Overrated and Underrated Lens in Canon line-up (L and non-L)

[Garion]

Whats your pick? Feel free to add on. Maybe this thread will help us choose the better lens among the crop. Note: this is purely for Canon lens only. All opinions expressed are purely mine own and if your views differ pls do not flame me for that!

My picks are:

Overrated:

EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM - So much praise has been written abt this L zoom, but I think a prime non-L lens in the same range can beat it flat in terms of image quality. And costs much less too. The only great thing abt this lens is the IS. But IMO the cost of it is really exorbitant.

EF 180mm f3.5L Macro USM - IMO, an overrated piece of glass, many third party macro lens in similar range can almost equal or even outperform it. (e.g Tamron 180mm Macro).


Underrated:

EF 35mm f2 - A real sleeper of a lens, surprisingly decent image quality and fairly sharp especially when stopped down.

EF 200mm f2.8L II USM - Another solid performer, this gets overlooked often and overshadowed by its more illustrious 70-200 f2.8L zoom brothers.

EF 80-200mm f2.8L - The legendary "magic drainpipe". Discontinued from production, it still ranks as one of the finest Canon zooms ever produced, beating even its replacements, the 70-200mm zooms.

EF 24-85mm f3.5-f4.5 USM - Another great non-L mid range zoom, for the budget minded. Good image quality.


Any more? Feel free to add your own picks!

[theITguy]

24/2.8, 100/2.0. Used the 24mm as my main lense in today's shoot, got about 2 rolls of pictures. 24mm is very useful at tonight's shoot at Chinatown IMHO. Did 90% of the shoot on it. Although a wide prime gives a different view then my eyes would allow. 100/2.0 very good quality optics and nice bokeh. Although took only 1 shot in today's shoot with it, it might just turn out to be the better/best shot of the day. Very fast AF, faster than the 70-200/4.0 I own.

[mpenza]

I used to have 3 of the underrated, now have 2 left (sold off the 24-85 for the 18-125)

Think one more to add is the 50mm f/1.8 for underrated.

[tOGGY]

Originally Posted by theITguy 24/2.8, 100/2.0. Used the 24mm as my main lense in today's shoot, got about 2 rolls of pictures. 24mm is very useful at tonight's shoot at Chinatown IMHO. Did 90% of the shoot on it. Although a wide prime gives a different view then my eyes would allow. 100/2.0 very good quality optics and nice bokeh. Although took only 1 shot in today's shoot with it, it might just turn out to be the better/best shot of the day. Very fast AF, faster than the 70-200/4.0 I own.

Agree. One more cent of comment from me.
The 24mm/2.8 is also a very flexible lens - nice for a 1.6 crop and nicely normal wide for a 1.3 crop body. Being very light, it is easy to carry around. For day time shoots, I frequently select it over the 35mm/1.4 (ok, ok, I can hear some background laughter) because of the size and weight issue. Sharp, good colour, distortion free plus its small size makes it a good all rounder.

[agape01]

I just have one question for Garion. No doubt that your opinions state that the 70-200L IS USM has been overrated, but I am curious to know under what kind of facts that led you come to those opinions?

Which non-prime L lenses are you comparing the 70-200L IS to?

I am not flaming you or anything like that, but am just curious of what led you to those conclusions. That is all

[Garion]

Originally Posted by agape01 I just have one question for Garion. No doubt that your opinions state that the 70-200L IS USM has been overrated, but I am curious to know under what kind of facts that led you come to those opinions? Which non-prime L lenses are you comparing the 70-200L IS to? I am not flaming you or anything like that, but am just curious of what led you to those conclusions. That is all

Hi agape01,

Well just take my comments with a pinch of salt, this is not meant to be strictly a guide to lens., just my own 2cts on what I feel are overrated lens, in that they are kind of overpriced, yet other lens in their range can give equal if not better performance. True that the IS and the flexibility of zoom can be an unbeatable combo, but look at the price you pay for such gains, you can get a whole set of primes covering the entire range and perhaps even be left with some spare change for other stuff.

I'm not saying that the 70-200mm f2.8L IS is a bad lens, on the contrary, look at how many ppl are using it. Just feel that its rather overrated thats all. The non-IS f2.8 gets trashed sometimes by ppl in reviews, not because its a poorer lens optically (oh no), but just because of the fact that it has no IS!

[agape01]

ok...

As the price of a 70-200L IS is worth about $3k now, thus one might buy a 135/2, 85/1.8 and 50/1.4 to cover the shooting range and still have some cash to spare?

Just wondering is that what you are referring to? Because if this is so, I would agree with you completely.

[Garion]

Originally Posted by agape01 ok... As the price of a 70-200L IS is worth about $3k now, thus one might buy a 135/2, 85/1.8 and 50/1.4 to cover the shooting range and still have some cash to spare? Just wondering is that what you are referring to? Because if this is so, I would agree with you completely.

Yes, something like that. Throw in a 100mm f/2 or 200mm f/2.8 into the mix, and choose any combo of these lenses, you still can get for under 3k. Esp if bought 2nd hand.

[Splutter]

Hahaz, Indeed the cost of the 70-200 IS is hard to justify. Even after owning it for about half a year, it doesn't seem to justify its cost no matter how much I shoot Then again, nothing can replace its versatility when you need it. Furthermore, once you own it, you just cant bear to let it go

[benny]

I think the EF 100 mm F2.8 Macro (USM or no USM) is one of Canon's non L series jewel.

Cheers,

[szekiat]

Underated
70-200 f2.8L non-IS: It really isn't that **** and you really shouldn't be needing IS at 200mm not with a 2.8 lens. If you're shooting at 1/40 and below, chances are IS or not, u will get subject blur. The savings are almost 50%
135 f2.8 SF: Cheap on the used market, and probably the only SF lens for 35mm. SF is just not the same as a softar filter.
20mm f2.8: In this day and age of digital, everyone looks wider than 20mm but honestly, 20mm is probably good enough. I personally use a 20-35mm and have never missed much. In fact, i shoot more at 24mm and 35mm. at $600 a shot, its way cheaper than most wide angles with good distortion control too.
20-35 f2.8L: U can now get one of these for about $800 or so and it functions perfectly well. It has no USM so u need to flick the AF/M switch but its not too troublesome. Like all wide L zooms, there is sample variance so take your pick. I have a copy with such good distortion control that i don't even notice it on a DSLR. James Natchway used to favor this lens i think, but not many ppl talk about it these days. I'd get this over a sigma or tamron or whatever.
The others have been mentioned, 35mm, 100mm, 85mm, etc.

[nickmak]

Originally Posted by Garion Hi agape01, Well just take my comments with a pinch of salt, this is not meant to be strictly a guide to lens., just my own 2cts on what I feel are overrated lens, in that they are kind of overpriced, yet other lens in their range can give equal if not better performance. True that the IS and the flexibility of zoom can be an unbeatable combo, but look at the price you pay for such gains, you can get a whole set of primes covering the entire range and perhaps even be left with some spare change for other stuff. I'm not saying that the 70-200mm f2.8L IS is a bad lens, on the contrary, look at how many ppl are using it. Just feel that its rather overrated thats all. The non-IS f2.8 gets trashed sometimes by ppl in reviews, not because its a poorer lens optically (oh no), but just because of the fact that it has no IS!

That is so true Garion, my copy of the 70-200mm f2.8L non-IS is great. It gives me great image quality for a zoom and good colour rendition too... I chose this over the IS because there's really no point using IS as it cannot stop action for my stuff... If need IS, I'll get a monopod, that's why I only have one IS lens, the 300mm f4L IS...

I think its overrated because its like the new 'fab' toy in the market and the old f2.8L (non-IS and 80-200L) have been chucked away because new lenses are always associated with 'new Hi-Tech stuff'...

[bry'an]

Originally Posted by mpenza I used to have 3 of the underrated, now have 2 left (sold off the 24-85 for the 18-125) Think one more to add is the 50mm f/1.8 for underrated.

hmm.. 50mm f1.8 always wins very good lens review especially the sharpness, so i don think it is underrated. unless you are talking about the selling/re-sell price, so it is under-quoted?

[sriram]

Underrated:
200/2.8L (I used to have the mark-I): one of the best primes I have ever used, compact and light, black and sleek, sharp and contrasty.

OK rated:
28-70L
100/2.8 USM macro
50/1.8-II
100-400L

Overrated:
70-200/4L : I have used two samples and owned one. They were both less sharp than the 100-400L it replaced and not as sharp as my 28-70/2.8L.
100/2.8 macro (non-USM, old) : Mine had superb optics but otherwise was a piece of cr*p. Its AF motor is pathetically underpowered and the AF died twice after producing loud noises. I dumped it. Now before someone parrots the mindless mantra of not using AF on macro lenses, consider this.. if it is not meant to be used then why the h*ll include it in the product?
28-135 IS : I bought this lens for the IS. Optics are mediocre at best, like any other canon consumer zoom, and IS didn't help. In low light, subject motion spoilt the shot, and in good light there was no need for IS. In the end I sold it. This lens is too expensive for what it gives... a used 28-105 costs less than half the price for the same optical quality and faster f-stop.

And the winner is:
50/1.4 USM : Focuses as slow or slower than the 50/1.8-II, optics are nothing great and mine had barrel distortion, whereas my 50/1.8 shows much less distortion. Waste of money for 2/3 stop. I'd say this one is severely overrated and inflated.

[adamadam]

Originally Posted by Garion Yes, something like that. Throw in a 100mm f/2 or 200mm f/2.8 into the mix, and choose any combo of these lenses, you still can get for under 3k. Esp if bought 2nd hand.

So in terms of image quality, for about the same amount of money you pay for 70-200 f/2.8L IS, you would recommend getting a few primes over the zoom lens?

I do realise that using my 17-85, I usually use it at 17 or 85, and in between when I don't want to walk :P

[NorthernLights]

I presonally think as I have once used the Canon

Overrated:
70-200 f2.8 IS USM - Resolution wise at 23 elements in 18 groups, is really more clumsy than the non-IS counterpart at 20 elements in 15 groups. Resolution and image quality will lose out in terms as more elements means more inaccuracy.

Sharpness wise, it loses out to lighter primes like 135f2L USM.

16-35f2.8 L USM - Expensive and less sharp with poorer contrast and colour rendition compared to the 17-40.

Underrated (in terms of popularity) - 135 f2 L USM

Excellent, light, sharp contrasty images and creamy, buttery bokeh. One of the best MTF curves as well. Versatile as portrait, low light, indoor sports or outdoor but near enough sports. Focusses really really fast. In fact the sharpness is unforgivingly sharp as it can capture wrinkles and marks of a face in a portrait (have tried it myself).

You might say the 70-200 is more versatile, but really, for street shoots and certain portraiture shoots, would one like to stuff a huge lens in front of the subject?

IMO, getting an 85f1.8 (sharp, light, contrasty and value for money), 135f2L and possibly a 1.4x TC would cover you well in replacement of a 70-200IS minus the IS but getting a TC in stead of a 200mm f2.8 L, you will well have enough cash to consider the excellent 300 f4 L non - IS.

[StreetShooter]

My opinion is that the 70-200 f2.8 IS is not underrated. There simply is nothing like this lens. It's got zoom, large aperture, sharp images and image stabilization. Primes are great but not versatile. The IS converts the lens into an indoor lens as well. Without IS, it can only effectively be used handheld outdoors (yes, even with f2.8). Anyone who says he can handhold 200mm f2.8 in indoor lighting is kidding himself. Irreplaceable for indoor events.

My underrated lenses are all my Sigmas.

[adamadam]

Roughly what shutter speeds are required for correct exposure when using f/2.8 at 200mm indoors?

[rainman]

of cos dun forget the 50mm 1.8
and the
28-105 USM 3.5-4.5

[nickmak]

Originally Posted by adamadam Roughly what shutter speeds are required for correct exposure when using f/2.8 at 200mm indoors?

at any aperture, 1/200th sec