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 15 Mar 2012 (Thursday) 07:57
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Why lenses for full frame wider than 50 mm are not that good?

 
k-lo
Goldmember
Avatar
1,316 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Lost in SN's Canon vs Nikon Thread
     
Mar 15, 2012 15:42 |  #31

Scatterbrained wrote in post #14092632 (external link)
Not to mention trying to correct lens distortion.;)

Oh yeah our friend Mr. Mustache :lol:


-=Karlo=- 1D III, 5D Mark II, 17-40 4 L, 35 1.4 L 24-70 2.8 L, 135mm 2.0 L, 85mm 1.2 L II, 300mm f 2.8 L, 580EX II, and a crapload of Elinchrom Gear :cool:
View my flickr sets (external link)
Check out my Modelmayhem port (external link)
500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
WhyFi
Goldmember
Avatar
2,774 posts
Gallery: 246 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 843
Joined Apr 2008
Location: I got a castle in Brooklyn, that's where I dwell.
     
Mar 15, 2012 20:40 |  #32

paparios wrote in post #14090062 (external link)
I have a 5D MKII and I'm looking for some good lenses for it, in the range from 50 to 14 mm. Currently, I have and use a Samyang 14 f2.8 and a Tamron 28-75 f2.8. Both lenses are very good on the 5D MKII, but I would like to have some faster primes to fill some gaps and for those situations where f2.8 is not enough.

Unfortunately, it appears that there are not many good alternatives out there. Taking the results from photozone, for instance, the IQ ratings and price of Canon alternatives are a disappoint, with respect to what I already have:

Samyang 14mm f2.8: 4* $379
Canon 14mm f2.8L: 3.5* $2200 - "It may not be a primary aspect but the quality of the bokeh (out-of-focus blur) is on the rough side."

Tamron 28-75 f2.8: 2.5* $500
Canon 24mm f1.4L: 3.5* $1655 - "The quality of the bokeh could also be better although we haven't really seen a really good performance from a (moderate-) ultra-wide lens here so far anyway."
Canon 35mm f1.4L: 3.5* $1450 - "The quality of the bokeh could be a bit better better towards the borders although we haven't really seen a really good performance from a moderate wide angle lens here so far anyway."
Samyang 35mm f1.4: 3.5* $500 - "A weakness is the quality of the bokeh - it's quite nervous but that's a fate that it shares with the Canon L lens actually."
Canon 50mm f1.2L: 2* $1500
Canon 50mm f1.4: 3* $350
Sigma 50mm f1.4: 2* $500
Canon 24-70 f2.8L: 3* $1400
Canon 24-105 f4L: 3* $1000

As we can see, exceptional prices but not exceptional quality for that price. As a reference the Canon 70-200 f2.8L II IS has an almost perfect IQ rating of 4.5*. From this comparison, it appears that my next purchase would be the Samyang 35mm f1.4.

Miguel

Since you've decided to ignore those that have told you why WA lenses haven't gotten as good of reviews as standard and teles (and why they shouldn't be compared against each other), I've gone to your review site of choice and copy/pasted some familiar sounding comments from their reviews which explain their lower optical quality scores.


Bill is my name - I'm the most wanted man on my island, except I'm not on my island, of course. More's the pity.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
paparios
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
500 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Oct 2007
     
Mar 15, 2012 21:23 |  #33

WhyFi wrote in post #14094179 (external link)
Since you've decided to ignore those that have told you why WA lenses haven't gotten as good of reviews as standard and teles (and why they shouldn't be compared against each other), I've gone to your review site of choice and copy/pasted some familiar sounding comments from their reviews which explain their lower optical quality scores.

If you are trying to tell us that there are no wide and super wide lenses which, on a full frame camera, can aspire to obtain top marks on review sites, then I totally agree with you. In fact I wrote: "exceptional prices but not exceptional quality for that price".

Everybody can check the Digital SLR and Lens Image Quality Comparison - ISO 12233 Chart 100% Crops on the digital picture reviews (if you don´t trust the review sites I have mentioned) and check the IQ of the 35L versus the Samyang 35 f1.4 at f1.4 on a 1DsMKIII camera and get his own conclusions. I'm just getting mine.

The photozone site in its conclusions about the 35L states: "The Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 USM L is certainly an impressive piece of engineering but it struggles a bit on full format DSLRs - at least technically. The center resolution is excellent straight from f/1.4 but the borders and extreme corners are soft here".

Miguel


Canon 5D MKII, Sony A7, Canon EOS M, Canon 7D, Sony A6000, Canon 50d with grip, Canon 400D with grip, Bower 14 f2.8, Bower 35 f1.4, EF 40 f2.8, Tokina 12-24 f4, EFM-22 f2 STM, EFM 18-55 f3.5-5.6 IS STM, EFS 18-55 f3.5-5.6, Tamron 28-75 f2.8, EF 85 f1.8, EF 100 f2.8L IS, EF 70-200 f4L IS, EF 75-300 f4-5.6, Sigma 150-500 f5-6.3, Sony E 16-50, Sony FE 28-70

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TGrundvig
Goldmember
Avatar
2,876 posts
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Colorado
     
Mar 15, 2012 21:29 |  #34

WhyFi wrote in post #14091045 (external link)
Goodness, another person that doesn't know anything but knows it all...

bw!

Using a lens on test charts and using it in real life are two different things. ;)


1Ds Mk II, 1D Mk II, 50D, 40D, XT (for my son), 17-40L, 24-105L, Bigma 50-500 EX DG, Sigma 150 Macro EX DG, Tokina 12-24 AT-X, Nifty Fifty, Tamron 28-300 (for my son), 580ex II, 430ex II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sebr
Goldmember
Avatar
4,628 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Sweden/France
     
Mar 15, 2012 22:29 |  #35

Just saying, but the 35L and 70-200/2.8L IS II are my 2 favorite and most used lenses. I never thought there is a quality difference between them because they are such different tool and they provide great results (considering my lack of talent)...


Sebastien
5D mkIII ; 17-40L ; 24-105L ; 70-200L II ; 70-300L ; 35L ; Σ85/1.4 ; 135L ; 100macro ; Kenko 1.4x ; 2x mkIII ; 580EXII
M5 ; M1 ; 11-22 ; 18-150 ; 22/2.0 ; EF adapter; Manfrotto LED
Benron Tripod; ThinkTank, Lowepro and Crumpler bags; Fjällräven backpack

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
czeglin
Senior Member
Avatar
560 posts
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Rockville, MD
     
Mar 15, 2012 22:37 |  #36

paparios wrote in post #14090195 (external link)
I'm not in anyway saying a 24L or 35L are not very good!
However they are not outstanding in IQ (as their price would suggest). For instance the 35L f1.4, compared with the Samyang 35 f1.4, has quite poor border resolution (1927 vs 2853) and also more CA at f1.4, which justifies its 3* rating.

Miguel

I don't know what the hell those numbers mean, but if you ever shoot with a 35L on a 5D2 you won't care about numbers anymore.


Flickr (external link) | Gear & Feedback | DIY Padded Insert

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
drive_75
Senior Member
748 posts
Joined Apr 2006
Location: California
     
Mar 15, 2012 22:56 |  #37

czeglin wrote in post #14094843 (external link)
I don't know what the hell those numbers mean, but if you ever shoot with a 35L on a 5D2 you won't care about numbers anymore.

Agree 100%




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jgeisen
Member
Avatar
66 posts
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Iowa City, IA
     
Mar 15, 2012 23:47 |  #38

I think if you don't need autofocus, then the choice of the Bower/Samyang/Rok/etc over the 35L, for instance, is a reasonable one. For me, I'll take the AF of the 35L over the wide open corner sharpness of the Bower any day of the week. If, however, I were going to use it exclusively for landscape shots where you can set up your shot and have time to manually focus (or stopping way down), then I'd go with the Bower for sure.


~ Jay
5DII | 40D | 17-40L | | 24-105L| 35L | 85L | 135L | 70-200L 2.8 MK II | 430EX II | Kenko Tubes | OM to EOS adapters
Olympus OM-2n | OM 28/3.5 | OM 50/1.4 SC | OM 50/1.8 MC | OM 75-150/4 | OM 2X-A
Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS3 | Olympus C-4000

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sambarino
Senior Member
549 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Feb 2011
     
Mar 16, 2012 02:22 |  #39

Wow, interesting thread! I think there are just different groups of people here, not really different opinions on the same thing. I agree with paparios about the manual focus lenses. I shoot some of my better C/Y mount glass INSTEAD of the similar Canon because it is that good. My Vivitar 70-210 f/3.5 is miles better than my 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 USM Canon lens. I use the Vivitar when I don't need AF. Different lenses for different jobs. Same applies to my Yashica 28mm f/2.8 ML. It is better at 2.8 than my 24mm 2.8 (admittedly not Canon's best) is at f/4. At f/5.6 and narrower, they are indistinguishable. I can set the aperture on the Yashica at f/16, the focus at 3 feet and shoot without thinking about focus. Beyond 2 feet from the lens, everything is in focus! Same idea applies to the EF 24mm f/2.8, but I've never done that. Manual is just more fun sometimes. Buy a fully manual camera and experience what photography was like 40 years ago. Manual focus? Imagine having to do everything? Focus, aperture and shutter speed control, exposure compensation by the seat of your pants. Oh, there was a film speed setting. But you could even play with that if you want to push/pull the developing. How many of you, honestly, could use a manual flash with any degree of proficiency? That is a whole new ball-game. Quick, what is the correct aperture for a GN 83 (feet) flash with 400 film at 12 feet camera to subject distance? I know most of you just said, "WTF does that mean?" Just in case you ARE wondering, depending on what you want, f/16-19 will do.

edit: Boy this sounds kinda harsh. I don't mean it that way. Photography is fun. There are just several ways to enjoy it. Let us respect each other's choices and enjoy their respective results. I take pictures because I enjoy it. I hope all of you are doing the same.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SOX ­ 404
Senior Member
Avatar
574 posts
Likes: 29
Joined Jun 2006
Location: I'm a nomad
     
Mar 16, 2012 04:44 |  #40

paparios wrote in post #14090062 (external link)
I have a 5D MKII and I'm looking for some good lenses for it, in the range from 50 to 14 mm. Currently, I have and use a Samyang 14 f2.8 and a Tamron 28-75 f2.8. Both lenses are very good on the 5D MKII, but I would like to have some faster primes to fill some gaps and for those situations where f2.8 is not enough.

I still don't understand the logic behind poeple wanting to shoot wide angle but use aperture wider than f/2.8. Unless if you take night life photos such in clubs, party, etc. that prevent you from usuing a tripod, then a fast prime lens is needed. Other than that, if you take landscape, nightscape, then you just need to buy a tripod and use it.


AJ
1 x Canon 5DSR | 2 x Canon 5D2 | 8-15L | 16-35L | 17-40L (dead) | 50L | 85L | 100L | 135L | 180L | 70-200 2.8L IS
Aquatica UW Housing | INON Z240 | Ikelite DS-161 | Sola 600 | 2 x Sola 2000
My Flickr  (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
WhyFi
Goldmember
Avatar
2,774 posts
Gallery: 246 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 843
Joined Apr 2008
Location: I got a castle in Brooklyn, that's where I dwell.
     
Mar 16, 2012 07:04 |  #41

paparios wrote in post #14094426 (external link)
If you are trying to tell us that there are no wide and super wide lenses which, on a full frame camera, can aspire to obtain top marks on review sites, then I totally agree with you. In fact I wrote: "exceptional prices but not exceptional quality for that price".

Goodness, you don't get it. I'm trying to tell you why you (and they) shouldn't compare wide angles and standard/tele lenses with the same emphasis on the same aspects.

paparios wrote in post #14094426 (external link)
Everybody can check the Digital SLR and Lens Image Quality Comparison - ISO 12233 Chart 100% Crops on the digital picture reviews (if you don´t trust the review sites I have mentioned) and check the IQ of the 35L versus the Samyang 35 f1.4 at f1.4 on a 1DsMKIII camera and get his own conclusions. I'm just getting mine.

Yes, everybody can do that, but not everyone is foolish enough to use that as the basis of their decision; some people realize that there's more to lenses than test charts.

paparios wrote in post #14094426 (external link)
The photozone site in its conclusions about the 35L states: "The Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 USM L is certainly an impressive piece of engineering but it struggles a bit on full format DSLRs - at least technically. The center resolution is excellent straight from f/1.4 but the borders and extreme corners are soft here"

Again, spoken like someone that knows everything but doesn't know anything. How often do you shoot flat planes at f/1.4? If you're shooting at f/1.4, you're most likely doing it to make use of isolation/selective focus on your subject, aren't you? As such, how important is it that the lens sharply focus on something that isn't there? Not very, I'd wager...

In any event, good luck with your purchase. Please keep us abreast of your keeper rate. Many of us understand the challenges of shooting at 35/1.4, even with the best AF around and auto aperture control; it'll be interesting to see how you fare with MF and stop-down metering in dynamic situations - great optics don't mean anything if you don't get the shot off.

Ugh, what am I saying? Of course you'll do fantastically, with your deep well of knowledge and experience to draw from - never mind me, didn't get enough sleep, I guess.


Bill is my name - I'm the most wanted man on my island, except I'm not on my island, of course. More's the pity.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
paparios
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
500 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Oct 2007
     
Mar 16, 2012 07:23 |  #42

WhyFi wrote in post #14096152 (external link)
Goodness, you don't get it. I'm trying to tell you why you (and they) shouldn't compare wide angles and standard/tele lenses with the same emphasis on the same aspects.


Yes, everybody can do that, but not everyone is foolish enough to use that as the basis of their decision; some people realize that there's more to lenses than test charts.


Again, spoken like someone that knows everything but doesn't know anything. How often do you shoot flat planes at f/1.4? If you're shooting at f/1.4, you're most likely doing it to make use of isolation/selective focus on your subject, aren't you? As such, how important is it that the lens sharply focus on something that isn't there? Not very, I'd wager...

In any event, good luck with your purchase. Please keep us abreast of your keeper rate. Many of us understand the challenges of shooting at 35/1.4, even with the best AF around and auto aperture control; it'll be interesting to see how you fare with MF and stop-down metering in dynamic situations - great optics don't mean anything if you don't get the shot off.

Ugh, what am I saying? Of course you'll do fantastically, with your deep well of knowledge and experience to draw from - never mind me, didn't get enough sleep, I guess.

OK professor, fair enough. You are right and dead on. All these review sites serve no purpose at all. So could you teach us how did you get and use your Nikon 35 f1.4 and Takumar 50 f1.4 on your 5D? How is the AF of those lenses doing?

Miguel


Canon 5D MKII, Sony A7, Canon EOS M, Canon 7D, Sony A6000, Canon 50d with grip, Canon 400D with grip, Bower 14 f2.8, Bower 35 f1.4, EF 40 f2.8, Tokina 12-24 f4, EFM-22 f2 STM, EFM 18-55 f3.5-5.6 IS STM, EFS 18-55 f3.5-5.6, Tamron 28-75 f2.8, EF 85 f1.8, EF 100 f2.8L IS, EF 70-200 f4L IS, EF 75-300 f4-5.6, Sigma 150-500 f5-6.3, Sony E 16-50, Sony FE 28-70

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
WhyFi
Goldmember
Avatar
2,774 posts
Gallery: 246 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 843
Joined Apr 2008
Location: I got a castle in Brooklyn, that's where I dwell.
     
Mar 16, 2012 07:31 |  #43

paparios wrote in post #14096212 (external link)
OK professor, fair enough. You are right and dead on. All these review sites serve no purpose at all.

And still you don't get it. I never said that they don't serve a purpose - they do, but you need to be smart enough to parse for relevant info. I know, strange notion.

paparios wrote in post #14096212 (external link)
So could you teach us how did you get and use your Nikon 35 f1.4 and Takumar 50 f1.4 on your 5D? How is the AF of those lenses doing?

The fact that I had them should tell you that I speak from experience, not undigested, regurgitated reviews.


Bill is my name - I'm the most wanted man on my island, except I'm not on my island, of course. More's the pity.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
paparios
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
500 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Oct 2007
     
Mar 16, 2012 07:40 |  #44

WhyFi wrote in post #14096231 (external link)
And still you don't get it. I never said that they don't serve a purpose - they do, but you need to be smart enough to parse for relevant info. I know, strange notion.


The fact that I had them should tell you that I speak from experience, not undigested, regurgitated reviews.

And that "experience" was obtained how?

My "experience" come from having shooting manual film cameras (Canon AE1-program, Canon T70 and Canon EOS630) for 28 years before buying my first DSLR in 2007. Of course I'm still learning.

Miguel


Canon 5D MKII, Sony A7, Canon EOS M, Canon 7D, Sony A6000, Canon 50d with grip, Canon 400D with grip, Bower 14 f2.8, Bower 35 f1.4, EF 40 f2.8, Tokina 12-24 f4, EFM-22 f2 STM, EFM 18-55 f3.5-5.6 IS STM, EFS 18-55 f3.5-5.6, Tamron 28-75 f2.8, EF 85 f1.8, EF 100 f2.8L IS, EF 70-200 f4L IS, EF 75-300 f4-5.6, Sigma 150-500 f5-6.3, Sony E 16-50, Sony FE 28-70

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Billginthekeys
Billy the kid
Avatar
7,359 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Nov 2005
Location: Islamorada, FL
     
Mar 16, 2012 08:24 |  #45

People are trying to explain to you that though under a perfect set of conditions isolating only one part of a lens' performance it may appear to have "weaknesses," in the real world most of the time you either won't be using the lens under conditions for those weaknesses to appear, and even if you are the likelyhood that they will actually be a detriment to a REAL image (not a picture of a printed out piece of paper), is almost impossible on any lens of the caliber you are talking about; say the 35L.
You insist that the corner sharpness of the 35L at F1.4 is a detriment to the lens, correct? Why? At F1.4 you will have a very thin depth of field, isolating one subject, and the rest of the image will melt into a creamy bokeh. Bokeh is by definition not sharp, not in focus, the opposite of sharp. Unless you have a habit of framing your subjects in the extreme corners of your focal plane (and then subjecting them to distortion, vignetting, ect.) the corners of the shot will be completely smooth at F1.4. So how can a unsharp area not being as sharp as other unsharp areas be bad? It just doesn't make sense. That, as we are trying to tell you, is one of the many differences between a test chart and the real world.

That is not to say test charts are worthless. Lets say I have a 70-200 2.8 IS and a 2X II TC, and I think the results are just "okay," and I want to see if there is a notable improvement in image quality by purchasing a 70-200 2.8 IS version 2 and a 2X TC III. I can go, bring up the comparison, and see if the change in results looks substantial enough for me to go out and drop an extra thousand dollars on that trade. Again, that is one example in my book where a test chart would be useful.

I am not here to insult you personally, but if you claim to have been a photographer for 28 years, how did you buy equipment for you gear before the internet and test charts? Did you ever with your film equipment draw lines on a piece of paper, take pictures of them with different lenses, then examine the results under a microscope to make vague and questionably important notes about the results of those tests? I am betting you didn't, in fact I am betting that sounds silly, but yet that is exactly what these review sites do now, simply because they can.

You keep saying "exceptional prices but not exceptional quality for the price." But you keep fixating on only ONE aspect of the lens, wide open corner sharpness performance. If that is truly the most important thing to you, and you don't mind not having autofocus, by all means go save the money and buy the Samyang. Ohh, and if you are willing to pay "exceptional prices" if you are getting "exceptional quality" and you are willing to live without AF, look at the results from Canon's newest wide angle TS-E lenses.


Mr. the Kid.
Go Canes!
My Gallery (external link)My Gear
what the L. just go for it.

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

9,893 views & 0 likes for this thread
Why lenses for full frame wider than 50 mm are not that good?
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 kubo456
813 guests, 238 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.