your 'regret' lens

<p>Which lens you bought with high hopes, but later realesed you probably were better off without it? <br>

it looked great lens to buy, every reviewer told you that. <br>

but when you bought it, you didn't use it much. you got average pictures with it. maybe <br>

that was not the focal length you needed anyway. <br>

and you probably sold it. </p>

 

<p>50mm f/1.8. The "plastic fantastic".<br>

I never liked the 50mm focal length in the film days and even less in the APS-C crop days. So you're probably thinking, "Then why did he buy it?".</p>

<p>Mainly from the great reviews vis-a-vis the price.</p>

<p>Easy. 50mm f/1.4. Good glass. Tragically misguided mechanism. It absolutely refuses to focus (except manually), and it's not worth whatever Canon would charge to fix it.</p>

<p>My Canon 17-40 L.</p>

<p>I wanted wide angle on my 5D, but I hate zooms. Then I realized after doing some fun wide angle stuff that I didn't like barrel distortion at all, or the IQ of the 17-40, so I bought a 200 2.8 L II for some fun landscape work and portraiture. Even bought it for 50 bucks less than I sold the 17-40 for. </p>

 

<p>Scary hearing all that about 50mm's. <br>

Ryan, but then do you use your 200 2.8 enough?<br>

My regret lens has to be the kit lens that came with the camera. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>The lens I love most and hate most is the 50 1.4. I love that its so small and light, the 1.4 aperture and the images are sharp as can be. Even wide open its pretty sharp but its the only lens I own that is not USM so when I go to shoot something and the focus just seems to freeze up it makes me wish I just spent the money and got a 35 1.4 ( which I am still thinking about ) But even if I do it would be hard to sell this lens. </p>

<p>Easy, the "soft-focus" (to put it very kindly) Quantaray 500mm f/8 mirror lens. Cheap at only $79 or so, but not worth even that little. You might be surprised at how little application there is a for a soft-focus 500mm lens.</p>

<p>Canon EF 75-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM</p>

<p>When I first made the transition from FD to EOS, this was my 2nd lens purchase after the 50 f1/8.<br>

What a joke! I certainly did not like the Lens barrel extending when focusing. I do wildlife and it was noisy to boot! Especially for what it cost at the time as new. I don't remember how much it was but I do know that I gladly took a loss when I got rid of it! Replaced it with my first piece of L glass, what a difference!<br>

I could and still do live with the 50 f/1.8 although I also have the 50 f/1.4.</p>

 

<p>The EF 28-135 IS that I bought for my 1.6x camera thinking I could use it for travel and sports. My bad.</p>

<p>I regret not buying the 70-200mm f/4L sooner. I don't really have a regret lens. I had the EF-S 10-22mm for about 6 months and can count on one hand the number of times I used it, but I don't regret the purchase. I really wanted it at the time and I never would have known I didn't need it if I hadn't bought it. I sold it for $60 more than I bought it anyways, so I got to use it for awhile then made a profit. And as for the 50mm f/1.8 complaints, I have one and its one of my favorite lenses. Definitely don't regret buying that one. The best IQ you can get for the cheapest price. A must have in everyone's bag, unless you have a little more money to get the 1.4 or 1.2.</p>

<p>Second lens I ever bought, when I was about 19, was a 28-85 varifocal. Complete PITA to use, but I learned a lot about lenses and focusing from it.</p>

<p>100mm macro.<br>

In retrospect, I should have gotten the 180mm macro instead. I just misgauged my needs/wants.</p>

<p><em>Which lens you bought with high hopes, but later realesed you probably were better off without it? </em></p>

<p>That's a loaded question (the 'high hopes' part). However, I will say that the <strong>Canon EF 28-200 f/3.5 - 5.6 </strong>I paid $500 or so enough years ago to accompany my 10D was not money well spent. C'est la vie! Stupid choice at the time. I sold it and moved on, having learned my lesson once and for all about slow, cheap, and megazoom lenses -- there's never a place for them if you value quality.</p>

<p>I think the standard, general purpose lenses from 28 to 100mm are the safest lenses and least regret inducing for most people. But not for all probably. In my case, i got bored with the kit lens focal lengths and could do everything it did with a 50mm lens. <br>

Its when you buy those extreme focal lengths with lot of $$$ involved, like UWides or telephoto Ls, you tend to think a lot if you need them in the first place. </p>

<p>A few years ago, after reading a few positive comments on it, I purchased a used Canon 20-35mm 3.5/4.5 lens. The IQ was absolutely wretched. The seller was a nice guy and gave me a refund. I think this must have been a bad copy, maybe the all time worst copy!</p>

<p>Sigma 50-500... never really liked the IQ, the paint flaked off, and I lost 500 bucks when I sold it. </p>

<p>My biggest "regret" lens is ironically one of the finest I've ever had: the FD 14/2.8 L. I paid around $1000 for it several years ago, used it a grand total of <em><strong>once</strong>, </em>and sold it the other day for $700. I guess the superwide 14mm focal length just isn't my thing. <em>C'est la vie.</em></p>

<p>Lots of lenses. No regrets. They were each carefully researched and do what I bought them for.</p>

<p>Closest to a regret was/is the 75-300IS. At the time I bought it I didn't want to sink lots of $$$ into serious tele glass beyond 200mm. My only regret is that it isn't the 70-300IS, but that wasn't out at the time.</p>

<p>Canon EOS 50mm 1.4 (broken 3 times under very light use, so far).Absolutely the most troublesome and poorest designed product I've ever owned. The lens is nothing but a endless money pit.It is so weak that I almost always resort to my 'old' Canon FD manual focus system when I need a fast 50 - over 30 years old and still performs like new every time.Optics just as good if not better.</p>

<p>Sigma 14mm F3.5 - not very sharp and noisy AF - it is a lot cheaper than the Canon lens but you get what you pay for!</p>

<p>I bought and sold lenses by the dozen when I used the manual focus Minolta system. Great chance to try out some awesome glass for next to nothing. In fact, most lenses I sold, I sold for more money than I bought them for, which allowed me to gradually upgrade the whole system. I'd still be shooting the glass that I had in the end, but since there is no decent DSLR available for those lenses, I eventually sold the whole shebang and moved to EOS. I've never looked back, because the advantages digital offers for my photography are awesome. Having used Minolta primes for many years, I knew exactly what focal length I needed in the EOS system. In fact, I waited to buy into digital until the 10-22 came out, because I could never justify the cost of FF, but needed the 17-24 FF equivalent range. I also knew where to look for first rate glass for cheap on the second hand market. Buying an EOS system that was just right for my needs was a breeze. I haven't bought anything new in ages. I simply don't have the need, but sometimes I miss the constant trading of gear, which for some years was an integral part of the photo hobby for me.</p>

<p>Douglas, the EF 50/1.4 has the same optical formula as your beloved FD 50/1.4, which was introduced with the F-1 in 1971. It's too bad Canon didn't retain the build quality in the AF lens, since its optics are so good. </p>

<p>85-300 f5 FD purchased in 1971 while a student at Brooks. Huge, heavy, expensive. Thought it a poor performer, too, although will admit my technique was lacking in those days.<br>

Came with a hard leather case superior to any luggage I've ever owned.</p>

<p>I'm really shocked how many ppl picked their 50mm f1.4. My copy produced really good pictures for me. Its got good bokeh, 1.4 aperture is fast enough for almost every shots, good contrast and colors, mine focuses pretty well and fast enough(although, Im just old school and focus manually quite often). <br>

Well, just my opinion. </p>

<p>Sig 50-500. I got better results using my 200mm f2.8 and cropping. Plus, I probably only used it once or twice. Expensive for small percentage of use. My mind tends to focus on small objects far away. But I force myself to see the big picture and photograph the entire scene. Then the viewer of the print can themselves focus in on what they think is interesting.<br>

My favorite lens is any Prime lens on full frame camera.</p>