Options
Profile of a Canon Lens Buyer
chuckh
Registered Users Posts: 224 Major grins
I am submiting this posting with permission by the original auther Mark W from the Fred Miranda site. Mark's text struck a chord in that it pretty accurately sums up the profile of a (well financed) Canon system owner at the Canon discussion group at FM's and to a certain extent here at dgrin:
"Get a 70-200/4 - love it, then one day really need f2.8, feel
dissatisfied, buy a 70-200/2.8. Later feel the need of IS and upgrade
to the IS version.
Also get the 24-105/4 - love it, then one day really need something
faster, get a 24/2.8, 50/1.4 (preferably a Zeiss), plus an 85/1.8. But
keep the IS zoom.
Then one day see what an 85/1.2 can do, feel dissatisfied with the
85/1.8 and upgrade to the L version.
Also notice how abysmal the 24/2.8 is, and upgrade to the L. Then one
day really need something wider than the 24/1.4 and feel dissatisfied.
Look around confusedly. Test some bad Canon zoom lenses and feel
dissatisfied some more. Someone shows you a Zeiss 21 and you buy it
becuase it makes your work look wonderful. But feel a bit dissatisfied
with the waveform distortion.
Then one day you make the mistake of trying a 135/2 and of course you
have to have that.
Then one day you need something longer than the 200/2.8 IS and you buy
the 300/4, but it doesn't have IS, so you upgrade to the 300/4 IS.
Then you find that you're not using the 70-200/IS much because it's so
big and heavy, so you buy a 70-200/4 because it now seems so light and
sharp. And you sell the Zeiss 21, too, because it's worth so much
money now, and it doesn't render straight lines. And someone tells you
that the 300/4 non IS is much sharper than the 300/4 and you're not
sure whether to believe them, but it makes you feel slightly
dissatisfied with the IS version.
Then you think: wouldn't it be great if I could sell all this junk and
just buy one really great long, fast zoom lens? And you look hard at
the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 and you try it but it's too heavy and that
makes you feel dissatisfied.
So you look at the 100-400IS and you think: that's the answer to all
my problems! But you try it and you find it's not very sharp and that
makes you feel dissatisfied, so you get a Sigma 100-300m f4 and it's
great! And you use it a lot but eventually it makes your arms tired
and it's soft at the long end and it doesn't have IS and that makes
you feel dissatisfied.
Then one day you have to do a shoot in the rain, and you worry about
your 5D because it's not weatherproof (and that makes you feel
dissatisfied) so you try the 1Ds II and it's GREAT. And then you find
that none of your wide angle lenses are sharp in the corners and you
wish you hadn't sold your Zeiss 21mm and that makes you feel
dissatisfied.
So you sell everything, go on holiday, come back and buy a 350D with
the 17-85IS lens and find that it does almost everything you need it
to do anyway, except the viewfinder is rubbish (and guess how that
makes you feel?) and it's a bit flimsy, and then you start to think
the long end isnt long enough and then someone tells you that the
Sigma 18-50/2.8 is a lot sharper, or the Tamron 28-75mm and you read
all these posts praying for Canon to release the new lightweight full
frame 17-300mm f2.8 L IS but that just makes you feel dissatisfied
becuase it turns out to be just a rumour, and then you decide to take
up painting." :scratch
I don't know Mark personally and have no affiliation. Mark has expended a fair amount of energy conducting lens tests for which he has posted the results here.
"Get a 70-200/4 - love it, then one day really need f2.8, feel
dissatisfied, buy a 70-200/2.8. Later feel the need of IS and upgrade
to the IS version.
Also get the 24-105/4 - love it, then one day really need something
faster, get a 24/2.8, 50/1.4 (preferably a Zeiss), plus an 85/1.8. But
keep the IS zoom.
Then one day see what an 85/1.2 can do, feel dissatisfied with the
85/1.8 and upgrade to the L version.
Also notice how abysmal the 24/2.8 is, and upgrade to the L. Then one
day really need something wider than the 24/1.4 and feel dissatisfied.
Look around confusedly. Test some bad Canon zoom lenses and feel
dissatisfied some more. Someone shows you a Zeiss 21 and you buy it
becuase it makes your work look wonderful. But feel a bit dissatisfied
with the waveform distortion.
Then one day you make the mistake of trying a 135/2 and of course you
have to have that.
Then one day you need something longer than the 200/2.8 IS and you buy
the 300/4, but it doesn't have IS, so you upgrade to the 300/4 IS.
Then you find that you're not using the 70-200/IS much because it's so
big and heavy, so you buy a 70-200/4 because it now seems so light and
sharp. And you sell the Zeiss 21, too, because it's worth so much
money now, and it doesn't render straight lines. And someone tells you
that the 300/4 non IS is much sharper than the 300/4 and you're not
sure whether to believe them, but it makes you feel slightly
dissatisfied with the IS version.
Then you think: wouldn't it be great if I could sell all this junk and
just buy one really great long, fast zoom lens? And you look hard at
the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 and you try it but it's too heavy and that
makes you feel dissatisfied.
So you look at the 100-400IS and you think: that's the answer to all
my problems! But you try it and you find it's not very sharp and that
makes you feel dissatisfied, so you get a Sigma 100-300m f4 and it's
great! And you use it a lot but eventually it makes your arms tired
and it's soft at the long end and it doesn't have IS and that makes
you feel dissatisfied.
Then one day you have to do a shoot in the rain, and you worry about
your 5D because it's not weatherproof (and that makes you feel
dissatisfied) so you try the 1Ds II and it's GREAT. And then you find
that none of your wide angle lenses are sharp in the corners and you
wish you hadn't sold your Zeiss 21mm and that makes you feel
dissatisfied.
So you sell everything, go on holiday, come back and buy a 350D with
the 17-85IS lens and find that it does almost everything you need it
to do anyway, except the viewfinder is rubbish (and guess how that
makes you feel?) and it's a bit flimsy, and then you start to think
the long end isnt long enough and then someone tells you that the
Sigma 18-50/2.8 is a lot sharper, or the Tamron 28-75mm and you read
all these posts praying for Canon to release the new lightweight full
frame 17-300mm f2.8 L IS but that just makes you feel dissatisfied
becuase it turns out to be just a rumour, and then you decide to take
up painting." :scratch
I don't know Mark personally and have no affiliation. Mark has expended a fair amount of energy conducting lens tests for which he has posted the results here.
0
Comments
Although I would like something that could open up a bit more for a better background, with a little more reach, and...oh no...GAAAAAH! I've got the disease! :uhoh
Though I've managed to stop at the 70-200 2.8 IS and 24-70L, 1.4 tc. Thank goodness my profession needs the former, keeps the lens lust down.
(although I would like something wide and sharp for other stuff, and oh, a 300 f4 for shooting filled frame, and... )
Lynne
Galleries here Upcoming Ranch/Horse Workshop
what an expensive and ultimately pointless treadmill that seems to be.
its not me though- i have one canon lens(efs60mm macro) and my smc takumars.
crop camera owners-if you can live without autofocus and want nice glass in a sturdy metal body with beautiful finish and smooth focussing then get yourself some old glass-takumar,leica,zeiss,zeiss jena,voigtlander-stick those on your camera and save your pennies.
They are ,on the whole just as good quality as current lenses,if not sometimes better.
Cemented elements,some with hand ground aspherical elements,apochromatic and super apochromatic,some with fluorite front elements others ,no longer available,with super hard rare earth multicoating.
85/1.8 portrait lenses for a few hundred(dont tell me that you use auto focus in shallow dof portraiture).
50/1.4's for next to nothing or even f1.2 for not much compared to current equivalents.
i have seen a meyer optik 400mm (admitedly without multi coating) for $75.00
this is the same lens that jimmy stewart peered through in hitchcocks rear window.
sure you won't want ,or be able ,to use these manual focus lenses for birds in flight,but for most other forms of photography they will do you just fine,wide open.
i understand that most professional sports shooters prefocus manually.
autofocus is next to useless for macro,and it can sometimes just get things wrong in situations with mutiple subjects etc.
if people spent half as much time planning their next photo etc rather than obsessing about gear, then photography would improve substantially.
i suggest that we get dgrin to open up a section for lens lust aversion therapy-you know who are-you need help.
(please dont take offence at this)
Longitude: 145° 08'East
Canon 20d,EFS-60mm Macro,Canon 85mm/1.8. Pentax Spotmatic SP,Pentax Super Takumars 50/1.4 &135/3.5,Pentax Super-Multi-Coated Takumars 200/4 ,300/4,400/5.6,Sigma 600/8.
The post lifted from FM was made in response to A. N. Other request for advice about whether to buy a 70-200mm f4, or a 24-105mmm IS (or whatever) and I just wanted to clue the noob that asking the question invites a world of pain.
I must stress that the comments made have no basis in my personal experience whatever and that I am a well adjusted adult with no obsessive compulsions or deep seated inadequacies or unresolved childhood psychoses or latent guilt or uncommon susceptibility to sheer existential ennui at all.
Photography is the challenge of creating one's joy through a process of refining one's skill-set to work as an artist in harmony with it.
DAMHIK...
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]
heres a link to a discussion on contax/yashica/zeiss lenses
http://www.photo.net/equipment/contax/shea-lenses
Longitude: 145° 08'East
Canon 20d,EFS-60mm Macro,Canon 85mm/1.8. Pentax Spotmatic SP,Pentax Super Takumars 50/1.4 &135/3.5,Pentax Super-Multi-Coated Takumars 200/4 ,300/4,400/5.6,Sigma 600/8.
135 mm lens shoot out,including canon v smc takumar,which comes off second best by just a whisker.if price is factored in then it wins .
http://oomz.net/135/
Longitude: 145° 08'East
Canon 20d,EFS-60mm Macro,Canon 85mm/1.8. Pentax Spotmatic SP,Pentax Super Takumars 50/1.4 &135/3.5,Pentax Super-Multi-Coated Takumars 200/4 ,300/4,400/5.6,Sigma 600/8.
Unlikely...my cash flow doesn't support frequent turnover of L glass!
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Fortunately I have no money, which limits the "pain" of frequent photographic acquisitions.:D
ziggy53
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
... but you find the fan brush just doesn't show the detail you get from your Sable Tuft Liner brush so you are dissatisfied. The Flat brush offers more maneuverability but doesn't offer the control of the Bright brush so you are dissatisfied.
You buy that top of the line Round brush only to find out it's a one-trick pony so you are dissatisfied only to discover the Filbert will provide large areas of cover. However the Filbert quickly falls from grace as you prefer the Mop so you can cover even larger areas of color. So you are again dissatisfied.
... and then you decide to take up music composition.
My old TV. My 11-year-old CRT. Hmm. I think I need a new one. Let's see. Maybe a widescreen TV. HD capable. Oh, should have DVI too. Hang on, a 20" widescreen is actually not as tall than a 20" 4:3 screen, so if it's a widescreen I'll need more like a 30-32" to be as tall as my old one. Oh wait, can't watch a TV like that without a whole set of nice speakers. But my receiver can't handle those. I guess I need a new amp. But then...
I have to say that I've had two - no, three - really pleasant surprises in the last batch of lenses I've tested: the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8, Nikon 17-35mm AFS, and Canon 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS are all very much better than they've any right to be. I feel, almost . . . satisifed . . . with them?!
Test results here.