wickerprints wrote:
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
Absolutely agree. This is what I was going to say. It's over priced at $70 (the old price); it really should cost about $35 from a build perspective and $45 from an IQ perspective. It's probably good for kids and those that have never owned a decent lens though.
jamesf99 wrote:
Absolutely agree. This is what I was going to say. It's over priced at $70 (the old price); it really should cost about $35 from a build perspective and $45 from an IQ perspective. It's probably good for kids and those that have never owned a decent lens though.
smjenkins wrote:
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.
Then again, why in the heck doesn't Canon have an inexpensive f1.8 autofocus prime that is geared toward crop bodies? Most rebel owners would be better off with the a 35mm f1.8 than they are with a 50mm 1.8. I'd certainly prefer the price of the Nikon 35 1.8 to Canon's 35mm f/2.... I'd take the image quality as well.
the 200 f/2 IS........ to relieve the deep despair that this lens has brought you I will (in the holiday spirit) take it off your hands for half retail (and even pay the shipping)
For me the idea of using any sort of adapter to use a Nikon lens and/or especially mirror shaving or other types of camera surgery to use a really nice MF alt lens is overrated.
That is for me only, as I recognize there are great deals and great lenses in this realm, lenses Canon doesn't have covered, but with Canon's lineup of AF lenses, along with the Zeiss ZE line and Sigma showing some promise in the fast prime department I can't ever forsee myself traveling down the road of adapters and stop down metering, etc.
And I was a little dissapointed with the 200 f/2.8L II only because it is so often praised as the equal to or greater than the 135L. In my opininion the 200 is nice but it doesn't measure up to the 135L. When I bought my 200 I was hoping for a big brother to the 135 and I got something a little less than that.
I've never really been impressed by my 24-105.
Sure it does the job adequately but it’s a lens I don’t reach for that often.
I think we all go through phases with our lenses, right now the 24-105 is my ‘overrated lens’. Maybe in a few months it might be my ‘most used lens’. Confidence is not high but it could happen!
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.
Them are fightin' words
j/k
But I do disagree. My 70-200 is my favourite lens... and I love primes... I plan on getting the 85L, and the 135L, but to keep the 70-200.
I dunno, after reading this thread I have to take back my comment about the 50 1.8 based on it's price to build quality... and I honestly have to say that I think that canon gear isn't overly hyped...
There are few if any overrated lenses, they are all tools that in the right hands can produce great material. Even the finest tool can be unappreciated if used in the wrong manner (or bought for the wrong reasons).
I'll play along though by changing the parameters a little.
IMHO Canon suffers from overrated users, that post their nonsense as if it were based on years of practice and experience. From people with an axe to grind, snobs (including the "reversed" kind) and those who are disappointed that their "miracle" lens was only mediocre in their hands...
Happy Christmas all!
Ruy
PS. Yes I am overrated, but at least I don't take myself too serious
OK, I'll go $55 on IQ alone. I'm not trying to say that it's horrible from an IQ perspective which is "OK", it's just so cheaply made that even with the IQ it shouldn't cost more than a newly revised figure of $55. I guess I remember the old days when a 50mm lens was decent.
Travelinbri wrote:
So I will say I am glad nobody mentioned the 16-35. I have heard lots of people say "If I could do it again I'd get the 17-40 andf save the 800$." 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.
I know it's not a popular thing to say, but I love the 16-35L. I'd say get it and enjoy it.
Wow, maybe 135L is not perfect as someone claims but comes very close, it's by far my favorite lens and I only complain when the focal length is not right... Surely not the MOST overrated lens!
And, by the way, it's been compared to 85mm or 100mm, which are not even the same focal length. Good lenses, not perfect substitutes.
Fortunately no one said EF 300 f2.8L IS, who will be the first? You gotta be brave
Jeez. A f1.8 lens that can take excellent photos is only worth $45 new? That is just plain stupid.
jamesf99 wrote:
OK, I'll go $55 on IQ alone. I'm not trying to say that it's horrible from an IQ perspective which is "OK", it's just so cheaply made that even with the IQ it shouldn't cost more than a newly revised figure of $55. I guess I remember the old days when a 50mm lens was decent.
mh2000 wrote:
Jeez. A f1.8 lens that can take excellent photos is only worth $45 new? That is just plain stupid.
Sure in the right hands the EF 50/1.8 will produce stunning results.
But I'd add that you can get the same and even better results from cheap old alternative MF lenses like the Zuiko 50/1.8 (with just a little extra work). The main merit of the "plastic fantastic" is its low price and AF, apart from that it is just run of the mill in 50mm land, imho (which is overrated anyway).
rhorta wrote:
Sure in the right hands the EF 50/1.8 will produce stunning results.
But I'd add that you can get the same and even better results from cheap old alternative MF lenses like the Zuiko 50/1.8 (with just a little extra work). The main merit of the "plastic fantastic" is its low price and AF, apart from that it is just run of the mill in 50mm land, imho (which is overrated anyway).
Plenty of lenses can make "excellent" photos.
Ruy
Don't worry. Someone already said that MF lenses on AF bodies is overrated
