Tom Reichner wrote in post #18569253
It seems so odd to me to hear (actually, read ..... but you know what I mean)
This is because I remember years ago when the 40mm lens first came out there was a whole lot of like for it. .
So why now the displeasure with it? .
Is it that, perhaps, those who liked it so much maybe weren't very picky about optics?
The same thing seemed to have happened with the 55-250mm EF-S lens ....... years ago people were all, like, praising this lens and saying what a great performer it was. .
But now, people say things like "it wouldn't be my first choice"
or "you can do a lot better"
and stuff like that. .
And they're saying this about the latest version of the 55-250, which is even better than the original version that they praised so highly.
What gives? .
Why the flip-flopping of collective sentiment regarding these lenses?.
There is a lot of emotion involved in what folks think of lenses. Consider the 300mm f/4L IS USM, the 70-300L, and the 100-400Lc.
Check out the data at PZ.de. At 300mm and all wide open, the 100-400Lc is sharper, with less distortion, and less vignetting than either of the other lenses. The 300, and the 70-300L are both holding their values quite well. Prices on used 100-400Lc lenses are in the toilet. The 100-400Lc gets slammed for it AI-Servo AF performance. I've used it for sports/athletics on a 1D3 and 1D4 with great success; never had an OOF shot I could blame on the camera lens. The 70-300 is stellar at 70mm. The 300mm prime offers only f/4, where it isn't as good as the 100-400L at f/5.6. Seems to me the zoom is way more versatile.
The 17-40 is well known for absolute suckage in the corners at f/4. Dial in a smaller aperture and it is more than worth the money.
The 28 1.8 has no far-corner resolution at any aperture. In practice, this is almost never visible. Far corners are rarely overly analyzed at any aperture. At f/1.8 who is expecting sharp corners from any lens. The 28 1.8 is a stellar performer, in the center 90% of the frame, with excellent AF. It gets no love.
The 24 and 40 STM's have atrocious vignetting. People love them for their size. What? Mount a 24 STM on your 7D2 and stuff that in your pants pocket. Ditto the 40 on a 1D-series body. That is almost as silly as a 600mm IS on a M-camera. Yep, it's pocketable, now!
I recently moved my primary shooter from a 6D/24-105 STM to an 80D/18-135 USM. The new combo is better in every conceivable way than the old, with the exception of high-ISO results. I lost a 1+ stops of high-ISO goodness. I don't care; I rarely shoot above 6400, and the 80D is respectable at 12,800.