[Poll] Which canon lens that you guys regret the most after buying it?

[tecnica]

regretted buying the 85/f1.8. the colour(purple, green, red etc) fringing at wide opened, was too much for me to stomach. since i can't use it at f1.8, then there is really nothing i can do with the lens.

but i have to say the 85/f1.8 is really darn sharp at f1.8, sharper than my 17-55 i would say.

quickly sold it off while the warranty still available. looking at 135L now.

 

[incognito6174]

I regret buying the kit lens when I bought my 450D. Don't get me wrong, the kit lens is great to learn the basics of photography before one decides to upgrade to better lenses. But I think I kept the lens wayy too long and 'became' satisfied with the image quality, which obviously, is not the best. I have since then upgraded to EFS 17-55 f2.8 and the IQ is so much better, it makes me regret I ever bought bought the 18-55 f3.5-5.6

 

[Dragon2012]

75-300mm III non IS version. Its not sharp at all aperture. haiz.

 

[Snoweagle]

From Ls become non-Ls. :bsmilie:

 

[linkk]

i regretted buying L lenses, that i don't actually need or has liitle use for me like the 70-200 f4.0 IS USM, they just end up in the dry cabinet sigh

 

[MountainMan]

I must confess that I don't own many L lenses (only have 4) but the 100-400mm, being a push-pull zoom lens, has some serious flaws for extreme use (which is what L lenses are designed for anyway). On a recent trip to the subantarctic, a large number of photographers with the 100-400 L (and the other push-pull zoom 28-300mm L) had lens failure, either intermittent or permament. The most common problem was the AF being jammed (cannot manually focus either... hence it was the focus ring being jammed). The second most common problem was most likely an IS problem, with the lens giving an Err99 whenever the shutter was depressed with the IS on. There are other problems from the inability detect the lens by the camera, to inability to change aperature, to even having the zoom being jammed. I must specify again that this is under rather extreme conditions (temps above 0 but less than 10, and with constant sea spray and high saline saturation in the air. This experience has been repeated quite a number of time with other photographers who use the lens on less extreme pelagics (out in the sea). In short, the push-pull design zoom lenses are not suitable for use around marine environments. I did not experience similar problems with ring zoom designs.

 

[albertsy2]

50 f/1.8. On a crop sensor body, the 35mm equivalent is too narrow.

 

[Valkarian]

50 f/1.8. On a crop sensor body, the 35mm equivalent is too narrow.

you cant regret buying a 50mm 1.8 XD the price is waaaaaay low.

 

[Tachyon]

I must confess that I don't own many L lenses (only have 4) but the 100-400mm, being a push-pull zoom lens, has some serious flaws for extreme use (which is what L lenses are designed for anyway). On a recent trip to the subantarctic, a large number of photographers with the 100-400 L (and the other push-pull zoom 28-300mm L) had lens failure, either intermittent or permament. The most common problem was the AF being jammed (cannot manually focus either... hence it was the focus ring being jammed). The second most common problem was most likely an IS problem, with the lens giving an Err99 whenever the shutter was depressed with the IS on. There are other problems from the inability detect the lens by the camera, to inability to change aperature, to even having the zoom being jammed. I must specify again that this is under rather extreme conditions (temps above 0 but less than 10, and with constant sea spray and high saline saturation in the air. This experience has been repeated quite a number of time with other photographers who use the lens on less extreme pelagics (out in the sea). In short, the push-pull design zoom lenses are not suitable for use around marine environments. I did not experience similar problems with ring zoom designs.

Interesting... I used my 100-400mm during my last trip to Alaska and did not have any issues with it. Perhaps I was lucky!

 

[lovebean120]

hi guys, may i know why there are so many people choosing ef 17-40 f4L as most regret lens that they have bought?

 

[Snoweagle]

hi guys, may i know why there are so many people choosing ef 17-40 f4L as most regret lens that they have bought?

I didn't vote any. Just to let u know that i used to own the 17-40 and it's my very first L. No regrets on the purchase but i sold it for Sigma's 12-24 as it is wider.

 

[lovebean120]

I didn't vote any. Just to let u know that i used to own the 17-40 and it's my very first L. No regrets on the purchase but i sold it for Sigma's 12-24 as it is wider.

thanks. how is the performance in low light situation? this lens is a non-IS lens, is that a problem?
sorry to have so many question.

 

[tecnica]

thanks. how is the performance in low light situation? this lens is a non-IS lens, is that a problem?
sorry to have so many question.

frankly speaking, even f2.8 is not fast enough in many low-light situations. with my 17-55, i have to push the ISO up to 3200 in order to attain a barely fast(1/20s, 1/30s etc) shutter speed.

with the 17-40L, you will be looking at half of what i said, at the same ISO. handhold-ability will be an issue here(due to not having IS as well), not to mention freezing of motion.

 

[avsquare]

frankly speaking, even f2.8 is not fast enough in many low-light situations. with my 17-55, i have to push the ISO up to 3200 in order to attain a barely fast(1/20s, 1/30s etc) shutter speed.

with the 17-40L, you will be looking at half of what i said, at the same ISO. handhold-ability will be an issue here(due to not having IS as well), not to mention freezing of motion.

agreed, even with f/2.8, when shooting in low-light/night situations, it's difficult to push shutter speed to higher regions without pumping up your ISO to high range.

I usually shoot with f/4 or f/5.6 at night (also because my max aperture is f/4). 1/30 is probably the fastest I've used. Usually it's either 1/10 to 1/20. Highest ISO used is 3200.

But do take note that 1/10 to 1/30 on f/4-f/5.6 is achieved, for my case, due to 3 to 4 stops of IS support from the lens. And also that my cam is the 5D Mark II, which provides a very good high ISO IQ, allowing me to pump my ISO higher without ugly noises.

f/4 without IS alone, in low light or night, I'd say rather difficult.

 

[avsquare]

you cant regret buying a 50mm 1.8 XD the price is waaaaaay low.

I didn't regret buying it either, although I've never really shoot with it! :bsmilie:

 

[Snoweagle]

thanks. how is the performance in low light situation? this lens is a non-IS lens, is that a problem?
sorry to have so many question.

It's gd to ask as u learn more. Honestly I don't have any problems in low-light situations with the 17-40 as it's wide angle and handshakes are not obvious at all which leads to your second question. To me, you won't need IS in an ultra-wide and reason being again...it's a wide-angle lens.

 

[Prajna]

70 200 2.8 was my first L lens... Super awesome lens, but its not really practical. Used once in indoor event on monopod, it was much better than my friend's 55-250 (duh). Sold it n considering f4 version.

 

[Prajna]

Not sure if this is the right place to ask but... I wonder why 17 55 2.8 is still not fast enough for low light. Cos ive been shooting indoor events as backup shooter with 17 40 to shoot groups. F5.6 and iso 800 with flash on crop body. Slowest on 1/60, it was alright. What im still thinking is what type of photography that needs fast wide angle glass? (indoor sports like martial arts where u cant use flash?) Forgive my ignorance, still upgrading myself.

 

[nathaniel]

frankly speaking, even f2.8 is not fast enough in many low-light situations. with my 17-55, i have to push the ISO up to 3200 in order to attain a barely fast(1/20s, 1/30s etc) shutter speed.

with the 17-40L, you will be looking at half of what i said, at the same ISO. handhold-ability will be an issue here(due to not having IS as well), not to mention freezing of motion.

yes, f/2.8 is often not fast enough for many situations. however, if you don't need to freeze motion, you can use the neck-strap as a support--I can shoot around 1/2 sec to 1/6 sec shutter speed with good results (although if it's ~1/2 sec, I need to shoot maybe 3 times to get one sharp image. for 1/6 sec my hit rate is better).

 

[tecnica]

Not sure if this is the right place to ask but... I wonder why 17 55 2.8 is still not fast enough for low light. Cos ive been shooting indoor events as backup shooter with 17 40 to shoot groups. F5.6 and iso 800 with flash on crop body. Slowest on 1/60, it was alright. What im still thinking is what type of photography that needs fast wide angle glass? (indoor sports like martial arts where u cant use flash?) Forgive my ignorance, still upgrading myself.

there is flash being used in your equation.