Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 21 Dec 2010 (Tuesday) 01:50
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

What's the WORST lens?

 
bingethink
Junior Member
20 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2010
     
Dec 23, 2010 07:34 |  #61

xarqi wrote in post #11501760 (external link)
Pretty much. All is not lost though as the 75-300 IS is the best of the 75-300s, so you may get something for it if you decide to sell it.

<phew> Thought it might end up as a paper weight. :eek:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
rockygarcia
Senior Member
390 posts
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Orange County, CA
     
Dec 23, 2010 14:35 |  #62

The one I left at home and suddenly realized is the perfect one for the shot.


1DX | 17-40 F4L | 24-70 2.8L | 50 1.8 | 85 1.8 | 200 2.8L for sale | 70-200 2.8 IS IIL | 300 F4L | 100-400L | Kenko Pro 300 1.4x DGX | 2x Canon Tele III | 430EXII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TheBrick3
Goldmember
Avatar
2,094 posts
Joined Nov 2009
Location: College Park, Md.
     
Dec 23, 2010 18:16 as a reply to  @ rockygarcia's post |  #63

My 24-70, 85, and 70-200 f/4 are all much better than the 70-200 f/2.8 I used to have.


1D III 5D II 5D | 580 EX II x 2
17-40L | 35L | 100L | 70-200 II | 17-35 f/2.8-f/4
Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hsmoscout
Goldmember
Avatar
1,166 posts
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Camera Addicts Anonymous
     
Dec 23, 2010 18:20 |  #64

Well for sports the worst lens is the Canon MP-E 65. Unless ants play football....


My Gear
˙ʇsod uı ʇı xıɟ

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hsmoscout
Goldmember
Avatar
1,166 posts
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Camera Addicts Anonymous
     
Dec 23, 2010 18:22 |  #65

kaydawgy wrote in post #11494774 (external link)
I will say 70-200mm IS 2.8 mark ii ;)

For macro, yes


My Gear
˙ʇsod uı ʇı xıɟ

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dcatbagan
Member
204 posts
Joined Oct 2009
Location: San Francisco
     
Dec 23, 2010 18:28 |  #66

Worst I've used : Sigma 28-70 3.5-4.5
Worst in my opinion : Canon 35-80mm F4-5.6 II


flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Edsport
Senior Member
662 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Newfoundland Canada
     
Dec 23, 2010 21:49 |  #67

cruise_1982 wrote in post #11494692 (external link)
The worst lens I have ever used is the 18-55 mm non IS lens that came with my rebel XTI. I was so disheartened with soft and pathetic pictures against my S3IS at that time. I thought the DLSR is not for me and bought the nifty fifty as the last try and felt pretty happy from then on. Now I own the nifty fifty, 70-300 Is and 18-55 mm IS and speedlite 480 EX II.

The 18-55mm non IS on my 350D is rock solid sharp...


Cameras - Canon 350D, 5D
Lenses - Canon 18-55mm, 75-300mm, 50mm f/1.8, 24-105L, 24-70L
Flashes - Yongnuo YN460 II, YN468
RF-602 transmitter and 2 receivers

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bcd01
Goldmember
Avatar
2,428 posts
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Orlando
     
Dec 23, 2010 22:48 |  #68

hsmoscout wrote in post #11505123 (external link)
Well for sports the worst lens is the Canon MP-E 65. Unless ants play football....

You'll need that lens to find out!


bcd01 - devices of enjoyment list :D

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
richardfox
Goldmember
Avatar
1,883 posts
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Bellbrook, Ohio, USA
     
Dec 23, 2010 22:52 |  #69

A. All of my lenses.

B. Some of my lenses.

C. None of the above.

D. All of the above.

Define "worst"? Many are good for some things that others are not. My 50 must be the worst of the lot for cheapness and AF. Use it outdoors on a nice day and it's fine. However, if I want to shoot a bird up in a tree with the 50, I'd have better luck in removing the lens from the body and throwing it at the bird. I'm sure he'd say "wow, the bokeh of your 50 just knocks me out"!


Canon 50D gripped, EF 50/1.8, EF-S 10-22, 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-200 f/2.8L, 100/2.8 macro, 100-400L, 300 2.8L, Canon 500 f8 mirror with chipped EF mount, 580EX, 1.4x and 2x Canon teleconverters, Canon EF Life-Size converter.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,567 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Dec 23, 2010 22:53 |  #70

How does your 17-40 rank for rabid bear photos?


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
60D | ELPH 330 | iPhone 5s

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Old ­ Coot
Senior Member
Avatar
295 posts
Joined Apr 2009
Location: Alabama
     
Dec 23, 2010 22:57 |  #71

dcatbagan wrote in post #11505168 (external link)
Worst I've used : Sigma 28-70 3.5-4.5

I had one of those too! I loved the way the image would dance around in the viewfinder while it was attempting to focus. You never knew if the shot you composed would still be centered in the frame or not.


5d | 50d | 1d mii | Rebel G 35mm | Polaroid 100, 210, 360 | Bigma | Tokina 80-200 | Promaster 19-35 | 580ex | Olde Tyme Novatron strobes

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
xarqi
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,435 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Aotearoa/New Zealand
     
Dec 23, 2010 23:24 as a reply to  @ Old Coot's post |  #72

richardfox wrote in post #11506350 (external link)
A. All of my lenses.

B. Some of my lenses.

C. None of the above.

D. All of the above.

Define "worst"? Many are good for some things that others are not. My 50 must be the worst of the lot for cheapness and AF. Use it outdoors on a nice day and it's fine. However, if I want to shoot a bird up in a tree with the 50, I'd have better luck in removing the lens from the body and throwing it at the bird. I'm sure he'd say "wow, the bokeh of your 50 just knocks me out"!

E. Other.

tkbslc wrote in post #11506355 (external link)
How does your 17-40 rank for rabid bear photos?

Tee hee :)
Foot zooming definitely in order.

Season's greetings to all.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
The ­ Devil
Goldmember
Avatar
1,023 posts
Joined Oct 2010
Location: Tallinn, Estonia
     
Dec 24, 2010 00:53 |  #73

Edsport wrote in post #11506042 (external link)
The 18-55mm non IS on my 350D is rock solid sharp...

The quality varies... a LOT. Same goes for the 17-85mm, that's why the two have a bad rep. Mine for instance is more or less average, not that sharp, but not completely soft either, even wide open. It's still a rubbish lens, though. >.>


A good photographer can take extraordinary photos anywhere, with any camera and any lens while a mediocre one will take mediocre ones everywhere, with every camera and every lens.
Never limit yourself with what others think you should do. Shoot what you find interesting, exactly the way you want to.
Flickr (external link) 500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
richardfox
Goldmember
Avatar
1,883 posts
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Bellbrook, Ohio, USA
     
Dec 24, 2010 07:59 |  #74

tkbslc wrote in post #11506355 (external link)
How does your 17-40 rank for rabid bear photos?

Quantative and qualitive scientific testing has proven that any homo-sapien can actually run faster when being chased versus running over a prescribed course.

With good technique, the 17-40 is excellent for close-up shots of animals in their natural habitat. The survivors of the photographer will praise the needle-sharp shots retreived from the camera and displayed at the memorial service.

You're kidding, right? The 17-40 is heavy enough to knock out a rabid bear if thrown properly.

Reminds me of the days of 8-track tapes. I'd be riding down the road in my '65 Corvette and the damn tape deck would eat an hours-old album. I'd simply jerk it out of the tape deck and toss it out the window. Oh well, so much for environmental sensitivity. I just lost 5 bucks!


Canon 50D gripped, EF 50/1.8, EF-S 10-22, 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-200 f/2.8L, 100/2.8 macro, 100-400L, 300 2.8L, Canon 500 f8 mirror with chipped EF mount, 580EX, 1.4x and 2x Canon teleconverters, Canon EF Life-Size converter.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gasrocks
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
13,431 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2005
Location: Portage, Wisconsin USA
     
Dec 29, 2010 11:39 |  #75

Further thoughts on worst lens. If I remember correctly the worst Canon lens was the 22-55, think I went by FredMiranda reviews for that. On another forum we were having a discussion of MF 50mm lenses. Seems that there are many good ones out there. Someone asked is there a bad 50mm. All agreed that the Domiplan 50 is terrible.


GEAR LIST
_______________

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

20,271 views & 0 likes for this thread
What's the WORST lens?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is MandeepNayee
822 guests, 231 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.