Whats your one BEST and WORST Canon lens ever?

<p>Here are my votes: The info is a bit dated but the first story is a comical head-scratcher.<br>

Worst: (in the film days) FD 200mm f4 Macro. I came new, direct from B&H, without any internal aperture mechanism whatsoever. Just a tube with some lens elements inside. No joke. It took a nearly a year to sort out the return/refund deal but I eventually got the FD 100 f4 Macro which was superb.<br>

Best: (again in the film days) EOS 28-80 f2.8-4L zoom. My first L lens. A real eye-opener as to what good glass can do to the overall look of an image. I plan to take this lens into the digital arena as soon as Canon either produces a 5D Mark IV or the equivalent of Sony's a7R. </p>

<p>The 18-55 that came with my 20D was pretty horrifying, because my new expensive digital camera gave me significantly worse photos than my film gear. A tokina 28-75 solved that problem.</p>

<p>My 70-200 f4 IS is my favorite these days.</p>

<p>I've bought new and used lenses and I've owned a total of about 10 and rented others. I must say I've never had a lens that would even qualify as "worst". Even the lens I'd rank at the low end of all others is still a good lens and a good value. (although it never gets used... waiting to give it away to a new photographer in need of a 50 1.8)<br>

I would think that to name a lens "worst" it would have to be a lemon or a total failure of design and material for the intended use. I'm fortunate I've not encountered that.<br>

The best lens is the one I'm using for the task at hand.<br>

Richard</p>

<p>It's funny, there are those who like the harsh pentagon-shaped bokeh produced by the 50/1.8. I agree with the bad experiences with the 50/1.4 - optically decent, but not really designed to be used below f/2 or so, and mechanically prone to seizing up. I have the Canon EF 35-80mm f/4-5.6 POWER ZOOM, got it with my first SLR, but even at the time it was obviously a piece of junk - perhaps made to appeal to some imagined market segment which would see a motorized zoom as more 'luxury' than a manual zoom ring.</p>

<p>For what the original poster was asking about for 'hit a home run every time you shoot', it is usually easier to frame a shot with a longer lens. That is why I'm not surprised the 135/2 stands out.</p>

<p>The biggest problem with the TS-E 17mm is keeping it from getting away from you - like a kid with a helium balloon. ;)</p>

<p>John M, I have the 28-80 f/2.8-4 L and have used it on digital, currently with a 1Ds Mark II. It does indeed produce photographs with good colour and contrast (the otherwise excellent 90mm TS-E looks washed out by comparison). But it is not as sharp as a good fixed-focal lens; I see no reason to wait for some super-high-resolution sensor in order to use it. While Internet chatter often promotes an older lens as superior to its successor, and there may sometimes be some truth in those judgements, the new 24-70 Mark II is so good that it will surely thump its great-grandfather on almost any measure.</p>

<p>Best value: 200mm f2.8 L<br>

Best: 135/2 and 35/2 IS<br>

Most useful (and therefore perhaps really the best): 24-70II and 70-200/4IS<br>

Worst: 28/2.8 (but not bad at all really)</p>

<p>Best. 70-200 2.8L. Bought in 1997. It has been dropped twice on pool decks and a cement sidewalk at a wedding once. It has been covered with mud and rained on. It has done high school sports for a paper, weddings, portraits in my studio and has never been looked at or repaired. I shot a 400 picture swim meet at BU recently with it and the pictures are still sharp. It still stops action. It has made money for me. <br>

I may ask to be buried with it because it is like my right arm. I would not trade it for the latest 2000 dollar II model. I paid, I think 1200 dollars for it. When amortized over the years the it is the most financially productive piece of equipment that I have bought. <br>

I bought an EOS 650 in 1988. I got bait and switched from a canon 35-80 or whatever it was to a third party lens which promptly broke. It was a Sigma 35-80 or whatever the FL was. It took me fifteen years to buy my next third party lens; a Tamron which is quite good and very sharp.</p>

<p>Best? I don't know, but the "most fun" lens I have ever used is the EF 100mm f/2.8 IS macro. I love that lens--even for just walking around, in spite of the somewhat long focal length.</p>

<p>It also is one of the sharpest lenses I have ever shot.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>BTW, here is the back of the EF 35-80mm PZ (Power Zoom) - early plastic mount, too, and the camera it was "made for" - the Canon EOS 700 (also plastic mount). This was the closest to a "Point and Shoot" camera ever made in the EOS series.<br>

( see also http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00Wn8K )</p><div></div>

<p>This was my sister's first DSLR and lens. She did ok with it.</p>

<p>Interesting camera/lens! There are a few on ebay, but I think they're asking WAY too much. I'll keep my eye out. I do need a pretty low price to entice me, because I'm looking at my camera collection, which pales in comparison to a serious collection like yours, and I'm wondering where I'm going to put it. I'll have to build a nice display case or something. But that lens is pretty weird, and I LOVE weird stuff.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm wondering where I'm going to put it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Aye, there's the rub [<em>Hamlet</em> Act 3, scene 1].</p>

<p>My dear wife always asked me: "But where are you going to <em>put</em> it?"</p>

<p>I think she had a definite place in mind.....</p>

<p>BTW,<br>

I got the Canon EOS 700 in 2007 for US$20.<br>

The 35-80mm PZ came on an EOS 10s so I might have paid as much as $40 for the lens in combination?</p>

<p>JDM, a very kind soul in this thread has offered to give me his PowerZoom 35-80. I insisted I pay him its weight in lead, plus an American super-sized Big Mac dinner for two (and shipping, of course). So I think my peculiar appetite for this weird little lens shall be satiated in due course. :-)</p>

<p>Terrific!<br>

I found it surprisingly good for what it is- see http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00WxgJ where I used it on the EOS 10s I got it on.</p>

<p>I'm reminded of my old FD 35-70 f/3.5-4.5, which is another surprisingly good lens for what it is. It's got the boring twist-ring zoom, just like all my other boring zooms, but it came my way with a brilliantly gaudy "1984 Olympic Games" lens cap like this one:</p>

<p>http://www.ebay.com/itm/CANON-1984-OLYMPICS-Front-Lens-Cap-52mm-Vintage-Genuine-Commemorative-/331146924999</p>

<p>And because it was my mom's lens and camera (T-70), it has some sentimental value as well. She didn't LOVE that camera the same way she loved her Leica IIIf, but it was the same camera she carried on the back of a llama into the Himalayas of Nepal! :-)</p>

<p>Best: Without a doubt, the 200mm f/2L IS and the 85L II. This obviously depends on what type of photography you shoot, but these are definitely my favorites! I don't mind the size and weight because I know these put out the BEST IQ and bokeh on the market, absolutely stunning lenses! =]</p>

<p>Worst? Well, in all honesty I would have to say kit lenses (except for the 24-105 f/4L IS). This is the BEST "kit lens" you can find. Personally, I dislike variable aperture zoom lenses whether they're L or non-L glass. I don't have much experience with these lenses either because I was taught with fixed aperture f/2.8 pro lenses and bought my first DSLR with L glass. Been that way ever since and have not used anything less, yes I know I'm spoiled. Anyways, this is my 2 cents. </p>

<p>I largely agree with the initial remarks...<br>

Best: not every shot I took was awesome, because I make mistakes, but I was pretty consistently impressed with the output from the 135/2.<br>

Worst: my first SLR lens, the 18-55 EF-S that came with the Canon 650D in 2005. I did get some perfectly acceptable pictures with it, given ample good lighting, but on the whole the results looked about like what I got from much cheaper point-and-shoot cameras.<br>

But that said: I would guess that half or more of the pictures I've taken on Canon SLR cameras since 2005 have been with a 50/1.4 lens. I've owned a variety of "consumer" and "professional" lenses from 15mm to 300mm (including the much-talked-about 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 zooms), and for what I do, I keep coming back to the 50mm over and over. Obviously, if you need the reach of 300mm, a 50mm lens isn't going to cut it, but the point is, you don't necessarily need a full complement of focal lengths and expensive equipment to do good work.</p>

<p>Hey Sarah Fox, that's a great story and nice reward a Big Mac dinner...:)</p>

<p>My best ever Canon lens? <br>

I can only answer with the lenses that I've actually owned/used. 1) 70-200 2.8 IS ii, 2) 135 2, 3) 24-70 2.8 ii. The 24-70 is my most used lens, with 80% of my shooting. It's so versatile and great for studio, general use. The 70-200 yields amazing results especially at the high end 200mm and wide open especially for portraits. The 135 is my newest, I'm still testing it but so far it's impressive. In my past film camera life I enjoyed the Carl Zeiss 85 1.4 (C/Y mount) as my favourite portrait lens however it is manual focus and incidentally it can be used on today's modern Canon DSLR's with an adaptor. Extremely sharp even by today's standards and it's a 30 year old lens.<br>

My worst Canon lens? I can't say that I've had one. I was a bit disappointed with my 24-105 4 as it was quite soft at all focal lengths even after Canon service however, some photographers love it so I suppose I just got a poor unit, not really so bad though and I used it continuously for 2 years before I upgraded to the 24-70 ii. My cheapest lens is the 50 1.8 nifty fifty, a back up really just keep it in the bag and it works fine in a pinch.<br>

My next Canon lens? I'm dreaming of the 24 1.4 ii, the 85 1.2, and oh! the 100 2.8 IS ii macro...I think I have GAS (gear acquisition syndrome). <br>

I'm not interested in third party reverse engineering lenses, these are fine for some people even sharper than some Canon lenses but I'm loyal to Canon. Reason? Once you try Canon Professional Service you learn what is really the model for perfect customer service (in any industry!). This is really important in order to maintain your expensive gear and if you ever need repairs done, they will back you up with their service! New technology cameras come and go but great lenses are a long term investment...<br>

That's my 2 cents worth...</p>

 

<p>My best would have to be my Canon EF 28-80mm f/2.8-4L USM, I love the contrast and sharpness it creates. Just hoping it doesn't die out too soon.<br>

The worst, definitely the Canon 35-80mm f/4-5.6 Power Zoom. Bought it from a pawn shop for $20, and soon realized it's just a novelty item.</p>

<p>EF system is not really the most populated one in my gear, so I only got two third part zooms with my EOS500 and 1000, and recently my EOS1100D kit Zoom.</p>

<p>The worst was the Tokina AF 28-70 2,8-5,6 macro, that I only kept and use because of its close focus ability, until I got my 1100D and the 18-55 DC III, then I got rid of it very fast. It is one candidate for the ugliest EF lens ever, and among all systems I had lenses in, it may be the worst of all, only little challenged by a Makinon M42 80-200 slide-zoom that was not a gem either.</p>

<p>The one that impresses me quite is the other zoom I got with my EOS500, the Tamron AF 28-200 3,8-5,6 Aspherical (71DE), the first EF lens in the world with such a zoom span (even before Canon did one), and maybe not the worst from these twenty years or so on. While it shows its age in the digital world, it is still quite capable, mainly outside, because of its minimal focussing at 2,1m (at 28mm, longer at 200), but focus speed is up to DC current lenses, if I can tell from the 18-55 DCIII I have. It helped me make many candid shots over the years.</p>

<p>I'm planning on buying a second-hand 50 1.8 MKII from a friend, and also replace both the 28-200 and the 18-55 at the same time, with IS optics, and this topic is quite instructive. I'm wondering if i can give up full frame ability, if I should take narrower range zoom, or sacrifice little quality for a real all-rounder.</p>

<p>So the choice is between 15-85, 18-135, 28-135, and 18-200. I think the 28mm would be too long, but since I had a 20mm for film, I may end up getting a real wideangle later anyway. For the tele part, I lived well with the 200mm in my film years, but I got used to it on the crop sensor lately. Is the loss of quality is worth the largest zoom span? Will it be better, or at least on par with the 18-55 IS II and the Tamron 28-200 on their respective ranges?</p>

<p>I once passed by a 35-80 PZ and EOS300n for 5€ as-is at a photo trade convention. Maybe I should have thought twice?</p><div></div>