your 'regret' lens

[kevin_break]

<p>I regret every Sigma lens I ever had.</p>

<p>28f1/8 they couldn't "upgrade" the chip when I got a 5D.</p>

<p>30mm 1.4 had front focus.</p>

<p>I will never get Sigma again.</p>

<p>My 50mm canon 1.4 is not the sharpest, but it works fine for me otherwise.</p>

[dillan k]

<p>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!</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

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

<p>What a worthless piece of junk! What is the point of putting IS on bad glass?</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[manosgr]

<p>I regret buying the EF 28-135 IS. Very useful focal range and IS, plus good reviews (for amateurs) made it look ideal.<br>

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.<br>

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.<br>

I had already noticed that my 50/1.8 and 20-35mm were far better but considered it normal.</p>

[Ken Katz]

<p>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.</p>

[bjscharp]

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.

[derek_stanton2]

<p>35L.<br>

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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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. </p>

[john_h.1]

<p>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.</p>

[sam_taha]

<p>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!</p>

[jim_krupnik]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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....</p>

<p><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4070/4573422924_65b6a4882f.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="333" /></p>

[yog_sothoth]

<p>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.</p>

[ryan_k]

<p>TS -<br>

Oh yes, I love my 200 2.8 L. <br>

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. </p>

[anuragagnihotri]

<p>I'm about to buy 2 lenses for my crop camera. 10-22 and 70-200 F4 IS<br>

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. <br>

<strong>Here's what i might think about 10-22:</strong><br>

"O...its probably too wide...wider than i would like it to be"<br>

"i knew it"<br>

"shit"<br>

"is it slow?"<br>

"should i buy 17-55 2.8?"<br>

"general purpose lenses are the best"<br>

"lets post a question about tamron 17-50 vs. canon 17-55"<br>

<strong>Here's what i might think about 70-200:</strong><br>

"what's the point? its too big..."<br>

"i look like a photographer with this thing"<br>

"i should have known"<br>

"sell it"<br>

"and buy 85 1.8"<br>

"i want to meet that guy at thedigitalpicture.com"</p>

[notso bad]

<p>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. </p>

[gunjankv]

<p>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.<br>

I returned that lens back and now feeling very relaxed.. Sometime later I might buy 17-55 f/2.8 IS</p>

[pjmeade]

<p>The 50/1.8.<br>

I seldom use it because I don't like the background blurr but....<br>

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).<br>

Unfortunately, means my standby lens is a failure and I have to find a work around until the 24-105 has been repaired.</p>