Most overrated camera body/lens?

Well lets hear your thoughts! What is the most overrated body you've had experience with, that just doesn't compare to the things you've heard about it. What is the most overrated lens you've had experience with, that just doesn't compare to the things you've heard about it. Share!

Underrated body/lens works too if you want to share.

Overrated: 100-400L. I really loved this lens for a while, then I noticed it's softness at 400mm - it called to be stopped down and it improved a bit, but then there was the light problem - questionable shooting if the sun don't shine. I thought my copy was faulty, so I combed the web and found a good review at luminous landscape, the 400 f/5.6L prime was very obviously sharper. After a few disappointingly unsharp shots (I tended to shoot alot at 400) I got so enraged by it, I sold it and bought primes.

Underrated - I don't know if this counts, but 135L. It's actually cheap for what you get. And you get one of the most amazing portrait lenses ever. Just check the price for Christsake. But no, people don't tend to buy it, because zooms are so much more convenient. So hey, good luck with that 28-300, eh?

for me - the Canon 50mm f/1.8 11, fiddly & clumsy to handle.

karusel wrote in post #3197329
Underrated - I don't know if this counts, but 135L. It's actually cheap for what you get. And you get one of the most amazing portrait lenses ever. Just check the price for Christsake. But no, people don't tend to buy it, because zooms are so much more convenient. So hey, good luck with that 28-300, eh?

I think people tend not to buy it because it's so bloody awkward for most of us mere mortals on crop cameras. There are plenty of folks buying 85s and 50s and 35s and such. So it has less to do with "zoom convenience" as it does awkwardness in its own right. I'd love to have one, but it's too weird of a focal length on a 1.3x. Not as bad as it is on a 1.6x, but still rather odd. It would seldom get used, just like my Meyer-Optik 135mm. I have to make a point to use that, but I use other lengths more.

Not everyone can afford a 5D or a 1Ds/II.

The most overrated gear is whatever is in the hands of the clown who thinks they can get a good shot through spending more cash on expensive gear: you can get a good shot with any current DSLR and decent lens.

IMO it has to be the 50mm f/1.4 hands down. Its just toooooo soft wide open for outdoor shots. Anywhere from f/1.4 - f/1.8.

august23 wrote in post #3197235
Well lets hear your thoughts! What is the most overrated body you've had experience with, that just doesn't compare to the things you've heard about it. What is the most overrated lens you've had experience with, that just doesn't compare to the things you've heard about it. Share!

Underrated body/lens works too if you want to share.

Since you folks asked for it...........

Way overrated:
Tamron 28-75 - unreliable focusing
Sigma 24-70 - soft at 2.8 and hardcore vignetting on full frame. If I wanted to stop down I'd buy an f/4 to begin with
Canon 50/1.4 - soft wide open and lots of CA. Never had a good copy.
Canon 85/1.8 - Never could find a use, real or imagined for this one.
Canon 24-70 - Backfocuses. For an L, that's not acceptable.
Canon 17-55 - unreliable in general. Canon tells me 'the lens is within spec'. OK, if that is their Official Word in Writing.. fine.. that's ok.. they just won't find me buying another copy ever again.. that's all.


Not getting enough credit:
18-55 kit lens - very nice at f/8
70-300 IS USM - 16x20" prints no problem if you do your job right
60 macro - lives in the shadow of the 100 macro but is a phenomenal lens in its own right
17-85 IS USM - in the right hands it can be awesome. Either that, or I got a copy that resembles a 24-105L in terms of performance.. now that is awesome too.
24-105 f/4L IS USM - there ain't nothing like it. If perfection exists, I've found it in this lens.

cdifoto wrote in post #3197389
I think people tend not to buy it because it's so bloody awkward for most of us mere mortals on crop cameras.

nothing is that awkward as long as you get to it. i love my 135L - even on a crop.

cdifoto wrote in post #3197389
Not everyone can afford a 5D or a 1Ds/II.

everyone can sure afford an eos 5 or even an eos 100.

Pat wrote in post #3197382
for me - the Canon 50mm f/1.8 11, fiddly & clumsy to handle.

I agree with you on this 100 percent .

Lightstream wrote in post #3197568
Since you folks asked for it...........

Way overrated:
Tamron 28-75 - unreliable focusing
Sigma 24-70 - soft at 2.8 and hardcore vignetting on full frame. If I wanted to stop down I'd buy an f/4 to begin with
Canon 50/1.4 - soft wide open and lots of CA. Never had a good copy.
Canon 85/1.8 - Never could find a use, real or imagined for this one.
Canon 24-70 - Backfocuses. For an L, that's not acceptable.
Canon 17-55 - unreliable in general. Canon tells me 'the lens is within spec'. OK, if that is their Official Word in Writing.. fine.. that's ok.. they just won't find me buying another copy ever again.. that's all.

Not getting enough credit:
18-55 kit lens - very nice at f/8
70-300 IS USM - 16x20" prints no problem if you do your job right
60 macro - lives in the shadow of the 100 macro but is a phenomenal lens in its own right
17-85 IS USM - in the right hands it can be awesome. Either that, or I got a copy that resembles a 24-105L in terms of performance.. now that is awesome too.
24-105 f/4L IS USM - there ain't nothing like it. If perfection exists, I've found it in this lens.

Yeah, I bought the EF85f1.8 but never used it , and I do not even know for what applications I can use it , it is very sharp , though.

I prefer the EF-S60 for portrat and low light .

Overrated:

100-400L IS. It's a convenient, versatile lens, but at 400 it's soft wide open, and since it's f5.6, it's frequently wide open. It's also a dust-pump, no matter what the deniers insist.

100mm f2.8 Macro. Maybe it was me, but wide open this lens seemed soft. Stopped down a bit it was good, but how far do you want to stop down a macro lens?

Sigma 50-500. Not a BAD lens, particularly for the price, but a very difficult lens to be good with. Heavy, front-heavy, hard to zoom, very slow.


Underrated:

Canon 400mm f5.6L. Just an incredible lens, sharp even wide open and very light and handy for the focal length.

Sigma 24-70 f2.8. Very sharp, with no vignetting even on a full frame camera. Yes, it's slow to focus in low light, but you can't have everything.

18-55 Kit lens. It's not built very well, but it is very capable of taking great pictures.

During basketbal season the 85 f/1.8 almost never leaves my camera.

Lightstream wrote in post #3197568
Since you folks asked for it...........

Way overrated:
Tamron 28-75 - unreliable focusing
Sigma 24-70 - soft at 2.8 and hardcore vignetting on full frame. If I wanted to stop down I'd buy an f/4 to begin with
Canon 50/1.4 - soft wide open and lots of CA. Never had a good copy.
Canon 85/1.8 - Never could find a use, real or imagined for this one.
Canon 24-70 - Backfocuses. For an L, that's not acceptable.
Canon 17-55 - unreliable in general. Canon tells me 'the lens is within spec'. OK, if that is their Official Word in Writing.. fine.. that's ok.. they just won't find me buying another copy ever again.. that's all.

Not getting enough credit:
18-55 kit lens - very nice at f/8
70-300 IS USM - 16x20" prints no problem if you do your job right
60 macro - lives in the shadow of the 100 macro but is a phenomenal lens in its own right
17-85 IS USM - in the right hands it can be awesome. Either that, or I got a copy that resembles a 24-105L in terms of performance.. now that is awesome too.
24-105 f/4L IS USM - there ain't nothing like it. If perfection exists, I've found it in this lens.

nikon

Overated: Canon 1D Mark III (hasn't even hit the market, and there is a waiting line for a frickin' $5k camera.) You'd think it was the miricale drug of photography!

rklepper wrote in post #3197767
During basketbal season the 85 f/1.8 almost never leaves my camera.

Not my favorite sport I'm afraid.....