Pre-poll on worst/best current Canon lens

[xarqi]

Hi POTNers:

Many will know that I'm no fan of the 18-55; I've called it rude names and had posts deleted as a result, and generally recommended that people avoid it like the pox. I strongly suspect that, overall, it is the worst lens currently manufactured and sold by Canon. I was considering running a poll to see who agreed, but I thought it might be better to get other candidates for "worst current lens overall" and include those too, so... any nominations for inclusion?

There could even be a companion poll for best current lens overall, so - any nominations for that?

If you do suggest something, please be clear if it is for the best or worst poll, thanks.

As an after-thought, has the 18-55 actually been discontinued with the release of the 18-55 IS, anyone know?

[JoYork]

Other than the nifty fifty, the best are usually the most expensive, the worst are usually the cheapest. As the kit lens costs just a few dollars more on top of the standard body-only price then it's no surprise it's a bit of a dog.

Saying that, some people do manage to get reasonably sharp copies, and stepped down it's capable of some okay results.

I recently used a Nikon d40x and the kit lens you get with that is excellent - very sharp, plenty of contrast, etc... the downside for Nikon is I suspect there's a fairly sizeable percentage of people who don't upgrade as it's perfectly fine for snapshots and point&shoot upgraders.

[scot079]

Agreed, the 18-55 is a POS but only if you've already been spoiled by the other great EF lenses. (10-22, 50 1.4, L's, etc.)

I'd rather have the 18-55 than nothing at all.

[drPheta]

What about considering expensive lenses that conisistently don't perform up to their standards?

[Jethro790]

What about considering expensive lenses that conisistently don't perform up to their standards?

Hmmm, like the 50 1.2L and it's many reported issues...

Anyway, I am also no fan of the 18-55 kit, but I have to say that I have gotten photos I can be proud of. On the flip side, the piece of garbage 75-300 (non-image stabalizer) has not been as kind to me. I bought it used at a camera shop to tide me over until I bought a nicer long lens knowing how people felt about it. I challenged myself to produce at leat ONE decent image from it and have not been able to do so. Even after buying the 70-200 L lens I have still tried to use it. Poor focus, soft, slow... that lens is way more worthless than my kit lens.

[JoYork]

Was looking through some pics with a friend who bought the 17-55IS last year. Guess what? Most of his kit lens pics are better. Obviously the 17-55IS is a better lens in every regard, but it depends what you're shooting on the day I guess.

I did offer to relieve him of his 17-55 but that would be like taking a gun away from Charlton Heston. Something along the lines of "out of my cold dead hands"... :)

[Perry Ge]

If canon is still making the EF 28-105 f/4-5.6, that's a real candidate for 'worst piece of crap ever'.

Not to be confused with the EXCELLENT EF 28-105 3.5-4.5. Considering the two are pretty similar in price, there's absolutely no reason for the former to exist.

It seems to exist solely to confuse and frustrate the less informed who want the 3.5-4.5 but accidentally by the piece of s*** that is the 4-5.6.

[msowsun]

Canon 28-90mm 4-5.6 III ?

[xarqi]

What about considering expensive lenses that conisistently don't perform up to their standards?

Yes, I think they should be candidates for the "worst" list, and I think the 50/1.2 is a good example. The "overall best/worst" criterion is very subjective of course: for some it will be due to poor value, for others poor performance, for others poor reliability (or the converse for the good list). I can even imagine the possibility that a lens (say the 50/1.2) could top both lists as opinion may be highly polarised!

Canon 28-90mm 4-5.6 III ?
For the "bad" poll, right?

[Jbs]

The only EF lenses i've had are the 28-135 and 10-22 (i know its efs, but yea).

I have a couple FD lenses, so this isn't a total comparison b/w the 10-22 and 28-135, but i don't think the 28-135 is that great of a lens at all. Nothing that comes out of it is very sharp or colorful. the 10-22 is far far better at everything , IMHO. well everything except distance ;)

[Rubberhead]

Trust me the 28-80mm that came as a kit lens on my K2 is the biggest loser with the Canon logo ever.

[gecko3s]

I would like to second the 75-300 f4-5.6 III....Any lens that is sold at Target is a clue, but I hate the durn thing.


edit: I did not get it at Target, it came in a package deal with the camera...

[Moppie]

The non- IS 75-300 is far worse than the kit lens.
At least there are sharp copies of the kit lens in existance, and it can be used stopped down to get very good results.
The 75-300 is just a waste of glass and plastic.


Best lens would have to be 70-200 2.8.
Its a nice range on any format camera, its fast, its sharp, its fast, its extremely tough, it has very nice contrast, its sharp and its fast.

[Jethro790]

I would like to second the 75-300 f4-5.6 III....Any lens that is sold at Target is a clue, but I hate the durn thing.


edit: I did not get it at Target, it came in a package deal with the camera...

Good god it's a POS... I wonder if I can make anything useful with it... maybe a door knocker or a potato masher...

[DocFrankenstein]

18-55 is pretty bad if you compare it to primes.

I don't know if it's the worst one. I didn't use all of the canon lenses.

BUT: The kit lens is the only one that gives me a wide angle.

[JeffreyG]

I think the 18-55 is much better than Canon's current kit lenses on the Rebel. The 28-90 f/4-5.6 and the 28-105 f/4-5.6 are worse. The 18-55 I had was better at f/8.

Worst Canon lens I ever had (mercifully discontinued) was the 35-80 f/4-5.6. As lousy as the current 28-XX kits with a less useful range.

[Mark_Cohran]

The worst lens I've ever owned (and I did own the 18-55) was the 28-80 f/3.5-5.6. Technically I still own it, but a stuck it on a film Rebel and loaned it to my youngest daughter years ago. It's somewhere in her house, and I'm not looking for it. :)

[fWord]

Hard for me to decide which is the best and which is the worst lens manufactured by Canon because I haven't tried all the EF lenses. I figure that the 18-55mm was usable when stopped down a little. Even wide open I wouldn't have any reason to complain about it considering the cost. And it's a zoom with a useful focal length range. This was back in the days when I was shooting only JPEGs.

I can imagine it would be significantly better if I shot RAW.

[_aravena]

I've shot with 3 of the lens listed here and I have to say the 28-80 is crap! With both the kit lens and 75-300 I've sold phots. It's not that bad, if you know what you're doing.

18-55 (sunrise)
http://a389.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/103/l_572ffca2eabf8d088ee58a27b72e52e4.jpg

75-300 (imagine the worse condition possible pretty much at ISO 400 I think)
http://a38.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/106/l_f8b78d2c5bfb1f119465b4fa291f8a95.jpg

The worse conditions with these two lenses.

[tjrenegade]

I don't the 18-55 is the worst...I have taken some great shots with it....but my favorite lens is the 24-70L....
18-55
http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q10/tjrenegade/owl1.jpg

18-55
http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q10/tjrenegade/sunset2.jpg

[Crossfire]

Of the lenses that I've owned, the 75-300 was by far the worst. I found 18-55 kit lens performance ok (hated the plastic lens mount) , but no longer own either.

[xarqi]

...and the nominees are:

Best overall current Canon lens:
EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5
EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS
EF 50/1.8 II
EF 50/1.4
EF 24-70/2.8 L
EF 28-105/3.5-4.5
EF 70-200/2.8 L (non-IS)

Worst overall current Canon lens:
EF-S 18-55/3.5-5.6
EF 50/1.2 L
EF 28-80/3.5-5.6 (is this current?)
EF 28-90/4-5.6 III
EF 28-105/4-5.6
EF 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS
EF 75-300/4-5.6 (non-IS)

Any further nominations, or omissions from or corrections to the above?
Remember, if it isn't nominated now, you can't vote for it later ;)

[msowsun]

I think you are missing some very good lenses from your list of "best lenses":

1) Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM
2) Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L USM
3) Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM
4) Canon EF 100mm f/2.0 USM
5) Canon EF 70-200mm f4.0L IS USM

and probably some others too.....

[xarqi]

I think you are missing some very good lenses from your list of "best lenses":

1) Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM
2) Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L USM
3) Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM
4) Canon EF 100mm f/2.0 USM
5) Canon EF 70-200mm f4.0L IS USM

and probably some others too.....

Thanks for the nominations - they'll be in the poll too.

[airfrogusmc]

I think you are missing some very good lenses from your list of "best lenses":

1) Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM
2) Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L USM
3) Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM
4) Canon EF 100mm f/2.0 USM
5) Canon EF 70-200mm f4.0L IS USM

and probably some others too.....

All of the above and the 24 1.4L
the 200 1.8L which some say that and the 85 1.2L are maybe two of the finest lenses Canon has made.

[Brikwall]

My votes for the worst lenses are:

75-300mm f/4-5.6 Mk III
55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 Mk II

[crackaonrice]

Trust me the 28-80mm that came as a kit lens on my K2 is the biggest loser with the Canon logo ever.


THIS LENS SUCKS

[jmik26]

Good god it's a POS... I wonder if I can make anything useful with it... maybe a door knocker or a potato masher...

Thats just flat out funny! Thanks to the countless hours of surfing POTN and great recommendations I think I hit all winners with my lens line up. I would nominate them all for great lenses in this order.

EF 100-400mm f/4.5 - 5.6 L USM
EF 24-104mm f4 L USM
EFS 10-22mm f/3.5 - 4.5 USM
EF 50mm f/1.8 II

[photojournalista]

The kit ain't my worst lens:
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b162/cubclubpics/20070311_race1/IMG_2592.jpg

[xarqi]

Last call for further nominations and corrections.
Remember, if it isn't nominated in this thread, you can't vote for it later!

The current nominees are:

Best overall current Canon lens:
EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5
EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS
EF 24/1.4 L
EF 35/1.4 L
EF 50/1.4
EF 50/1.8 II
EF 85/1.2 L
EF 100/2
EF 135/2 L
EF 200/1.8 L
EF 24-70/2.8 L
EF 24-105/4 L IS
EF 28-105/3.5-4.5
EF 70-200/2.8 L (non-IS)
EF 70-200/4 L IS
EF 100-400/4.5-5.6 L

Worst overall current Canon lens:
EF-S 18-55/3.5-5.6
EF 50/1.2 L
EF 28-80/3.5-5.6 (is this current?)
EF 28-90/4-5.6 III
EF 28-105/4-5.6
EF 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS
EF 55-200/4.5-5.6 II
EF 75-300/4-5.6 (non-IS)

[echo]

The 85L has to be right up there, expensive but well worth the saving up for.

I think the 16-35 should be in the best lenses too.

[Mark_Cohran]

I wouldn't leave the 85 f/1.8 off the best list either - especially if one accessing value.

[wimg]

And the 50 F/1.2L should be on the best list. You just need to know how to work the lens.

Kind regards, Wim

[S.Horton]

Most satisfying, least satisfying lens purchase polls (twins), multiple selections allowed, and the list would be long......

[JeffreyG]

EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5
EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS
EF 24/1.4 L
EF 35/1.4 L
EF 50/1.4
EF 50/1.8 II
EF 85/1.2 L
EF 100/2
EF 135/2 L
EF 200/1.8 L
EF 24-70/2.8 L
EF 24-105/4 L IS
EF 28-105/3.5-4.5
EF 70-200/2.8 L (non-IS)
EF 70-200/4 L IS
EF 100-400/4.5-5.6 L

Are we talking flat out best, or best value.

In some ways, it does not matter. I have to say that a lot of people are going to suggest that missing the supertelephoto lenses will miss the "best". A casual check of the MTF charts will support that nothing else in the Canon line gets close to the 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4 and 600 for optical performance.

They are not cheap, but they are probably the best.

[xarqi]

Are we talking flat out best, or best value.

In some ways, it does not matter. I have to say that a lot of people are going to suggest that missing the supertelephoto lenses will miss the "best". A casual check of the MTF charts will support that nothing else in the Canon line gets close to the 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4 and 600 for optical performance.

They are not cheap, but they are probably the best.

It's best or worst "overall". That is quite vague, I know - well, maybe not vague, but subjective. For some, the important criterion could be absolute image quality, for others, mechanical reliability, for others speed, or value for money, or lightness, or whatever.

Take for example the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS. Hard to beat, unless you use FF, or the dust issue vexes you, or you *need* f/1.4, or shoot only hummingbirds on the moon.

Or another example: my bête noir, the 18-55: poor build, terrible CA, slow, soft unless you have enough light to stop down plenty (but not so much that diffraction gets you), and hugely variable quality among instances; still, if you *need* the cheapest zoom possible that will get you an image where quality isn't an issue, it could be the best for you.

I guess I'm trying to find what the real gems and real dogs are out there, if such things exist. Is it all subjective, or are there some the majority can agree merit distinction, at one extreme or the other?

[RX350]

17-40 L
16-35 L II

shold be on list , very good lenses .

[Double Negative]

Canon FD 35-70 f/3.5-4.5. Cheap, plastic POS!

[westernminnguy]

My vote for a very good lens. I love mine.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=12&sort=7&cat=27&page=2

Look at the number of folks who have reviewed(own the lens). Just the number of folks owning/reviewing the lens says something.

Also I would vote for:

24-105L
100-400L
EF 1.4 II T.C.(does a teleconverter count?)

[ooo]

Its really hard to say what is the best and worse lens. It really depends on that person's budget. If a person can only afford lens that go up to $300 then a 18-55 IS would be a great lens compared to something cheap like a EF 28-90.

If a person can only afford a sigma 70-300 apo it is a decent lens for its IQ but compared to any of the other telephoto lens this is a horrible lens.

Best lens are generally the most expensive ones.

[fteter]

It's difficult to pick out a best lens. Best value is probably a little more clear (in my book, that would be the "Nifty Fifty", although the 70-200 f/4L would merit strong consideration). As OOO implied, your definition of "best" changes in direct relation to changes in the thickness of your wallet.

[SilverHCIC]

Are we talking flat out best, or best value.



Good point. ... The 70-200f2.8L Non-IS is on the list, but the IS version beats it hands-down 7-days a week and twice on Sundays. I would suggest putting the IS version on the list as well.

Here's why:
Once the poll is put together and people vote, there are some people who will simply want to know which is better, and they may be willing to wait (to save $$) for an extra few months to get a superior lens.

... Make no mistake, I agree that the Non-IS version deserves to be on the list, as it is a fantastic lens. And for those who do not need the IS ability, it is actually just as good for their purposes as the IS version.

But for all of the users who have switched to the IS version because they've lost a few shots due to camera shake at full FL of 200, and ESPECIALLY those who take advantage of Mode 2 IS for panning, the IS is worth every extra dollar.

I suggest putting both versions on the list, and letting the voters decide. After shooting/owning quite a few Canon L's, the 70-200f2.8IS remains one that simply puts a smile on my face sometimes.;)

[mmahoney]

Not too sure what you're expecting for the $50 an 18-55 costs. Stopped down to F8 it performs pretty well.

So anyone who spends a lot of time dissing the poor little kit lens ought to find someone their own size to pick on. And if you've had some of your threads deleted because of comments you've made about a kit lens you should seek therapy .. you're probably unbalanced.

Better to start a poll about the dust plagued, mechanically challenged, and over-priced 17-55 2.8. Or the 50 1.2 that can miss focus by as much as 20 centimeters after Canon factory calibration.

At least the kit lens performs to it's expectations .. which is more than I can say about some of the higher priced Canon lenses.

[xarqi]

Not too sure what you're expecting for the $50 an 18-55 costs. Stopped down to F8 it performs pretty well.

So anyone who spends a lot of time dissing the poor little kit lens ought to find someone their own size to pick on. And if you've had some of your threads deleted because of comments you've made about a kit lens you should seek therapy .. you're probably unbalanced.

Better to start a poll about the dust plagued, mechanically challenged, and over-priced 17-55 2.8. Or the 50 1.2 that can miss focus by as much as 20 centimeters after Canon factory calibration.

At least the kit lens performs to it's expectations .. which is more than I can say about some of the higher priced Canon lenses.

So to distill that down a bit... are you nominating the 17-55 for the "worst overall" poll? (The 50/1.2 is already listed)

[xarqi]

Some input on this too please...

I think there is a way of allowing multiple choices on a poll, and it might be a good idea to run this one this way. People could vote for as many "best overall" or "worst overall" lenses as they wanted. From an individual perspective, it seems silly as, when pushed, everyone should be able to to pick exactly one from the each list (or abstain), but collectively, if we each could choose a few dogs and a few gems, the overall pattern might be clearer.

Any thoughts?

[Psychic1]

And the 50 F/1.2L should be on the best list. You just need to know how to work the lens.

Kind regards, Wim

Even I, a Psychic, could not predict what the EF50L-1.2 was going to do and was forced to return it.

If you need to know how to work the lens independently of all others, Canon should have provided a seperate set of instructions.

The Best lenses I own are my L primes 85L - 200L - 135L - 35L - TS-E24L.

[mmahoney]

I can't decide on single a worst overall but will make the observation that Canon lenses have generally exceeded my expectations. You can't get too upset if a $80 zoom is a little soft. Canon by-and-large makes very good glass.

It just ticks me off that a $1,500 lens can be sent from a factory so far out of spec, and then it's subsequent calibration makes it even worse.

The best to me is the 85 1.2 .. a very special lens.

[Fyerfytr]

I wouldn't leave the 85 f/1.8 off the best list either - especially if one accessing value.

I agree, love that lens.

[number six]

It's best or worst "overall". That is quite vague, I know - well, maybe not vague, but subjective. For some, the important criterion could be absolute image quality, for others, mechanical reliability, for others speed, or value for money, or lightness, or whatever.

OK, that makes your requirements clearer.

In the categories of value for money and lightness, the 18-55 IS will have many adherents once more people actually try it. I suggest it should be in the mix.

-js

[Double Negative]

And the 50 F/1.2L should be on the best list. You just need to know how to work the lens.

With a lens, let alone an L - there should be no "need to know how to work it."

[dithiolium]

The worst I've used:
EF 35-80 F4-5.6 III

Wow, this was a mk III, can't imagine the mkI and II.
This came with my EOS66 film camera. And it was first lens on the DSLR.
The 50/1.8 and 18-55kit were way better. But then, it still took pictures!

[pmarz]

For me the best has been the 300f/4, 85L,35L and the 135L, the worst that I have owned has been the 28-135is but is was not horrible at all just going on what I have used.

[dolfinack]

flippin eck the kit lens is pretty good, no? It ain't L standard, but I mean come on


http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=185522&highlight=kit+lens

[xarqi]

Thanks for the nominations all; they are now closed.
The polls have been posted; -->here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=435839)<-- for the "best", and -->here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=435842)<-- for the "worst".

[Grentz]

Thx for your work.

I must add though, the kit 18-55 is far from the worst canon lens. My copy was very very good and took some awesome sharp shots.

[liza]

The non- IS 75-300 is far worse than the kit lens.
At least there are sharp copies of the kit lens in existance, and it can be used stopped down to get very good results.
The 75-300 is just a waste of glass and plastic.


Best lens would have to be 70-200 2.8.
Its a nice range on any format camera, its fast, its sharp, its fast, its extremely tough, it has very nice contrast, its sharp and its fast.

I agree about the 75-300. A bigger POS has never been manufactured.

As for best, I like the 200L in terms of image quality. It's fantastic!

Edit: Oops! Didn't see that the nominations were closed.

[Grentz]

I agree about the 75-300. A bigger POS has never been manufactured.

As for best, I like the 200L in terms of image quality. It's fantastic!

Edit: Oops! Didn't see that the nominations were closed.

Yup, totally agree. The 75-300s are some of the worst out there. I had the best one (III - USM) and it still was not really great. I cannot imagine what the non-USM and earlier versions were like considering most say they are worse :o

[Moppie]

Edit: Oops! Didn't see that the nominations were closed.

Just means we now get to vote on it :)

I can see tight race between the 75-300, the 35-80 and thanks to some un-impressed owners the 50 1.2

[JDMist3hFastar]

I see a lot of people adding the 70-200 2.8 non IS...what about the IS? Wheres the love :)

[xarqi]

I see a lot of people adding the 70-200 2.8 non IS...what about the IS? Wheres the love :)

It did get nominated, and is in the poll now running -->here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=435839)<--.