I have the 75-300 III
'Nuff said
NZed Member 115 posts Joined Mar 2011 Location: Victoria, Canada More info | Sep 02, 2012 06:49 | #166 I have the 75-300 III
LOG IN TO REPLY |
baio Member ![]() 127 posts Joined Oct 2011 Location: Milan, Italy More info | Sep 02, 2012 09:05 | #167 90-300mm f/4.5-5.6 non-USM, slow, crappy at any ƒ and focal lenght Canon EOS 550D(RIP) EOS 5DmkIII ~ EOS 1N ~ EOS 33
LOG IN TO REPLY |
ChrisSearle Senior Member ![]() 352 posts Likes: 2 Joined Nov 2007 Location: My time is divided between Totnes, UK, Mumbai, India and The Ardeche region of Southern France.. More info | Siggy 10-20: Soft at the edges, soft in the middle, never focusses correctly. Sigma looked at it and sent me another to replace it, its almost as bad. That said, my Sigma 50 1.4 is utterly superb as is my 150 macro. The 10-20 is so bad I can't even bring myself to sell it. Can't be bothered to send it in yet again so will leave it in a corner an try and forget about it Chris:http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeaunse23/
LOG IN TO REPLY |
chrismid259 Member ![]() 156 posts Likes: 4 Joined Jan 2011 Location: Liverpool, UK More info | Sep 03, 2012 10:09 | #169 |
Createsean Senior Member ![]() 994 posts Likes: 1 Joined Sep 2010 Location: Toronto More info | Sep 03, 2012 11:02 | #170 My worst lens is the Sigma 70-300 f4.5-5.6, IQ is just **** and everything comes is washed out. Have to spend too much time in post to get something usable. Wish I had enough cash for a good long range zoom telephoto lens. I'm looking for harsh criticism of my photos - tell me how to improve, I will be grateful.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
genjurok Senior Member 537 posts Joined Jan 2010 More info | Sep 03, 2012 11:08 | #171 I love all of my lenses. For the applications I use them for, they're all wonderful. 6D
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Createsean Senior Member ![]() 994 posts Likes: 1 Joined Sep 2010 Location: Toronto More info | Sep 03, 2012 11:13 | #172 genjurok wrote in post #14941966 ![]() I love all of my lenses. For the applications I use them for, they're all wonderful. Especially the three Tamron zooms I have are optically excellent and seriously underrated. I have two Tamron's and love them both. Convinced a buddy to replace his kit lens with the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and now he can't stop raving about it. I'm looking for harsh criticism of my photos - tell me how to improve, I will be grateful.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
sebr Goldmember ![]() 4,628 posts Likes: 9 Joined Jan 2007 Location: Sweden/France More info | Sep 03, 2012 11:54 | #173 I think all of my lenses are good... Some are better in some respect, but I don' think any is worst... Does that make sense ?? Sebastien
LOG IN TO REPLY |
YankeeMom Goldmember ![]() More info | Sep 03, 2012 12:07 | #174 I will also add the 75-300, esp. compared to the 55-250 which is really outstanding for the price. Sad to hear so much negative about the 50 1.4, since I upgraded to it recently! Other than the 70-300, my 50 1.8 is the worst because it completely broke in two pieces and I lost all AF after that. Too bad, it had amazing image quality. Kristin
LOG IN TO REPLY |
mattkrass Member 184 posts Joined Aug 2010 Location: NY More info | Sep 03, 2012 13:08 | #175 chrismarriott66 wrote in post #14419847 ![]() Undoubtedly the lens I have just sold... the Canon 75-300 3.5-5.6 iii *non-usm* *non-IS* I challenge any lens to be softer, noisier, slower, or generally more poop! ![]() I hate this lens. I bought it when I bought my kit because I saw big focal length numbers and a low price and thought "what a bargain!". Seriously, my coworkers love to ask me if I used the lens this past weekend to see the look on my face, they can't understand how I could dislike one lens so strongly! Matt Krass
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Mine would be the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Peter10d Member 75 posts Joined Sep 2009 Location: Scotland, UK More info | Sigma 17-35 and Sigma 75-300. Both developed faults outside of warranty. 5D2 + 7D
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Sep 04, 2012 11:22 | #178 Canon 28-80 sucks pretty bad. I picked it up for $60 bucks though and it works most of the time 5D4 - 5D - X100V - TS-E 24 3.5L II - 16-35 2.8L III - 24-70 2.8L II - 70-200 2.8L IS II
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Sep 04, 2012 11:25 | #179 remotehuman wrote in post #14946459 ![]() Canon 28-80 sucks pretty bad. I picked it up for $60 bucks though and it works most of the time Just to clarify, the 28-80 L doesn't suck, just in case anyone is thinking of getting one! 5D3, 7D2, 1D3, 40D, 14 f2.8 Samyang, 17-40 L, 28-80 L, 70-200 2.8ii L, 200 2.8ii L, 200-400 L, 1.4 ii,
LOG IN TO REPLY |
barkingspud Senior Member ![]() 511 posts Likes: 3 Joined Sep 2010 Location: Chi-Town Burbs More info | Sep 04, 2012 11:33 | #180 Sigma 24-70 f2.8..... Terrible backfocus. Thankfully, the micro-adjust on my 50D's helps.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
![]() | x 1600 |
y 1600 |
Log in 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! |
| ||
Latest registered member is nikonbrain 985 guests, 271 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 |