Lenses that just aren't worth it....

IMO any lens that you paid too much for, that you don't need or can't use properly, or bought for the wrong reasons - isn't worth it.

there is a lot to be said for buying used lenses - you generally don't lose too much cash on your mistakes - but I have to admit I prefer new....

Can't beat that new lens smell!

Billginthekeys wrote in post #2182239
geez arnt there a bunch of whiners in here. if you need a lens to perform for a particular purpose at its best, and are being paid to do so, then why shouldnt you buy the best. if its purely a hobby for you, and you dont see any advantage to spending all your money on it then dont, no need to start a hate thread just because some people do.

Are you refering to me as starting a "hate thread"? I'm not sure but if so, that certainly wasn't my intention.
My intention was to simply point out that some of Canon's lenses seem to be priced somewhat "awkwardly". For instance...the 70-200 f2.8L can be had for quite a bit less than the 50 f1.2L....I would think that a 50mm prime would be easier and cheaper to make than a 70-200 zoom and therefore would be priced less (I use two "L's" as an example so we can assume they are made to similar quality standards). I'm by no means complaining or whining....just pondering. I'm not trying to say that Canon shouldn't charge what they do or that people shouldn't buy these wonderful lenses. It's just that some of their lenses leave me scratching my head on how they came up with the price.

If you don't want the glass, don't buy it. Canon price it to sell, and obviously there are some people who buy. If I ever have the money, I'll be one of them. Get over it.

PS: I'd like to see any one of the complainants here explain how they would go about manufacturing a top-quality 1.2 lens for, um, less than what Canon charge
And then remember that these premium lenses will never be manufactured en masse like consumer glass, so Canon can't get huge economies of scale out of them.

jra wrote in post #2182680
Are you refering to me as starting a "hate thread"? I'm not sure but if so, that certainly wasn't my intention.
My intention was to simply point out that some of Canon's lenses seem to be priced somewhat "awkwardly". For instance...the 70-200 f2.8L can be had for quite a bit less than the 50 f1.2L....I would think that a 50mm prime would be easier and cheaper to make than a 70-200 zoom and therefore would be priced less (I use two "L's" as an example so we can assume they are made to similar quality standards). I'm by no means complaining or whining....just pondering. I'm not trying to say that Canon shouldn't charge what they do or that people shouldn't buy these wonderful lenses. It's just that some of their lenses leave me scratching my head on how they came up with the price.

Fair enough. My "get over it" response wasn't for you btw

Cheers.

Hawg Hanner wrote in post #2182473
If you can use the focal length the Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM has to be every bit as good if not better than the EF 85mm f/1.2 II USM and/or EF 50mm f/1.2 II USM for a fraction of the cost. It can be had for around $800 shopping online and produces stellar images, similar color rendition and awesome bokeh.

Even on full frame, 135mm is quite long, so you need to take into account the amount of space you have too. It's a great lens, but if the focal length doesn't fit, then its not as strong in value.

The 135 on a 1.6 is especially long. The 85L would have the FOV of a 135 on full frame. The 50L would have the FOV of about the 85L on full frame.

jra wrote in post #2182680
Are you refering to me as starting a "hate thread"? I'm not sure but if so, that certainly wasn't my intention.
My intention was to simply point out that some of Canon's lenses seem to be priced somewhat "awkwardly". For instance...the 70-200 f2.8L can be had for quite a bit less than the 50 f1.2L....I would think that a 50mm prime would be easier and cheaper to make than a 70-200 zoom and therefore would be priced less (I use two "L's" as an example so we can assume they are made to similar quality standards). I'm by no means complaining or whining....just pondering. I'm not trying to say that Canon shouldn't charge what they do or that people shouldn't buy these wonderful lenses. It's just that some of their lenses leave me scratching my head on how they came up with the price.

i understand your position on it, and sorry if it came off as an attack at you. its just that some people have taken the comment as a cue to attack all people who buy L glass.

JaGWiRE wrote in post #2182505
I'm just curious, and this is not out of disrespect, but do you have any tests proving this? I just have a little trouble believing these sort of things w/o photos.

from what ive seen, the 135 is a tack sharp lens with very thin bokeh, quite similar to the 85 1.2. but as grego said, it can be quite long for portraits, especially indoors, and especially on a crop body.

jra wrote in post #2182680
Are you refering to me as starting a "hate thread"? I'm not sure but if so, that certainly wasn't my intention.
My intention was to simply point out that some of Canon's lenses seem to be priced somewhat "awkwardly". For instance...the 70-200 f2.8L can be had for quite a bit less than the 50 f1.2L....I would think that a 50mm prime would be easier and cheaper to make than a 70-200 zoom and therefore would be priced less (I use two "L's" as an example so we can assume they are made to similar quality standards). I'm by no means complaining or whining....just pondering. I'm not trying to say that Canon shouldn't charge what they do or that people shouldn't buy these wonderful lenses. It's just that some of their lenses leave me scratching my head on how they came up with the price.

You do realise, with such a large aperture such as 1.2, a lot of glass is used, I am sure it is MUCH MUCH MUCH MORE then in a 2.8 lens. If you think the Canon is expensive, check out some of Leica's 50mm lenses.

This isn't intended for people like you anyway, although enthusiasts buy this sort of gear, it is obviously intended towards professionals.

Bill, that's good to hear, it's on my to buy list, along with the 200mm f2.8L.

JaGWiRE wrote in post #2182505
I'm just curious, and this is not out of disrespect, but do you have any tests proving this? I just have a little trouble believing these sort of things w/o photos.

Well, the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM hasn't been released yet. So I have no photos from that lens. Give me a few months and I will be happy to post some. As for the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM, there are few photos on PBase.com and scattered in other corners of the Internet, but that too is a relatively new lens.

As for the Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM, I know for a fact that it has a score of 9.9 at FredMiranda.com and is generally regarded as one of Canon's best prime lenses (if not the best):

[URL][URL]http://www.f​redmiranda.com/reviews​/showproduct.php?produ​ct=34&sort=7&cat=2&pag​e=1[URL]

As for examples, here are some I have to offer after only having this lens for one or two months:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

It's normal to ask that when looking at the 85mm or 50mm f/1.2L lenses. There's no doubt about it, they're quite a jump in price over the next best equivalent. But to some people the extras are worth it and/or even required.

There's no disputing that the EF 85mm f/1.2L is pretty much THE portrait lens.

When you need f/1.2, you need f/1.2 - and it should be sharp wide open (otherwise it's useless). The new L lenses are weathersealed (like the 50mm f/1.2L) which can be important. These are all extra parts, more complicated designs and much more expensive glass and coatings. It adds up...

Then there's the build quality. L lenses are solid. Very solid. They stand up to professional (constant) use and abuse. Regular lenses would give out when you least could afford it - like on assignment out in the field.

Optically they're usually the best Canon has to offer - that pretty much says it all.

grego wrote in post #2182704
Even on full frame, 135mm is quite long, so you need to take into account the amount of space you have too. It's a great lens, but if the focal length doesn't fit, then its not as strong in value.

I thought it would be a bit long, but after a couple of months of using it I would say that it is a nice focal length on the 5D. In fact, it hasn't been a hinderance at all. On a camera with a 1.6 crop factor it probably would be too long, but that depends on your style.

I love the Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM and have used it more than any other lens in the past two months...bar none.

Hawg Hanner wrote in post #2183247
I thought it would be a bit long, but after a couple of months of using it I would say that it is a nice focal length on the 5D. In fact, it hasn't been a hinderance at all. On a camera with a 1.6 crop factor it probably would be too long, but that depends on your style.

I love the Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM and have used it more than any other lens in the past two months...bar none.

All of it depends on style. Even on a 5D, 135 is fairly long, unless you have space. 135(on full frame) is already on the long end of the traditional portrait lens range. That was pretty much my point though. If it doesn't fit your style, then this lens is not worth it. A lens is only worth it if it fits your style, the way you do things.

Mr. Clean wrote in post #2181207
That's the attitude I just can't stand. The whole, it's an L, it's the best etc. etc. etc. blah blah blah. Don't get me wrong, Canon makes great lenses. But in the end they're just a tool. I would rather spend $2,000 to improve my exposure, composition and "feel" ability than to buy something just to take sharper pics. There's people in the photo sharing section that drip ability with their 18-55's and 50mm 1.8.

In the end, there's a picture. Whether it is "good" or "bad" very rarely is dependent on the lens. And that's beyond opinion in my book.

Just like the Tamron 28-75 drawing much growing support over the Canon 24-70 because it is 1/3 the price for arguably equal image quality.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #2182402
I think the most of the L lineup is not worth it. lol

I agree to a point, for the quality of the 17-40L & 70-200L I think its a fair price.
I cant justify spending $2000 for the 85L since I wont use it as often, but if someone buys it and uses it everyday then its pprobably a steal of a deal.

To me the 50mm f/1.2L would be a waste of money. It would be a lense that would be laying in the bag more than on the camera. But to someone who needed it, it might just give them that edge they need.
I gave over $900 for my sigma 100-300 f4 .I wish it would have been cheaper. But it fit my need, and I don't think there's another lens in this range that would equal it. I don't regret it. I won't buy an "L" just to own an "L" lens.
But I would like to own the 400 f/2.8L or the 600mm f/4.0L. I could get some use out of these lens. And I don't know if any other lens will hold up to them. But they are way beyond my budget.
Everything is to high nowadays.