Some Canon lenses I have either owned or used that offer "L" image quality:
50/1.4 - Better than my 24-70L at 50mm, I see no need for the 50/1.2.
50/1.8 - for sharpness anyway, bokeh is just ok, AF sucks, but for $120 it's a good "gateway" prime
100/2.8 Macro - biting sharpness
100/2 - stealth portrait lens
85/1.8 - stealth portrait lens
35/2 - AF is not silent, but IQ is great
L lenses that are a great value:
70-200/4L - really, a steal for what you get.
24-105/4L - if bought as part of a camera+lens kit
17-40L
135L
+1 on all of the above. And lol at "gateway prime". What's next, hard core prime lenses? (Actually, given what they cost, that's not such a bad description!! )
It's pretty annoying that to get "the good stuff" you have to spring to the red stripe on the lends barrel. How do you feel about 3rd party glass like Tokina, Tamron or Sigma? I've been looking at the Sigma 85mm 1.4 and it seems to be really good. anyway what are your thoughts on buying 3rd party?
Dude, you don't. The 100 f2 and 85 1.8 mentioned are top-notch lenses at a very low price (used you can find both for about $300).
I have the Tamron 17-50 2.8 I and it is a GREAT lens. It's not as fast or quiet to focus as Canon's USM lenses, but in all other ways rivals them. Again, used for about $300.
THere's definitely good stuff out there if you look...
If you are not in a rush, I would wait. Rumors (for what they are worth) is that the 70D should be announced fairly soon, and the 7DII later, perhaps around the new year. If and when the new models come, you will have the choice of a nifty new body at a high price or the old model, while it is still around, for a likely discount.
If you are not in a rush, I would wait. Rumors (for what they are worth) is that the 70D should be announced fairly soon, and the 7DII later, perhaps around the new year. If and when the new models come, you will have the choice of a nifty new body at a high price or the old model, while it is still around, for a likely discount.
I definitely have time to wait. I'm just saving up towards a new body to replace this one, and make my 550D a backup. Any news on the specs of those two?
Some Canon lenses I have either owned or used that offer "L" image quality:
50/1.4 - Better than my 24-70L at 50mm, I see no need for the 50/1.2.
50/1.8 - for sharpness anyway, bokeh is just ok, AF sucks, but for $120 it's a good "gateway" prime
100/2.8 Macro - biting sharpness
100/2 - stealth portrait lens
85/1.8 - stealth portrait lens
35/2 - AF is not silent, but IQ is great
L lenses that are a great value:
70-200/4L - really, a steal for what you get.
24-105/4L - if bought as part of a camera+lens kit
17-40L
135L
The Canon 50 1.4 and 50 1.8 are exactly what I'm talking about when I say they're decent, but absolute crap compared to the 1.2 and both of the Nikon AFS-G 50mm's. You have to hold and use the Nikon 50's to understand it, but for crying out loud the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 G has a mount gasket, and at f/1.8 is roughly as sharp as the 50 1.2 at f/1.8, in fact I'd argue that the corners are almost sharper. By f/2.2, they certainly are...
The bottom line is that if you're in the market for an affordable yet high quality 50mm on Canon, I recommend the Sigam 50mm alone.
The old Canon 100 Macros are decent at macro, but absolutely abysmal at anything else. (The optics are designed for optimal sharpness close up; try shooting anything near infinity wide open, and the image quality deteriorates rapidly)
The Canon 100 f/2, 85 f/1.8, 35 f/2 and 28 f/1.8 are the only lenses I really like on Canon that aren't L. They're quite sharp, and cheap / light. However once again, the Nikon equivalents completely blow them away.
Of course, one could argue that the Nikon primes I'm using to compare to Canon are sharper and better simply because they're very new by comparison, namely the Nikon 85 1.8 G and 28 1.8 G. You could argue that this is just a release cycle that favors Nikon, and that Canon will eventually come out with some new affordable f/1.8 primes that really rock, and match / beat Nikon's. Heck, Nikon still has yet to update their aging 35 f/2 and 105 f/2, and Canon has released two killer non-L primes in the meantime, the 24 f/2.8 IS and the 28 f/2.8 IS, both of which I'm sure trounce the ancient Nikon equivalents.
For me, it just seems like Canon is taking it's sweet time in updating lenses such as the 50 1.4 and f/1.8, and has been doing so for years.
I guess I just happened to begin my photography career at a point where Nikon was coming up and Canon was, well in some respects, "slacking off" because it had been in the lead for quite a while.
It's pretty annoying that to get "the good stuff" you have to spring to the red stripe on the lends barrel. How do you feel about 3rd party glass like Tokina, Tamron or Sigma? I've been looking at the Sigma 85mm 1.4 and it seems to be really good. anyway what are your thoughts on buying 3rd party?
Some 3rd-party lenses are great, including the Sigma 85, 50, and 35. Others, however, are of course junk.
Off the top of my head, here are some killer lenses that BLOW AWAY their Canon L (or non-L) equivalents, either for performance, or value, or both:
The Tokina 11-16 2.8 and 16-28 2.8 are absolutely killer lenses, and when you consider their value they beat the pants off the likes of the Canon 16-35 2.8 L's...
The Sigma 35, 50, and 85 are all incredible alternatives to the Canon counterparts. The Sigma 35 1.4 fairly trounces the Canon 35 1.4 L, and I bet that if a mk2 version comes out from Canon soon, it'll cost at least twice as much as the Sigma. The Sigma 50 1.4 completely beats the Canon 50 1.4, and for the money is a far better value than the Canon 50 1.2. The same thing goes with the 85mm- If you're thinking you'd really like the 85 1.2 but you just can't afford it, the Sigma is the way to go by far. The Canon 1.2 is just stupid-expensive, compared to the value of the Sigma and also the very good performance and value of the Canon 85 1.8 as well. Which, if you're on a super budget or you just don't use 85mm that much but you want something, is the lens you should get. (The Canon 85 1.8...)
The 70-200's, 24-70's, and other lenses are mostly hit-and-miss. if you're really a full-time hard-working pro, you should probably get the name-brand stuff because it will be nearly indestructible, by comparison to the Sigma and Tamron stuff out there especially in the 24-70 category. On the other hand, if you're a hobbyist or part-time pro and you take good care of your gear, then you'll probably never run into the issues that a rough-on-gear shooter would, and lenses like the Tamron 24-70 present an incredible value while also offering features that the name-brands don't.
Of course the last thing to consider is quality control, and many people say that Sigma and Tamron and Tokina have far inferior quality control and service departments than the name brands. However I have heard horror stories from both, and I have heard awesome stories too. Canon and Nikon quality control, while maybe slightly better when it comes to certain lenses, is still nothing to brag about and I have had my fair share of lemons and bad apples from all brands equally. I prefer to just get whatever lens I really need to get the job done, and worry about quality control or customer service if the issue arises.
The Canon 50 1.4 and 50 1.8 are exactly what I'm talking about when I say they're decent, but absolute crap compared to the 1.2 and both of the Nikon AFS-G 50mm's. You have to hold and use the Nikon 50's to understand it, but for crying out loud the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 G has a mount gasket, and at f/1.8 is roughly as sharp as the 50 1.2 at f/1.8, in fact I'd argue that the corners are almost sharper. By f/2.2, they certainly are...
The bottom line is that if you're in the market for an affordable yet high quality 50mm on Canon, I recommend the Sigam 50mm alone.
The old Canon 100 Macros are decent at macro, but absolutely abysmal at anything else. (The optics are designed for optimal sharpness close up; try shooting anything near infinity wide open, and the image quality deteriorates rapidly)
The Canon 100 f/2, 85 f/1.8, 35 f/2 and 28 f/1.8 are the only lenses I really like on Canon that aren't L. They're quite sharp, and cheap / light. However once again, the Nikon equivalents completely blow them away.
Of course, one could argue that the Nikon primes I'm using to compare to Canon are sharper and better simply because they're very new by comparison, namely the Nikon 85 1.8 G and 28 1.8 G. You could argue that this is just a release cycle that favors Nikon, and that Canon will eventually come out with some new affordable f/1.8 primes that really rock, and match / beat Nikon's. Heck, Nikon still has yet to update their aging 35 f/2 and 105 f/2, and Canon has released two killer non-L primes in the meantime, the 24 f/2.8 IS and the 28 f/2.8 IS, both of which I'm sure trounce the ancient Nikon equivalents.
For me, it just seems like Canon is taking it's sweet time in updating lenses such as the 50 1.4 and f/1.8, and has been doing so for years.
I guess I just happened to begin my photography career at a point where Nikon was coming up and Canon was, well in some respects, "slacking off" because it had been in the lead for quite a while.
Some 3rd-party lenses are great, including the Sigma 85, 50, and 35. Others, however, are of course junk.
Off the top of my head, here are some killer lenses that BLOW AWAY their Canon L (or non-L) equivalents, either for performance, or value, or both:
The Tokina 11-16 2.8 and 16-28 2.8 are absolutely killer lenses, and when you consider their value they beat the pants off the likes of the Canon 16-35 2.8 L's...
The Sigma 35, 50, and 85 are all incredible alternatives to the Canon counterparts. The Sigma 35 1.4 fairly trounces the Canon 35 1.4 L, and I bet that if a mk2 version comes out from Canon soon, it'll cost at least twice as much as the Sigma. The Sigma 50 1.4 completely beats the Canon 50 1.4, and for the money is a far better value than the Canon 50 1.2. The same thing goes with the 85mm- If you're thinking you'd really like the 85 1.2 but you just can't afford it, the Sigma is the way to go by far. The Canon 1.2 is just stupid-expensive, compared to the value of the Sigma and also the very good performance and value of the Canon 85 1.8 as well. Which, if you're on a super budget or you just don't use 85mm that much but you want something, is the lens you should get. (The Canon 85 1.8...)
The 70-200's, 24-70's, and other lenses are mostly hit-and-miss. if you're really a full-time hard-working pro, you should probably get the name-brand stuff because it will be nearly indestructible, by comparison to the Sigma and Tamron stuff out there especially in the 24-70 category. On the other hand, if you're a hobbyist or part-time pro and you take good care of your gear, then you'll probably never run into the issues that a rough-on-gear shooter would, and lenses like the Tamron 24-70 present an incredible value while also offering features that the name-brands don't.
Of course the last thing to consider is quality control, and many people say that Sigma and Tamron and Tokina have far inferior quality control and service departments than the name brands. However I have heard horror stories from both, and I have heard awesome stories too. Canon and Nikon quality control, while maybe slightly better when it comes to certain lenses, is still nothing to brag about and I have had my fair share of lemons and bad apples from all brands equally. I prefer to just get whatever lens I really need to get the job done, and worry about quality control or customer service if the issue arises.
So there you have it!
=Matt=
So far I love my sigma 50-200 way more than my efs 18-55 IS ii. The build quality is more rugged, the AF is fast and quiet IMO. Its become my go to, rather than the kit lens. I'm not sure whether I should get a 85mm or 50mm prime next though.
Comments
+1 on all of the above. And lol at "gateway prime". What's next, hard core prime lenses? (Actually, given what they cost, that's not such a bad description!!
Dude, you don't. The 100 f2 and 85 1.8 mentioned are top-notch lenses at a very low price (used you can find both for about $300).
I have the Tamron 17-50 2.8 I and it is a GREAT lens. It's not as fast or quiet to focus as Canon's USM lenses, but in all other ways rivals them. Again, used for about $300.
THere's definitely good stuff out there if you look...
I definitely have time to wait. I'm just saving up towards a new body to replace this one, and make my 550D a backup. Any news on the specs of those two?
Sent from mobile
Thanks Diva
Sent from mobile
The Canon 50 1.4 and 50 1.8 are exactly what I'm talking about when I say they're decent, but absolute crap compared to the 1.2 and both of the Nikon AFS-G 50mm's. You have to hold and use the Nikon 50's to understand it, but for crying out loud the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 G has a mount gasket, and at f/1.8 is roughly as sharp as the 50 1.2 at f/1.8, in fact I'd argue that the corners are almost sharper. By f/2.2, they certainly are...
The bottom line is that if you're in the market for an affordable yet high quality 50mm on Canon, I recommend the Sigam 50mm alone.
The old Canon 100 Macros are decent at macro, but absolutely abysmal at anything else. (The optics are designed for optimal sharpness close up; try shooting anything near infinity wide open, and the image quality deteriorates rapidly)
The Canon 100 f/2, 85 f/1.8, 35 f/2 and 28 f/1.8 are the only lenses I really like on Canon that aren't L. They're quite sharp, and cheap / light. However once again, the Nikon equivalents completely blow them away.
Of course, one could argue that the Nikon primes I'm using to compare to Canon are sharper and better simply because they're very new by comparison, namely the Nikon 85 1.8 G and 28 1.8 G. You could argue that this is just a release cycle that favors Nikon, and that Canon will eventually come out with some new affordable f/1.8 primes that really rock, and match / beat Nikon's. Heck, Nikon still has yet to update their aging 35 f/2 and 105 f/2, and Canon has released two killer non-L primes in the meantime, the 24 f/2.8 IS and the 28 f/2.8 IS, both of which I'm sure trounce the ancient Nikon equivalents.
For me, it just seems like Canon is taking it's sweet time in updating lenses such as the 50 1.4 and f/1.8, and has been doing so for years.
I guess I just happened to begin my photography career at a point where Nikon was coming up and Canon was, well in some respects, "slacking off" because it had been in the lead for quite a while.
Some 3rd-party lenses are great, including the Sigma 85, 50, and 35. Others, however, are of course junk.
Off the top of my head, here are some killer lenses that BLOW AWAY their Canon L (or non-L) equivalents, either for performance, or value, or both:
The Tokina 11-16 2.8 and 16-28 2.8 are absolutely killer lenses, and when you consider their value they beat the pants off the likes of the Canon 16-35 2.8 L's...
The Sigma 35, 50, and 85 are all incredible alternatives to the Canon counterparts. The Sigma 35 1.4 fairly trounces the Canon 35 1.4 L, and I bet that if a mk2 version comes out from Canon soon, it'll cost at least twice as much as the Sigma. The Sigma 50 1.4 completely beats the Canon 50 1.4, and for the money is a far better value than the Canon 50 1.2. The same thing goes with the 85mm- If you're thinking you'd really like the 85 1.2 but you just can't afford it, the Sigma is the way to go by far. The Canon 1.2 is just stupid-expensive, compared to the value of the Sigma and also the very good performance and value of the Canon 85 1.8 as well. Which, if you're on a super budget or you just don't use 85mm that much but you want something, is the lens you should get. (The Canon 85 1.8...)
The 70-200's, 24-70's, and other lenses are mostly hit-and-miss. if you're really a full-time hard-working pro, you should probably get the name-brand stuff because it will be nearly indestructible, by comparison to the Sigma and Tamron stuff out there especially in the 24-70 category. On the other hand, if you're a hobbyist or part-time pro and you take good care of your gear, then you'll probably never run into the issues that a rough-on-gear shooter would, and lenses like the Tamron 24-70 present an incredible value while also offering features that the name-brands don't.
Of course the last thing to consider is quality control, and many people say that Sigma and Tamron and Tokina have far inferior quality control and service departments than the name brands. However I have heard horror stories from both, and I have heard awesome stories too. Canon and Nikon quality control, while maybe slightly better when it comes to certain lenses, is still nothing to brag about and I have had my fair share of lemons and bad apples from all brands equally. I prefer to just get whatever lens I really need to get the job done, and worry about quality control or customer service if the issue arises.
So there you have it!
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
So far I love my sigma 50-200 way more than my efs 18-55 IS ii. The build quality is more rugged, the AF is fast and quiet IMO. Its become my go to, rather than the kit lens. I'm not sure whether I should get a 85mm or 50mm prime next though.
Sent from mobile