Lens which you regret buying it

[terrylam77]

For me ,

it would be Tamron 18-200mm. After buying, I realized I really need IS for 200mm coz most of my pics with Tamron are blur at 200mm.

 

[Halfmoon]

For me ,

it would be Tamron 18-200mm. After buying, I realized I really need IS for 200mm coz most of my pics with Tamron are blur at 200mm.

200mm picture blur.. could it be a technique issue???

 

[nottipiglet]

c) Tokina 11-16. Nowhere as extraordinary as what people think. Stayed with Canon 10-22.
d) Canon 70-300. Sharp but atrocious built (infamous portrait issue). Caused me many sleepless nights. Finally dumped it for the awesome 70-200 f/4 IS.

The Toki 11-16 and the Canon 10-22 are both good lenses. Both are equally extraordinary or not extraordinary... depending on how you see it. The Toki has more barrel distortions and a more limited range, but it opens to f/2.8 constant. So, the choice between the 2 really depends on what your needs are.

The 70-300's is not build so badly. It is pretty much the average Canon prosumer built... certainly not L. I prefer to bring a cheaper, poorer built lens for travelling, which is why I dumped the 70-200 f/4L IS for the 70-300. As for the infamous portrait issue, there is no need to lose sleep over it. Just bring it to the Canon service centre, and they will strip out the entire inside of the lens and swap it with a new version... thereby solving the problem. Even if you have a very old 70-300 with this problem, Canon will service it for you... for free... and you practically get a new lens (on the inside) after this.

 

[JoeJerry]

Its heavy and expensive, but how can the picture not sharp? im quite happy with my 24-70, mayb i just found it not wide enough on a crop body. Hunting for wide angel now ^^

I got a lemon :angry:

 

[ManWearPants]

My rejects are more to do with my incapability to handle the lenses, more than the flaw of the lenses.

1) Canon EF-S 17-85. I find the pictures taken with it to be slightly soft. The narrow aperture also does not make it as versatile as the EF-S17-55 which I replaced it with then.
2) Tokina 50-135 f2.8. This is a very sharp lens. My shaky hands do not allow me to handhold it at 135mm. My bad.
3) Canon TS-E 24mm MkI. I don't know how to use this lens. I like to tilt the lens to get vertical OoF effect like the photo below. But seems to get a lot of negative comments. A bit disheartened. I still have the lens and will learn to use it properly.

4) Canon EF 70-300 DO IS. I bought this lens for its size and portability. But then realised that I have 3 lenses of overlapping focal length. Ended up travelling with my 70-200f4IS + 1.4xTC instead.

 

[gundamseed84]

For me it would be super takumar MC 50 f1.4. Bought from ebay, maybe that wasn't a good copy as it was soft wide open (kinda defeat the purpose since I wanted to use at f1.4). Luckily I got it for around $100 so the damage wasn't big.

Regret 2: 300F4L (non-is). 2nd hand as this was an old model. The image is really good but I regret because I thought 300 + 1.4x would be sufficient for birding but still find the focal length a little too short. But still I am enjoying using it.

50 f1.8 II ---> used alot initially as new to dslr and wanted to learn prime. Ever since I switched to 135L (i know focal length different), I would rather spend the effort to move my feet around and use 135 instead of switching to 50 f1.8. So now it's in my dry cab most of the times.

Ironically, the lens I used most frequent is canon 18-200. IQ of course cannot compare to L lens but the verstaility is superb, IQ is pretty decent if I take the extra effort to apply techniques with a little pp. Good to bring around daily when I have no particular plan to shoot so I just want 1 lens.

 

[TheChef]

For me, they are the Tokina 11-16 f2.8.

The Tokina 11-16 is useless to me, as I don't shoot so wide even for landscapes. I am a closeup photographer.

 

[renzokuken]

interesting that alot of the replies are about Third party lenses

maybe it's not purely a marketing scheme when they say that 3rd party lenses won't work as well with OEM lenses , for most at least...

 

[doodah]

The 70-300's is not build so badly. It is pretty much the average Canon prosumer built... certainly not L. I prefer to bring a cheaper, poorer built lens for travelling, which is why I dumped the 70-200 f/4L IS for the 70-300. As for the infamous portrait issue, there is no need to lose sleep over it. Just bring it to the Canon service centre, and they will strip out the entire inside of the lens and swap it with a new version... thereby solving the problem. Even if you have a very old 70-300 with this problem, Canon will service it for you... for free... and you practically get a new lens (on the inside) after this.

Glad to hear Canon has changed their strategy.

I was the FIRST to bring the 70-300 lens to CSC for servicing once the official Canon fix was announced. They did something to the lens, but did NOT swap the inside with a new version, so I was left with a lens that occasionally exhibited the portrait issue. And my lens simply could not focus reliably at 300 mm. I brought it to CSC twice but the problems were never fully resolved. That really p**sed me off and left a bitter taste in my mouth.

Anyway, I have decided that I will only accept ring USM lenses (unless it's an ultrawide).

The Toki 11-16 and the Canon 10-22 are both good lenses. Both are equally extraordinary or not extraordinary... depending on how you see it. The Toki has more barrel distortions and a more limited range, but it opens to f/2.8 constant. So, the choice between the 2 really depends on what your needs are.

Indeed. I use ultrawide lenses for landscape, so I am VERY fussy about flaring. The Tokina is NOTORIOUS for flaring.

Unlike Photozone's results, the results I got were more like this. IOW, Canon is not any worse than Tokina for corner sharpness.

The only drawback to Canon 10-22 is field curvature. One must therefore know where exactly to place the AF point.

 

[solasido]

it was 70-200L f2.8 for me.. bought and only used 2-3 times over 2-3 years span.
image not very sharp wide open and heavy some more; 70-200L f4 is much better.

 

[BigFatLenses]

dun think we will see any ef-s 17-55mm f2.8 here... hehe

its a good lens!

 

[newghost]

EFS 50 f1.8... not about the performance or anything but simply hated the plasticky feel! Sold it 1 day after! lolz

 

[enzeru21]

EFS 50 f1.8... not about the performance or anything but simply hated the plasticky feel! Sold it 1 day after! lolz

is there a EFS version of 50mm??

oh my..

 

[JoeJerry]

is there a EFS version of 50mm??

oh my..

Typo lar

 

[ManWearPants]

dun think we will see any ef-s 17-55mm f2.8 here... hehe

its a good lens!

Why not? I sold mine eventually. They should have made this an EF 17-55 f2.8 IS. Would have saved me a lot of money.

 

[ManWearPants]

yes.. which other cheap lens allows you to do this?

taken by a 55-250 IS on 450D

I am wondering if you did push the saturation of the colours up during post processing?

 

[Entertainer]

I am wondering if you did push the saturation of the colours up during post processing?

All done in body. I dont photoshop. shot in landscape style, sat +2 and most importantly, good light. The sample picture in EOS Lens work for this lens gives a similar colour saturation.

 

[nitewalk]

EFS 50 f1.8... not about the performance or anything but simply hated the plasticky feel! Sold it 1 day after! lolz

If its an exterior feel issue, why did you buy it in the first place?

 

[+evenstar]

mine would be 300 2.8L IS. bought it 5 years back, used less than 20 times.

 

[neech7]

I don't have any that I regret buying, but I do regret selling my 18-55 IS, along with my 20D. So much so that I bought back the same lens/body combo a few months later.