Whats your one BEST and WORST Canon lens ever?

<p><strong>Just a friendly random survey here folks. <em>No wrong or right answers in this thread</em>...as the answer will vary depending on your style and what you shoot.</strong></p>

<p>What is the ONE absolute BEST and WORST Canon EF/EF-S/EF-M lens (or 3rd party lens with Canon EF mount) zoom or prime lens you personally have ever shot with...EVER<strong>?</strong></p>

<p>What I mean by "BEST" is practically a home run hit every time you shoot with the lens. Even in bad lighting or spur of the moment shots with hardly any planning you still hit it out of the park because the lens was that good.</p>

<p>What I mean by "WORST" is that its not even worthy of a DMV snapshot... even a "coke bottle" would be better. No matter how much planning you did the lens was just complete junk.</p>

<p>For me the ONE best lens ever is the professional Canon EF 135mm f2L lens, hands down. A home run just about every time I shoot with it. There were times I even tried to get a bad shot and it would not let me! :D<br /> http://www.photo.net/photo/14332312</p>

<p>The worst one is a tougher one for me as I usually am selective about lenses so I cant answer as I haven't yet had a bad experience with any Canon lenses<em>.</em> I never tried it but I heard the Canon EF-S 18-55mm kit lens is kind of a turkey.</p>

<p>Best: EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro - sharpest lens I've ever used<br>

Worst: Sigma 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 (non APO) - unsharp at any focal length or aperture<br>

<Chas></p>

<p>Best: EF-S 17-55 f/2.8. Very sharp.<br>

Worst: EF 24-105 f/4. Soft even after Canon worked on it.</p>

<p>This is a joke right? You compare a Canon L lens to a kit lens you don't even own, just to start a thread?</p>

<p>Best: EF 70-200mm f/4.0 IS L ; close runner-up would be the EF 100mm macro. Both are excellent.<br>

Worst: EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 non-L something-or-the-other, purchased 10 years ago, cheap. Couldn't take a sharp picture with it EVER, at any f-stop. Junk.</p>

<p>Dave, I'll take your worst (24-105) and raise it to my best. Mine has always delivered consistent results. I like the design and feel. I also own the 70-200/4IS, which many consider to be Canon's best zoom ever (a title I think should belong to their new 24-70), but I honestly like my 24-105 more than the 70-200, just for its all-around usefulness.</p>

<p>Worst? Not suitable for DMV photos? Ummmm... Well, that's pretty bad. I don't think I've ever owned such a lens, but I'll nominate a Quantaray 70-300 that my uncle bought on sale from Ritz for $100. I have no idea how it performs optically, because it immediately broke when the two of us looked at it. The barrels don't telescope with the zoom ring, but you can drag them in and out by grasping the barrels with your hand. It was a complete waste of a perfectly good $100 bill.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>close runner-up would be the EF 100mm macro</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Chuck I read great reviews about that one...I have been wanting to try that lens out for macro work!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>kit lens you don't even own,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Patrick you got me there, I guess I have been lucky... I have shot with a number of Canon L and non L prime and zoom lenses and they have all been great! I just haven't shot with a (really) bad lens yet even though there are a boatful of them out there. You don't need to drive a Gremlin to drive a Ferrari. ;)</p>

<p>If you are in the same boat and don't have a "worst" lens as well just list your BEST one.</p>

<p title="Reload this Page">Best 85mm f1.2, this thing is marvellous, slow but marvellous.<br>

worst EF 28-80 3.5-56 mkii, I get it in a kit with my elan iie... </p>

None of the lenses I've owned (of any brand) has had the magical properties you describe. The majority of my shots, even with the best of lenses, aren't very memorable. I can take bad photos with any lenses. But on the bright side, none of the lenses I've used has been so terrible that it prevented me from taking good photos. I guess I'm immune to their powers.

<blockquote>

<p>What I mean by "BEST" is practically a home run hit every time you shoot with the lens. Even in bad lighting or spur of the moment shots with hardly any planning you still hit it out of the park because the lens was that good.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hitting a home run has <strong><em>nothing</em></strong> to do with the lens that you're using. My highest ratio of keepers/interesting shots come from the TS-E24 f/3.5L II. But that's because I use this lens while working carefully from a tripod, and I don't even bother to set it up unless I have light and a subject that makes shooting worthwhile.</p>

<p>All of the Canon lenses that I have used range from very good to spectacular in terms of build and image quality. If I had to pick one for overall usefulness and flexibility of application, it would be the EF 24-105 f/4L IS USM. The 100mm macro (version II) is probably the sharpest lens, but all of the Canon lenses that I have tried range from more than acceptably sharp to brilliantly sharp.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>What I mean by "WORST" is that its not even worthy of a DMV snapshot... even a "coke bottle" would be better. No matter how much planning you did the lens was just complete junk.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If Canon makes such a lens, I'm not aware of it.</p>

 

<p>Best, EF 500mm f/4L IS; Worst, EF 24-105mm f/4L IS; HOWEVER, the 24-105mm is an excellent lens after Digital Lens Optimization. All my Canon L-series lenses are excellent, but some more so than others.</p>

<p>The worst lens I've ever shot with is this one: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-R-F-3-EOS-Camera-Body/dp/B00005NPON</p>

<p>I'll have to agree with Mike here. I have no "home run" lens. My best pictures rely on me not some silly camera or lens. Most EF lenses are pretty good and as for worst, you are talking to guy who adapts old, beat up, lenses to modern bodies to get rid of all that clinical, corrected sharpness. "sharp" does not equate to "best" for me. I treasure my coke bottle and pin hole optics next to my L lenses. </p>

<p>BTW, the simple kit EF-S 18-55mm lens is a better lens than I will ever be as a photographer. You can win awards with it, you can change the world with it. It's potential is limitless. </p>

<p>The lens I liked least was the 50/1.8; I could forgive the plastic construction, but the background blur was monstrous, I hated it and ditched it quite quickly.<br>

I've got a selection of lenses I like lots, the 300/4 is very good, the 24-105 can be a star and the 70-200/2.8 IS Mk1 is sensational. The 100-400 ought to get a mention because I use it so often, but it's not what I would think of as a wonderful lens. </p>

Best: EF 135mm f/2L

Worst: EF 35mm f/2 (not the current one with IS). I have two of them. Very sharp but the M/AF switch has popped off on

both of them.

<p>Best that I have owned - Canon 100mm f2.8 Macro or for zoom lenses - Canon 70-200 f4 L.<br /> My most fun lens award goes to the Sigma 12-24. <br /> I thought the Canon kit lens EF-S 18-55 wasn't at all bad and perfectly adequate for many shots though a bit slow.<br /> I tend to agree with Peter about the Canon 50mm 1.8 though I would not say it was bad.<br /> I don't think I have had a really bad Canon lens - not compared to the terrible third party things I have owned in the past. Top razzie there goes to a 1980's Hoya 75-150 but a 1990's Tamron 70-200 was snapping at its heels.</p>

<p>LOL, maybe this should be in the humour section ;)<br>

Though (as has been pointed out already) most lenses can be made to function adequately despite their limitations. However, for 'worst' I'd stick with lenses I was disappointed in, not ones I would have reasonably expected to fail miserably ;)</p>

<p>So for 'worst', I'd go w/ a EF50/1.4 USM. Bought to give me an 'upgrade' to the 50/1.8, and to cover the f1.4-2.8 range, this model was a complete disappointment. At the apertures I bought it for, it ranged from abhorrent to adequate. For example, after some experience with it, I never shot wider then f2, a point which it mostly performed adequately. Then it broke. ie. the AF locked up. NOT 'quit', but regardless of setting, could not be made to move at all .... sigh, so I bought another (since there wasn't another option at the time)... guess what happened to it... sigh, so I bought a third. A month later Sigma released their 50/1.4 HSM, a lens I am vastly more satisfied with.</p>

<p>Best is harder, But I'd probably go w/ the 70-200/2.8L The worst thing about that lens is it's 'look at me!' paint job... photographically though it is a stunningly good piece of equipment.</p>

Best: EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Lens

<p>Best: ts-e 17 <br /> Worst? Can't say. Even the Sigmas I've tried have been not bad.<br /> Wait, there's a humor section?</p>

<p>I'll start with what for me was the worst EF lens! It was the Canon EF 75-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM. Regardless of technique, I just simply could not get any reasonably sharp images at any focal length within its zoom range. Possibly just a bad sample!</p>

<p>I have no lens that performs <em>magically</em> to the extent that I can't take a <em>bad picture</em>! I have lots of those! However, my most frequently used lens is the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM and has become my favorite over the years for what I shoot mostly. It's followed closely by the EF 100 f/2.8 Macro IS USM.</p>

<p>Where's that Humor section?</p>

<p>Best: 100/2.8 Macro. No flaws whatsoever and focuses really fast for other than macro work. Very natural rendering. My 50/1.4 is perhaps a bit sharper(!) at f4 but 100/2.8 is just really pleasing and "right".<br>

Worst: EF 28-80 3.5-5.6. 35-70 and 28-90 variants are also really bad and 70-300 4-5.6 kit tele was pretty much unusable for anything else than 4x6. New kit lenses, even original 18-50, are much better.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br />LOL, maybe this should be in the humour section ;)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>YES! :D Even us Canon folk have a comedy side!</p>

<p>I think the <strong>RAZZIE AWARD </strong> has to go to one of the worst zooms ever made by Canon which may be the Canon EF 35-80mm f/4-5.6 POWER ZOOM.</p>

<p><strong>Weird zoom lens from the 1990s!</strong><br /> <br />More info at the Canon museum: http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_35~80_4~56pz.html</p>

<p>http://allphotolenses.com/public/files/img/ac93585829d0d74c303b33e88c0924f7.jpg</p>

<p>A photographer here on Photo.net said once about the Canon EF 35-80mm f/4-5.6 PZ:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br />"I used to own it. It is, without a doubt, the worst lens in the entire EOS system. Bar none."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00JYPX</p>

<p>Thinking back I remember now I once tried out a long forgotten couple of rare Carl Zeiss Jenazoom Super zooms in Canon EF mount, not bad zooms but the Carl Zeiss Jenazoom Super 70-210mm in Canon EF AF couldn't even focus correctly. SO that was the worst lens for me. To be fair though I got another Carl Zeiss Jenazoom Super zoom , the Carl Zeiss Jenazoom Super EF AF 70-300 that turned out to be quite decent, which did focus. They were strange 1990s Japanese made zooms by Sigma contracted by Carl Zeiss. Both had that noisy old ARC motor drive, a plastic front ring but to my surprise these old lenses worked on Canon DSLR ... but only wide open. Very weird zoom lenses.<br /> http://www.ciar-roisin.net/presources/Reviews/Lenses/70210.html#CZJ</p><div></div>

<p>Long time ago: http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00TiBr I asked about the "worst", sort of.<br /> I probably agree on 'worst' status of the 35-80mm PZ which I acquired as a part of my series on historical film EOS cameras (list at end of http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00WxgJ ).</p>

<p>Mostly, I find the EF lenses to be pretty good overall when one considers at least a couple of variables:</p>

<ul>

<li>when they were made (state of the art vs. old hat)</li>

<li>what their purpose is/was (a TS-E lens might make a poor 'portrait' lens, whatever that might be)</li>

</ul>

<p>My overall favorites, my preciouses, at least for my 35mm-sensors, are</p>

<ul>

<li>TS-E 17mm L</li>

<li>EF 24-105mm IS L</li>

<li>EF 100-400mm IS L</li>

</ul>

<p>If I could only have three (3) lenses, these are the ones.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>EF 135mm f2 L (nice contrast, no distortion); 2nd place, EF 200mm f2.8 L ii, 3rd place 35mm f1.4 L <br>

50mm f1.4 USM (mine was very sharp at 5.6 -f8) when I owned 5Dmkii, 6D <br>

Favorite EFS, most fun for the buck lens was the 60mm f2.8 when I owned 40D, 50D bodies.</p>

<p>Wow, that 35-80 is just about the ugliest/weirdest Canon lens I've seen. I'm somewhat ashamed to admit it, but I think I sort of want one!</p>

<p>Of course who wouldn't want JDM's TS 17 -- especially his anti-gravity version, strategically placed beneath his table!</p>