The Canon L lens Series

[STINKY PICTURES]

Hey I appreciate all of you guys. I know i will love what ever lens i get, but the reason i was nervous is because of READING.. i was reading reviews on B&H, I`ll put in a link and you`ll see what i mean, don`t just read the first page go to a few and you`ll see how a person like me can get scared at the prospect of laying down big money. like why did those people get a bad copy? or what was it? see thats what i was talking about when i said a SOFT lens. I think i`d like to find something in the range of about 25mm-200mm in one lens with L glass. do they make that? But i`m still considering everything that everyone is saying, nothing is carved in stone. I see so many possibilities........ sighhhhhhh and so little money.


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...&sku=264304&is=USA&si=rev#anchorToReadReviews

 

[STINKY PICTURES]

Exactly!!! Also fixable.

So how is it fixable?

 

[Overread]

User reviews like that can be helpful, but take all with a pinch of salt
When you read a review by a pro or in a mag you can mostly assume (and hope) that they have an idea of what they are talking about and that htey know how to take a shot - how to use the kit right.
With user reviews you don't know this - they could be ace photographers or they could be 15 year olds who just started 2 hours before complaining in the review . And people often complain more than they complement as well



ps - as far as I know you can have a lens checked for softness and if its not up to standard you can get it corrected - aside from the time it takes out of your photography I think its either free (by canon) or a cheapish if you lens is faulty (I am almost certain you get charged for checking time if its not the lens at fault, but don't hold me to this as I have never dealt with it)

 

[RyanLilly]

The unpopular and discontinued 50mm f/1.0, was known for being very soft, that is why it was replaced by the 1.2, witch is about as sharp as you can get from 1.2-2.0, but the non-L 1.4, is supposed to be sharper between 2.5 and 8.

 

[table1349]

So how is it fixable?

It can be sent to Canon Service under warranty for free calibration. Out of warranty they charge for calibration, although I also have heard from people that they have had out of warranty L glass calibrated and were not charged.

IMO this is a much better place to look at reviews. Again with a grain of salt.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=5&sort=7&cat=27&page=1

You will find that I have a review there that indicates my copy was a bit soft at f2.8. After 5 days without it during the trip to and back from Canon it is everything that I could ever expect. I had a bit of a front focus issue. About 2mm front focus. This is a very good test for focus issues by Nikon.
http://focustestchart.com/chart.html

Yes a Canon person is complementing Nikon, get over it.

 

[table1349]

The unpopular and discontinued 50mm f/1.0, was known for being very soft, that is why it was replaced by the 1.2, witch is about as sharp as you can get from 1.2-2.0, but the non-L 1.4, is supposed to be sharper between 2.5 and 8.

Agreed at f1.0 it was seemingly soft. I have never owned it but have shot one. A fellow photographer here has one and I borrowed it. Wide open to 1.4 it seemed soft. At 1.4 is improved quite nicely. I do wish I had done some better tests because the DOF at 1.0 is very shallow leaving little room for focusing error. The bokeh however was unsurpassed in the copy I shot.

 

[usayit]

yup.. . the "unpopular" 50 f1 was soft and was slow to AF.. not to mention expensive. The 50mm f/1.4 out performed it in almost every way except at f/1. Today, it is mostly a collectors object at around $5k... I know a couple for sale in NYC.

Trust me... at f/1, it takes a lot of practice (but fun). You simply lean into the shot a little and now you are focused on a person's side-burns rather than their eyes.


Canon L lenses for the most part are wonderful and well worth the cost. There are a few examples in their regular Canon line that have the optical performance worthy of L red ring but not necessarily the build quality nor the cost associated. Those are the best finds for most out of your buck.

50 f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, 100mm macro are just a few on that list.

 

[table1349]

yup.. . the "unpopular" 50 f1 was soft and was slow to AF.. not to mention expensive. The 50mm f/1.4 out performed it in almost every way except at f/1. Today, it is mostly a collectors object at around $5k... I know a couple for sale in NYC.

Trust me... at f/1, it takes a lot of practice (but fun). You simply lean into the shot a little and now you are focused on a person's side-burns rather than their eyes.


Canon L lenses for the most part are wonderful and well worth the cost. There are a few examples in their regular Canon line that have the optical performance worthy of L red ring but not necessarily the build quality nor the cost associated. Those are the best finds for most out of your buck.

50 f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, 100mm macro are just a few on that list.

The EF-s 10-22 is on that list. You will however never see a red ring on an EF-s lens.

 

[usayit]

agreed... just pointing that out that there is nothing "magic" about the red ring. ....

Makes you wonder what choices consumers would make if none of their lenses had the red ring.

 

[asfixiate]

usayit have any example shots with the 1200mm?

 

[STINKY PICTURES]

OOOOOO Usayit... are you saying that there are some Canon Lens out there that are worthy of the L lens status. But they don`t carry the hefty price tag?

 

[usayit]

usayit have any example shots with the 1200mm?

you do realize there is probably less than 80 examples of the 1200L in existence... they run over $100,000 each. hehehe just poking fun

 

[usayit]

OOOOOO Usayit... are you saying that there are some Canon Lens out there that are worthy of the L lens status. But they don`t carry the hefty price tag?

Yes....

There are times that poking at a MTF graph and talking about sharpness is a waste if the photo itself carries its own weight.

 

[asfixiate]

usayit. Thanks. Just curious.

I read that less than 80 have it and around 10 in US.

 

[Village Idiot]

Really??? I better send mine into Canon then, because above 2.8 it is sharp enough to shave with. At 2.8 it tuggs the wiskers a bit, but is certainly useable. But then I have yet to find a lens that doesn't soften at least a tad wide open.

If you look around, your experience is the minority. I've used one that was soft and there's countless thread on different photography boards and even several reviews that state the problem. One reviewer said out of four lenses, four were soft and had to be sent to Canon.