 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Can someone please give me info on the quality ranking of the various types of Canon Lenses-
thanks
steve
Follow Ups:
I personally find Canon to be the superior lens. I would agree with others to stay away from any of the sub-$180 lenses. I personally don't like the 50 f/1.8 II (the II model is the one canon makes now and it is cheapo to the max, with plastic lens mount non-USM AF motor and all) and much perfer the f/1.4. All of Canon's lenses are either USM (Ultra Sonic Motor) or not USM. USM is a very very very quiet autofocus motor which no other camera manufacturer has quite been able to match. My personal favorite in the Canon line is the 28-105 f/3.5 - f/4.5 USM II lens (NOT the new cheap version that just came out but the apeture range one I am talking about which is much better quality), it is a very versitile, extreamly high quality well built compact zoom lens. After I got my Canon EOS 3 last year I plunked down another grand and picked up my very favorite, the 28-70 f/2.8 L the "L" glass lenses are far supirior to the lower end lenses but they are also MUCH more expensive. As far as a breakdown of all the lenses Canon makes, there is no better source than Canon's book called "Lens Work" it is a wonderful book worth the 30 bucks you can buy it for. Pick up the latest edition at Amazon or at a local camera shop if you are interested in getting into the Canon EOS lens system. Good luck to you.
Just dropped in from the Audio Asylum for a moment. As a pro who uses Nikon but grew up using Canon until a year ago, let me tell you that ANY L glass will rock your photos. Many that are not labeled L (the 100mmM and 50,1.8) are also very nice lenses.I assume that you are talking about the autofocus glass and not the FD mount glass of yesteryear (which is really good glass as well) Stay away from any and all consumer glass if you are serious about what you do with the exception of the 35mm-70mm 3.5-4 zoom with a metal mount. Although slow, this lens actually makes very nice photos. I have one for travelling.
There is a comment below about the 16/17-35mm lenses not being very sharp. I have to agree, BUT if you can find a pre-USM 20-35 2.8 L then jump all over it. It is better than any wide angle zoom made by any company and is what I still use with my canons. It is smaller and heavier than the 17-35 and although it is a little noisy focuses fine.
The problem is finding one. On the used market they almost always sell quickly and for more money than the newer (but used) USM 16/17 lenses.
Seeya,
Shane Bevel
Staff Photojournalist
The Times
In an attempt to respond in a helpful way, I hope I don't insult anyone. Despite being a toy-loving geek and avid Canon fan, I'm not one to really rank lenses -- when you talk about "ranking quality", it also depends a lot on the individual, his/her style of shooting, and what they look for in a lens, be it optical sharpness, speed, versatility, weight, etc. For example, a 400/2.8L may be damn sharp and weatherproof, but it doesn't really matter when you're on adventure photography and can't carry this sort of weight/bulk.Having that said, I think most people agree that the majority of the Canon L "pro" glass are superior in most ways to the non-L "consumer" lenses. They are usually optically sharper, faster, and will open more photography-opportunity doors for you. Some people believe that looking at MTF curves on the Photodo website is all that matters, but honestly, who gives a sh!t about curve fall-off when the lens did not make the shot.
I've found there are some exceptions to this "L-is-better" rule:
1) The 16/17-35 2.8L is not very sharp, but is one of the most-frequently used lenses in the Canon arsenal. It's extremely versatile, is rectilinear(!), and is relatively affordable for what it is capable of.
2) The 100/2.8 Macro is NOT an L, but is as sharp, if not sharper, than some of the prime Ls. Its USM is just as fast.
3) The 85 1.2L is optically fast, but don't bank on its autofocus being able to capture a hummingbird flying around. The front element is so heavy that the autofocus is retardedly slow.
4) The 50/1.4-1.8 does not seem to be any less sharp than the 50/1.0. Sure, it is generally known that a stop or two down from the max aperture is the sharpest, but cmon, you really have to try it out to see. Plus the 50/1.4 is $300, and the 50/1.0 is $2000.
5) I find the 70-200 4.0L is as sharp as the 70-200 2.8L. It is half the cost.
6) The 28-135 IS definitely is one of the most versatile lenses, and is pretty sharp. Is it 100/2.8 sharp? No. Is it optically fast? No, it is 3.5-5.6. But it is very affordable (~$500), has IS, and is good enough for most quick photography that does not permit changing lenses.
7) I would tend to just forget about those <$150 lenses, like the 20-90mm or 20-80mm freebie lenses that they give away with the camera bodies, WITH THE EXCEPTION of the 50/1.8. What a great lens!
See what I mean? I find it really hard to place a real quality rank ladder; it would probably be a much easier question if there are specific photographic needs that you want to fill.
Sorry for the rambling,
Keith
very informative!
sr
Looking at MTF curves is only the part of the game. Fist of all those serves a built using no proper evolution methodologies and therefore they are totally non-indicative. However even this curve could give some information if they are properly interpreted in context of some other parameters that are not provided. Also, it is interesting that the major evaluation factor you use is “sharpness”.... Sounds like you spent too much time at the High Resolution forum :-) I look at the lenses in totally different…. But I agree the “L” glass is way better then all “FD” cotton-like glass.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
