Most Overrated Forum "Groupthink" Lens

I would have liked to see the 15-85mm on this list.

JoJo2fast wrote in post #11176990
50 1.4 wide open. sooc as well.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

I'll link this one since it's still a pretty big pic, but 100% crop
http://img9.imageshack​.us/img9/681/mg7467.jp​g

alpha_1976 wrote in post #11176991
Looks reasonably sharp to me

50mm@1.4 (no additional sharpening)

Thanks for posting the crops, but those two look more "dreamy" than sharp to me. According to the EXIF, the first one seems to have been taken at f/1.6 instead of 1.4. It's hard to see many skin details in the first one, and the second one seems to show quite a bit of purple fringing. Neither is a problem that I've experienced with my Sigmalux. In fact, the Sigma is perfectly capable of showing every little skin defect even at f/1.4.

I have more samples on my desktop, but here is one image that I have on my laptop right now. Processed RAW file in Camera Raw 6 (no additional sharpening applied) and saved with EXIF intact.

it's not about sigma vs canon. Sigma may be better and probably is but that does not make Canon 50mm f1.4 any worse than what it is.

RL. wrote in post #11175898
Why? The 17-40L is weathersealed, it's sharper, it's cheaper, and it's almost the same zoom range. The only difference is the 17-55 is one stop faster. I personally don't need 2.8 in that focal range so I just bought the 17-40.

And don't forget about the purdy red ring!!!

The 17-40 sharped than the 17-55...Realy ?

The only way the 17-40 is a better choice than the 17-55 on a crop body is wheater sealing...and even about that, the "wheather sealing" label is way over rated. I saw old 350d with kit lens in terrible wheater situation doing very good.

alpha_1976 wrote in post #11177339
it's not about sigma vs canon. Sigma may be better and probably is but that does not make Canon 50mm f1.4 any worse than what it is.

Of course not. I only brought up the subject of Sigma v. Canon in response to this comment:

JoJo2fast wrote in post #11174802
Go buy a [Canon] 50 1.4, it is sharp as hell wide open. And $350 isn't that much...

timnosenzo wrote in post #11174328
24-70L

: :o:o

I voted for the nifty, mainly because I don't like the idea of a "disposable lens." Poor AF and wide aperture is a horrible combination. It's still a good deal used, much like the 18-55 IS.

The Tamron 17-50mm fills an important niche IMO -- a fast wide-tele zoom for a crop camera. Canon makes nothing remotely close in price. It's a Tamron, so you know the build/AF is going to suck, but it's still a great optic.

Canon 28-135mm has possibly the most awkward focal length range ever on crop. Used on ebay for ~200-250, it's a reasonable deal. New for $400? Yikes!

Canon 17-40L: Ultrawides always compromise image quality, especially sharpness. My Sigma 10-20mm is a good lens only because of the angle of view. The 17-40 was never designed for use on APS-C, and it shows.

biggusdickus wrote in post #11177394
Canon 17-40L: Ultrawides always compromise image quality, especially sharpness. My Sigma 10-20mm is a good lens only because of the angle of view. The 17-40 was never designed for use on APS-C, and it shows.

Correction: Canon ultrawides always compromise image quality.

Have you seen tests of the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8? Sharp at any aperture, at any part of the image. It's sharper than any wide-angle prime lens Canon makes in that range, including the 14L II. The Canon ultrawide zooms don't even begin to compare.

It's so good, in fact, that many 5D users are buying special adapters to use the Nikkor on their Canons

The 15-85 rocks and would never make it to my list

CountryBoy wrote in post #11177130
I would have liked to see the 15-85mm on this list.

rioni wrote in post #11177480
The 15-85 rocks and would never make it to my list

It's on mine , mainly due to it's price and speed.

Miami Heat

996gt2 wrote in post #11177291
Thanks for posting the crops, but those two look more "dreamy" than sharp to me. According to the EXIF, the first one seems to have been taken at f/1.6 instead of 1.4. It's hard to see many skin details in the first one, and the second one seems to show quite a bit of purple fringing. Neither is a problem that I've experienced with my Sigmalux. In fact, the Sigma is perfectly capable of showing every little skin defect even at f/1.4.

I have more samples on my desktop, but here is one image that I have on my laptop right now. Processed RAW file in Camera Raw 6 (no additional sharpening applied) and saved with EXIF intact.

100% crop from top portion of image:


In addition to sharpness, the bokeh rendition of the Sigma 50 is also more pleasing than that of the Canon, due to the Sigma having a 9-bladed rounded aperture compared to the Canon's 7 straight blades. But bokeh is a more subjective thing to judge than sharpness, so I didn't bring it up.


When it comes to 50mm lenses, I would even say that the Canon 50mm f/1.4 is a more overrated lens than the f/1.8. The f/1.8 may not be perfect by any means, but it's a very sharp lens even on FF. For an additional $200, the f/1.4 is not sharper and not much faster to focus (because the "ultrasonic" motor isn't a real ring ultrasonic motor, but rather just a traditional micro motor with less noise). The build quality may be better, but in my opinion that's about the only area in which the Canon 50 f/1.4 has a noticeable advantage compared to the f/1.8.

All these images prove nothing . I would say the IQ of the Sigma is slightly better than the Canon (although the sharpness wide open of a good Canon copy is at least as good as the Sigma), the AF speed between the two is roughly the same (I prefer the build of the Sigma AF). In the end, they are very close.

Having said all of that, this is not the thread in which to debate Sigma 50 vs canon 50. It's about overrated lenses. Why don't we stick to the subject?

twoshadows wrote in post #11177598
Why don't we stick to the subject?

Sorry about that.

Tony Romo and his Cowgirls

LightRules wrote in post #11177603
Sorry about that.

Tony Romo and his Cowgirls

Not sure I get the reference (I don't follow sports), but I'm sure it's funny, LR.