBtrials wrote:
I dunno. Good question.
the 50 f/1.8 would have to take it for me... but then again, if it wasn't for that lens I wouldn't have gotten into primes.
Just build quality felt so cheap that I felt bad even putting it on my 40D. It was like a fisherprice lens.
I was also kind of disappointed in the 85/1.8... kind of like I was with the 28/1.8 and 50/1.4... they all seem related in a way that I don't like much.
the two very best lenses I've shot are the Leica Summicron-R 50 and the TS-E 90... both seem to be approaching pefection in their own way.
(I guess all this lens slamming was getting me down so I had to say something positive in the thread)
David Baldwin wrote:
"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."
I think David is exactly right about the characteristics of the 135 f/2 or the 85 f1.8, but I'd nominate the 50 f/1.4 for the overrated category. It does fine, and is sufficiently sharp in ample light, but IMO it produces pretty bad color and clarity wide-open or near so in dim light, unlike the 35 f/1.4, which does well in low-light....Show more →
70-200 2.8 IS is so over rated...
i owned one for a while, and sold it for the primes in the range. they are better in every respect. sharper, lighter, faster AF, MUCH less distortion.
rocketpop wrote:
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....Show more →
To use the number from before, +97.
We often forget as Canon shooters just how nice it is to have an inexpensive f1.8 autofocus prime available. Nikon only recently added an inexpensive autofocus prime to it's lineup and that lens (the 35mm f1.8) costs 2x what the 50 f.18 goes for. That lens doesn't cast a full frame circle either.
The nifty fifty is such a great lens to learn about DOF and aperture with. Most of us on this thread have Canon bodies with only one or two numbers in their model and a fleet of L lenses. The nifty fifty has no place in our bags (except perhaps as a backup), but for beginners, it's a really great feature of the Canon system to have this lens as an option.
This lens may be overrated measured purely as a 50mm prime, but it isn't overrated as a learning tool.
mh2000 wrote:
I was also kind of disappointed in the 85/1.8... kind of like I was with the 28/1.8 and 50/1.4... they all seem related in a way that I don't like much.
interesting, as my 50/1.8 was replaced with a 50/1.4 - which is sharper, has better build, and has much better bokeh. The only reason both the 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 left the bag is because my two zooms "get 'er done".
Anyway, this is really pointless to continue arguing.
jaxford wrote:
70-200 2.8 IS is so over rated...
i owned one for a while, and sold it for the primes in the range. they are better in every respect. sharper, lighter, faster AF, MUCH less distortion.
Right. Then what was the reason that you bought 70-200 ?
I have tried many copies I didn't say it was a bad lens for a f/4 
