your 'regret' lens

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by anuragagnihotri, Apr 30, 2010.

  1. Which lens you bought with high hopes, but later realesed you probably were better off without it?
    it looked great lens to buy, every reviewer told you that.
    but when you bought it, you didn't use it much. you got average pictures with it. maybe
    that was not the focal length you needed anyway.
    and you probably sold it.
     
  2. 50mm f/1.8. The "plastic fantastic".
    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?".
    Mainly from the great reviews vis-a-vis the price.
     
  3. 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.
     
  4. My Canon 17-40 L.
    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.
     
  5. Scary hearing all that about 50mm's.
    Ryan, but then do you use your 200 2.8 enough?
    My regret lens has to be the kit lens that came with the camera.
     
  6. 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.
     
  7. 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.
     
  8. Canon EF 75-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM
    When I first made the transition from FD to EOS, this was my 2nd lens purchase after the 50 f1/8.
    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!
    I could and still do live with the 50 f/1.8 although I also have the 50 f/1.4.
     
  9. The EF 28-135 IS that I bought for my 1.6x camera thinking I could use it for travel and sports. My bad.
     
  10. 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.
     
  11. 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.
     
  12. 100mm macro.
    In retrospect, I should have gotten the 180mm macro instead. I just misgauged my needs/wants.
     
  13. Which lens you bought with high hopes, but later realesed you probably were better off without it?
    That's a loaded question (the 'high hopes' part). However, I will say that the Canon EF 28-200 f/3.5 - 5.6 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.
     
  14. 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.
    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.
     
  15. 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!
     
  16. Sigma 50-500... never really liked the IQ, the paint flaked off, and I lost 500 bucks when I sold it.
     
  17. 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 once, and sold it the other day for $700. I guess the superwide 14mm focal length just isn't my thing. C'est la vie.
     
  18. Lots of lenses. No regrets. They were each carefully researched and do what I bought them for.
    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.
     
  19. 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.
     
  20. 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!
     
  21. 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.
     
  22. 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.
     
  23. 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.
    Came with a hard leather case superior to any luggage I've ever owned.
     
  24. 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).
    Well, just my opinion.
     
  25. 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.
    My favorite lens is any Prime lens on full frame camera.
     
  26. Purchased the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC a few months back and have been disappointed with the IQ. Wish I would've just splurged for the Canon 17-55mm or would've waited for the new Sigma version.
     
  27. Since I've bought a used 70-200 2.8 IS, I have not used my 70-300 IS once. Me thinks a Craigslist ad is gonna be placed soon. But then I worry about lugging around a 3+ lb lens around ALL the time.
     
  28. In my youth, I spent a day with money in my pockets to buy a long focus lens to supplement my 50mm f/1.8 that came on my Canon FX. I drove all over Bergen County, NJ looking for a long Canon lens. I smacked a horrendous dent into my Dad's 1965 Buick Invicta and came home with a Canon branded 100 - 200 zoom. I could have done better by attaching a Coke bottle to bottom to the camera. I used this piece of crap to photograph Apollo launches to the Moon from various locations near Cape Canaveral. The memory of this lens brings back many memories of bad car rides with six guys stuffed in Mustangs and fast back VWs. The lens (and camera) was stolen from my Haight Ashbury apartment and was replaced by a stunning Canon 100mm f/2.0 and a Canon FTb with the ubiquitous (and very good) 50mm f/1.8.
     
  29. surprising so many people didn't like their 50mm's.
    what could be the reason? isn't it supposed to be a super low light n convenient one size fits all miracle lens?
    about ultra wides...looks like you buy it and then you instantly know you don't like it...and you sell it in 2 days flat. but then why do you buy it in the first place. a mystry.
     
  30. I have 2 lens' that I regret buying. About 5 years ago I purchased a 28-135 IS and it was so bad, I refused to sell it to anyone. I simply dropped it in my trash can. I also have the 50 1.4 that I really don't like. Although I get good pictures with it, the focal length is what I have the problem with. I rather use my 35 1.4L on my full frame. Also in 2003 I purchased a original digital rebel (6.3 pixel which I loved) with a Sigma 70-300. The lens cost me a 100.00 but it sucked. When I sold the Digital Rebel, I threw in the Sigma. v/r Buffdr
     
  31. My 80-200mm f2.8. It was just so heavy to use all day that I sold it in favour of the 70-300mm VR plus the olympus 50-200mm f2.8 lens.
     
  32. This trading gear thing is quite funny...
    i've not bought much digital gear...maybe couple of digicams and once a cheap dslr....but in film days, i used to buy one, shoot with it for some time and then will move on to another one...
    i started with Nikon FM10...traded it with a F60...traded that with FM2....traded that with F80...traded that with FM3....and tradded my FM3 with a digital...canon powershot G2...which was traded with a rebel 400D....which was traded with a LX3....which i've been very loyal to...2 full years and still going strong.
    Fuji F30 has been the only camera i have bought without exchanging it with some other camera.
    And the funny thing is, all these 'trade' years, i've not been particularly interested in photography...mostly in gears....i hardly shot any pictures....it was with the LX3 that i started clicking a lot and eventually got serious about picture making.
    Same story with the lenses: i have used 50 1.8, 28-105 and a 85 1.8.
     
  33. My two zooms.
    I either max or min them out. Meaning, if I have a 17 - 55 I'll use it as a 17 or a 55 - nothing in between.
    I'm old school - I use my legs for "zooming" - plus, my memory is going at my age (45) and I forget I have a zoom. As a kid, all I had were fixed focal lengths - in the snow - uphill - both ways - with an onion on my belt ....
     
  34. The sigma 120-400mm lens I purchased a few years ago. It wasn't on my camera for 2 days when I started getting error messages. I was using a Canon dig. Rebel at the time. I sent the lens to Sigma for the adjustment and it came back a week later. The lens worked fine but I soon realized it just wasn't a very good product. I ended up selling it. The lessen learned for me was stick with Canon lenses on a Canon body. I've never regretted any Canon lenses I purchased since then.
     
  35. Sigma 170-500mm F5-6.3 APO DG. Probably as sharp as a champagne bottle mounted on the camera. Returned it the next day and bought the Canon 400mm F5.6 prime.
     
  36. Tamron 14mm 2.8, I've used it maybe twice...I keep thinking, "maybe someday".
     
  37. Canon EF 75-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM
    This was my first lens purchase after I bought a Rebel body on ebay. Together they were my transition from film to digital. I was starting to hate digital, until I borrowed an "L" lens from a friend, then it dawned on me it was the first lens. In clear conscience I could not sell it, so I took it apart and got some satisfaction from it.
     
  38. Canon 50mm 1.8 (metal mount) and the Tamron Aspherical 28-200mm 3.8-5.6...... the 50mm was my first lens so i had nothing to compare it to. The Tamron gives horrible split-toning with digital.
     
  39. 17-85mm. Chromatic distortion, barrel distortion, pincushion distortion, you name it, it distorted. Got rid of it and got a 17-55mm f2.8, which is an awesome lens. If I need the reach, I grab my second camera, which has a 70-200mm f2.8.
     
  40. Mixed feelings about the regrets - probably the fish-eye ultra-wide angle that I bought for a song from a cash-strapped fellow starving college student back in the early 1970's. But I was starving too and the song was a heck of a lotta money for me back then. My gawd I burned up some film uselessly in the first two weeks I owned it. I don't recall the exact lens - probably a 10, 12, or 14 mm that fit my Minolta SRT-101's.
    I rarely used it at all after that and lugged it around for years until it was stolen along with the rest of my gear on a business trip between Philadelphia and Gothenburg, Sweden. That is probably my real regret. I was young and stupid and when boarding the plane and told I could only have one carry on bag I kept my brief case with work and reading material in it and gave them my camera case to stow in baggage.
    The camera case arrived at my hotel 2 days later completely empty. That was the last time I ever checked camera gear with an airline.
    Not sure I ever used it properly, but the non-regret part is that I have a couple of silly party group photos of college friends that I otherwise do not have shots of together and some of the folks are now gone.
     
  41. My Canon 50 1.4 is excellent...in every respect...not a Zeiss, but as good as a Canon can be.
     
  42. to Andre Vallejo,
    We're still waiting to hear your regret....
     
  43. I once replaced my Canon EF-s 18-55mm with a EF-s 18-55mm IS thinking "IS" means better quality. Waste of money IMHO but I didn't know any better back then until I discovered L-glass. Nowadays I use a 17-40mm L, 24-105mm L, 70-400mm f4 L, 50mm 1.4 and a Lensbaby Composer with no further regret.
     
  44. For me it's the 145mm soft focus lens. The effect is too much even on the lightest setting.
     
  45. I never got a canon lens I did not like. But there was an 80mm Schneider XL, for 4x5, which was a huge disappointment. I expected something much better than the 65mm Rodenstock I was using for an interior project, and got a lens which was much worse.
     
  46. Canon 24-105 f/4 L
    Great build, useful focal range for me, but I was just never happy with this lens, even after I sent it to Canon for adjustment. I replaced it with a Canon 17-55 f/2.8 and I'm happy now. The images are much sharper.
     
  47. Nikon 16-85mm after 3 years I see that the most polibalent lens are the less atractive for me. i love my 50mm and some zooms like sigma 70-200mm.
     
  48. Huh? Nikon 16-85mm? I thought this was a Canon forum....
     
  49. Ah,ok...17-35 2.8L. Not exactly a regret, but it let me down...soft. I sold it and bought a Zeiss Distagon 21mm ZE. No regrets on this one!
     
  50. I regret every Sigma lens I ever had.
    28f1/8 they couldn't "upgrade" the chip when I got a 5D.
    30mm 1.4 had front focus.
    I will never get Sigma again.
    My 50mm canon 1.4 is not the sharpest, but it works fine for me otherwise.
     
  51. I regret every Sigma lens I ever had.
    28f1/8 they couldn't "upgrade" the chip when I got a 5D.
    30mm 1.4 had front focus.
    I will never get Sigma again.
    My 50mm canon 1.4 is not the sharpest, but it works fine for me otherwise.
     
  52. I've got a 50mm f/1.8 II and a 100mm f/2.8 which are both great lenses, but I do sort of regret having them because I'd rather have a 50mm f/1.4 and a 135mm f/2. I have a tough time justifying the move to my preferred glass because the glass I have really does a good job!
     
  53. Canon EF 75-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM
    What a worthless piece of junk! What is the point of putting IS on bad glass?
    At the other end (an admittedly high-quality lens), I regret buying the EF 85mm f/1.2 II lens. Portrait photographers use it a lot, but I am not a portrait photographer. I almost never used it and sold it for about what I paid for it. It was still a bad buying decision.
    --Lannie
     
  54. I regret buying the EF 28-135 IS. Very useful focal range and IS, plus good reviews (for amateurs) made it look ideal.
    But I'm afraid my lens might be defective. It's soft and the colors aren't vivid. I always felt that my pictures with it weren't good enough.
    When the time came to buy my first DSLR (300D), the kit EF-S 18-55 produced much better photos. That was the last blow.
    I had already noticed that my 50/1.8 and 20-35mm were far better but considered it normal.
     
  55. I sold all my FD equipment and purchased the EF 100-300 f4.5-5.6 USM. While it was mechanically quite decent with extremely fast AF, image quality deteriorated when zoomed out beyond 200mm, so it effectively became a 100-200mm lens for me. It was replaced with a 70-200 F4L, without a moment of regret.
     
  56. If I have to pick one, it'd be my 18-55 kit-zoom. Never used that lens once I got my Sigma 30mm.

    All my other lenses were pretty well researched and considered, so I'm satisfied. Only lens I might replace if I could is my 17-40L, which would be replaced by a reasonable prime in the 17-21 range, which Canon doesn't make. (17mm TS-E is out of my league, and does stuff I don't need, and I've never seen a positive review of the 20mm 2.8 USM). Mind you, I'd replace it because I prefer primes, not because it's not good enough, it's a perfect lens for what I do.
     
  57. 35L.
    I've had it for years. I don't think i've ever used it. It tests well. I've seen wonderful pictures from it by other photographers. But, it's too big for a 'walkaround' lens, and i've never really been comfortable with wide angles. It's not 'that' wide, but i bought it to shoot in environments during travels when i wanted to get a bit of background included in 'people pictures.' But, i never want to actually carry this lens on the camera when i'm traveling. At least not in my typical destinations.
    Sadly, i used to own the 35/2, which was the perfect size/weight for my purposes. But, i bought into the 35L's 'potential' - potential never realized.
    I truly wish Canon would make some SMALL PRIME L lenses. A 35/2L. 50/1.4L. 28/2L. Compact, but built to high specification. They should feel SOLID. With the superior high-ISO sensors, we don't really need super fast glass anymore. If you want a 1.2 or 1.4 for the bokeh, you already have the choice.
     
  58. Same as JDM. 500mm mirror. Totally worthless. No regrets, like Kevin, from Sigma. At least the EX series. I've had Nikon lens issues, but don't rule out the whole brand based on that.
     
  59. Not sure i regret it but my very fine 85/1.4 just didn't get much use. It's still as new 5 years on, probably used it less than 10 times. Not a cheap lens either. I can't bring myself to sell it!
     
  60. I am surprised that the 50 f/1.4 is taking such a beating here, but that's the way it goes in the consumer market. I love the EF 50 f/1.4 lens. It does everything the f/1.8 does, plus a whole lot more. My 1.4 lens is quite old now, and has been abused regularly over the years. I wouldn't be without it.
    I am currently without an EF 50 f/1.8 lens though. There is nothing that it offers to me over the f/1.4 version at all. In fact, just having it mounted on a camera is a limitation in itself. So, my choice for lens regret would have to be the EF 50 f/1.8. People love it like a three legged puppy, but I prefer f/1.4, and bailed out of EF 50 f/1.8 ownership awhile ago... The difference in price is not enough to justify going cheap in the long run, at least in my experience.
    I will add to the chorus of mirror lens users. I owned two different third party brands of 500mm mirror glass, and both were garbage. I mean pure garbage. I still use one as an ashtray in my house for visitors who smoke. It does that far better than it ever delivered light to a sensor. The ash tray lens is an Optika junk brand. It was only $100, but that made it my most expensive ash tray to date....
    [​IMG]
     
  61. The 18-55 kit lens that came with my 20D will always have a special place in my heart. A dark and unforgiving place. The 20D was my first DSLR, and the prints were much much worse than my much less expensive 35mm film cameras. After I got the Tamron 28-75 the 20D became much more useful. Afer the 18-55 I knew that Canon lenses could be every bit as bad as Soligor or Quantaray super zooms.
     
  62. TS -
    Oh yes, I love my 200 2.8 L.
    My style is more of portraiture and candids. For instance, I shot a 1st Communion for a family's daughter this last saturday. The church was large and packed, and the paster restricted movement in the church for photography(although we could stand). The 200 was invaluable from 12 pews back, whereas the 17-40 would have left me, and the family, disappointed with the results.
     
  63. I'm about to buy 2 lenses for my crop camera. 10-22 and 70-200 F4 IS
    Good lenses cost money. Lot of money actually. Which is why its important you don't have any confusion or second thoughts before you go and actually buy them.
    Here's what i might think about 10-22:
    "O...its probably too wide...wider than i would like it to be"
    "i knew it"
    "*X&$#**X&$#**X&$#**X&$#*"
    "is it slow?"
    "should i buy 17-55 2.8?"
    "general purpose lenses are the best"
    "lets post a question about tamron 17-50 vs. canon 17-55"
    Here's what i might think about 70-200:
    "what's the point? its too big..."
    "i look like a photographer with this thing"
    "i should have known"
    "sell it"
    "and buy 85 1.8"
    "i want to meet that guy at thedigitalpicture.com"
     
  64. 24-105/L. Not a bad lens, but did not have the "WOW" factor in the images that came from it, like the 70-200/f4 I bought earlier. Also, I liked the long end, but often felt 24 was not wide enough on an APS crop sensor camera. I later bought the 17-55/2.8, which rarely comes off the camera now. I keep thinking about selling the 24-105, but then I wonder if I might venture to a full frame camera one day, or otherwise regret getting rid of it.
     
  65. EF-S 15-85 USM IS lens. I know its very new lens. I already have 18-55 IS lens and bought this one. But I realized that the kid I had (18-55) was much better in the comparable range.. superb image quality. If one keeps aside USM and extra reach, 15-85 I found not worth the extra $600 or so.
    I returned that lens back and now feeling very relaxed.. Sometime later I might buy 17-55 f/2.8 IS
     
  66. The 50/1.8.
    I seldom use it because I don't like the background blurr but....
    Only last weekend. When my 5D+24-105 started giving Err 1 communication errors in the middle of a horse show, it gave the 50/1.8 a chance to shine. Unfortunately, almost nothing usable came out of it; a couple of static shots were OK, but anything where there was movement looked poor (this was at >1/1000 and f5.6-f8, using the correct AF setting).
    Unfortunately, means my standby lens is a failure and I have to find a work around until the 24-105 has been repaired.
     

Share This Page