TOP Canon Lenses

[yb98]

I have used pbase to have an idea about which canon lenses have the most big success. I did 2 sorts : one using the number of users who owns the lens and the other using the number of pics present at pbase (most used lens). What do you think about these results ? Do they reflect the reality ?

1. Sort by number of users
=================

28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM______538
18-55mm f/3.5-5.6_____________326
50mm f/1.8 II_________________216
70-200mm f/4L USM____________204
17-40mm f/4L USM_____________198
100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM____193
70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM________175
75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM_______170
50mm f/1.4 USM_______________157
24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM_________157
50mm f/1.8___________________156
16-35mm f/2.8L USM___________134
28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM________133
24-70mm f/2.8L USM___________114
100mm f/2.8 Macro USM________109

2. Sort by number of shots
=================

28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM______15807
100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM_____9005
18-55mm f/3.5-5.6_______________6980
70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM__________6145
70-200mm f/4L USM______________5550
17-40mm f/4L USM_______________5105
75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM_________4954
24-70mm f/2.8L USM_____________3772
28-70mm f/2.8L USM_____________3357
50mm f/1.8 II___________________2708
50mm f/1.4 USM_________________2397
100mm f/2.8 Macro USM___________2119
16-35mm f/2.8L USM______________1717
70-200mm f/2.8L USM_____________1596
28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM_________1348

Yacine.

[ron chappel]

Well...
It's not a good way of finding out which lenses are best to buy,if that's what you want to know.I assume you are counting all pics-including the utter crap ones? :P

[KennyG]

All you have done is to list the most used lenses. The top of your list for example is not the best lens, far from it. It is only popular because of the price for the specification you get on paper.

Out of that list there are only 7 lenses worth considering based on quality of results. I assume you are trying to interpret your results to say if it is posted on PBase then it must be a quality image? Think again.

[yb98]

Of course these lens aren't the top in regard to the quality but in regard to their popularity (at least at pbase).
The best lenses are so expensive that only some professionals can buy them.
But if we look at the ratio between quality and price, may be this list gives a good idea to an amateur...

[Cadwell]

I am not sure that your ownership figures prove very much. I own the EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. I never, ever use the damn thing. If you gave me a couple of hours I might be able to find it... the one place where I know it isn't is in my camera bag.

[BDM]

Of course these lens aren't the top in regard to the quality but in regard to their popularity (at least at pbase).
The best lenses are so expensive that only some professionals can buy them.
But if we look at the ratio between quality and price, may be this list gives a good idea to an amateur...

I just don't see any correlation between lens quality and either number of users or number of pictures. There are just too many variables to consider such as price, availability, intended use, experience of the user and standards of the user.

There are better ways of deternining probable quality. A lens from a reputable manufacturer, within the price range you can afford should be acceptable. Beyond that, sure some lenses are better than others but some of that "improvement" seems close to nit picking and impracticable. If the lens you want costs $2,000 but all you can afford is $500.00, the $2,000 model is worthless to you since you can't afford it!

Bruce

[Sendide]

yb98 did however a good try to help and the least I would say is : Thank you for the post. would be more helpful though is it was about L leneses alone or non L lenses alone. the difference between these two grouips is out of discuccion (I Know I know the canon 100mm Macro USM and 50mm 1.4..... :oops: ) :wink:
regards
Khalid

[Guillermo Freige]

yb98:
I think your list is very representative of good price/performance lenses. That doesn´t mean all the lenses are equally good per se. A good example is the 18-55. A pretty mediocre lens at the tele end, but because it´s included in the Rebel kit it´s a very popular one. But for a $100 zoom lens, it does a decent job. The bad 50mm end can be solved easily by the ultracheap but very good 50/1.8 :)
Regarding the 28-135 I think is a fine lens for the cost, for a IS lens. One of my favorite lenses and much better than the 18-55. L lenses are very good optically, but they are heavy and bulky too (not to mention the cost) so I think that part of the ecuation must be considered too for non pro use.

[Sam North]

Yacine

Your list shows a lot of people can't afford the best lenses! But, of course, as I've harped on about elsewhere, that doesn't mean those on a budget can't produce impressive results. http://www.theimageplane.net/tip2_020.htm

What's the best lens for a photographer depends on how much he or she has to spend, what gets shot most, and what is done with the images once they're captured. What's "best to buy" varies from person to person. If you're a pro, build quality counts for a lot too.

Out of that list there are only 7 lenses worth considering based on quality of results

Worth considering by whom? Pros? It's all a bit relative, but there's a hell of a lot of dedicated amateurs out there who can get great results with less expensive equipment - software techniques help too.

Sam

[timmyquest]

I am not sure that your ownership figures prove very much. I own the EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. I never, ever use the damn thing. If you gave me a couple of hours I might be able to find it... the one place where I know it isn't is in my camera bag.

Sell it to me

[KennyG]

Worth considering by whom? Pros? It's all a bit relative, but there's a hell of a lot of dedicated amateurs out there who can get great results with less expensive equipment - software techniques help too.

Sam

I carefully qualified my statement by reference to quality. The original poster started the thread about best lenses and to me that means image quality. You are making assumptions on what I regard as the best 7 lenses by the way. Price has nothing to do with it.

Software will never get you the same quality image as that captured through a good lens.

[Sam North]

Er... I think you've lost me somewhere, Kenny, but I do agree that in general terms "Software will never get you the same quality image as that captured through a good lens." But it really helps when you can't justify the cost of expensive lenses. Software techniques actually significantly improve the results from some of my lenses! I can improve the perception of sharpness in the final print, get rid of fringing and work successfully at contrast.

You may or may not agree with my signature quote, but it's true that way too many dedicated amateurs get hung up on equipment instead of learning to succeed with less. I've been there. My prints today are on a par with those I had pro printed from film.

Sam

[ijohnson]

Talk about being bored. South Korea is slow at 9am. I am waiting for the fog to clear so that I can go take some pics at a local palace.

This data actually does tell the story of what we hear on this forum every day.

The 28-135, 50 1.8, and 75-300 IS (arguably), are good values and worth considering if you are on a tighter budget.

For a good value in L-glass, look at the 100-400, 70-200 f4, and the 17-40L. They are more expensive but good values for L.

If you have enough money, the 2.8's are better but wont be as good of a value from a cost/shot perpective.

The main exceptions are the 18-55 and the 50 1.8 as they are exceptions without a doubt. The 50 being very inexpensive and the EF-S lens being free essentially.

This is worthless data crunching but if I had never been to this forum and only looked at the data, the information would have been almost the same.

An amateur could actually find this data fairly useful. I just find it to be a good way to waste time as the fog clears outside my window.
http://image.pbase.com/u46/itj12345/upload/29513772.untitledcopy.jpg

OH LOOK!! THE SUN!! GOTTA GO.

[Andy_T]

Out of that list there are only 7 lenses worth considering based on quality of results.

Kenny, I disagree with you!

I get 9 lenses from this list that are worth considering based on the quality of results. (I don't know the 100 mm macro ... so maybe it should be 10)

28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM______538
18-55mm f/3.5-5.6_____________326
50mm f/1.8 II_________________216
70-200mm f/4L USM____________204
17-40mm f/4L USM_____________198
100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM____193
70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM________175
75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM_______170
50mm f/1.4 USM_______________157
24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM_________157
50mm f/1.8___________________156
16-35mm f/2.8L USM___________134
28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM________133
24-70mm f/2.8L USM___________114
100mm f/2.8 Macro USM________109


Maybe you also took the build quality into account? That might eliminate two of the primes ... (so please try to be precise :lol:)


YB99

As always with statistics, You have to question yourself whether your assumptions are correct.

I think that PBase participants are not a valid representation of Canon lens users (arguably Canon DSLR users)

My main indicator for that is that number two on your list is the 18-55 Kit lens.

This lens has only been available for little more than a year, and it is only available for a single Canon DSLR (the Rebel). So it definitely is overrepresented in the representation.

Best regards,
Andy