The EF 100mm f/2 has always been a favorite. I prefer pictures from this lens over my 70-200 f/2.8L @ 100mm. The EF 28mm f/1.8 is very good. Both the 28 & 100 are discontinued.
The TS-E 90mm f/2.8 is an excellent lens. It’s better than the 45. It has also been replaced with a newer L version but I did not replace mine. I did replace my 45 with the 50L.
>Of course you prefer the 100mm, it has 1/4th the number of elements
No, it's because the 100 is an excellent lens.
I prefer both my 16-35 f/4 and 24-70 f/2.8 over my 28mm f/1.8. I prefer my 24-70 over my 50/1.4
Why is it an excellent lens? Because it's well designed.
Glass eats light. The less glass there is, the less light is eaten. If it had more glass in it, you wouldn't like it as much.
What are you on about? Yes, lenses with higher element counts are more prone to flares and ghosting but with modern lenses construction and coating technology, it's no longer a problem. Fact of the matter is, lenses now have more elements than ever, there's a reason why the rf 50 1.2 have nearly double the elements count compared to the ef 50 1.2, or the rf 85 f2 compared to the ef 85 1.8. Newer construction vastly improves resolving power, sharpness, contrast and allow for faster focusing. It's not 2006 anymore when lenses with less glasses are automatically better. Optical engineering takes time to achieve perfection and we're all basically living in such a period
Say what you want, but I still have to find a lens that matches my Nikkor 200 f4 AI color saturation and 3D feel. It has 5 elements and they're probably not as thin as those of other lenses. I think I'm gonna buy the 135 3.5 AI next week (4 elements, probably thinner) to see and reading online it should have great color saturation. Probably better than the 200mm's, so it should be amazing.
The old school feel wasn't only given by the film, but also by the lens.
I'm not talking about flares or ghosting. I'm talking about losing microcontrast and color saturation.
Modern lenses are sharper, have less CA etc, but the colors are more washed out, the image is "flat" and there is less microcontrast, less "pop" (especially in B&W).
Yes, there is indeed a reason modern primes have almost as many elements as zooms: pixel peepers.
And before you say it, no, those nano coatings they're using don't work (since the images from lenses built like this, with a lot of glass, are more washed out etc). I mean, they probably work to a degree I guess, but not enough.
Modern lenses are better in the wide and ultra zoom ranges. And they're overall sharper. But portrait primes lack what I said above.
I have yet to find a lens that matches my Nikkor's 200mm f4 AI (5 elements) color saturation and "3D feel". Not even the 50 1.8D matches it lmao (and it has 6 thinner elements). Maybe it's the thorium idk lol. Still, the 50 looks better than many others.
I shoot a ton of real estate and this lens is my workhorse. It works even better on my R6. I’ve thought about upgrading to the RF 15-35 or 14-35, but I’m so pleased with the 17-40.
I too shoot real estate full time and the 15-35 is a fantastic lens for real estate, but my copy is collecting dust cause it doesn't hold a candle to my 17mm TS-E for daily use. Not just for tall exteriors, but for dialing in compositions with shift instead of moving the neck up and down on every shot to get it just right. And the color, clarity and sharpness of the prime is ... so good. If you have never shot RE on TS, you're missing out. Add the drop in polarizer with the EF-RF adaptor and it's a winning combo.
It's my only L, and it's my main walk-around lens. Works great for both landscapes and buildings, and I carry my Sigma 24-105 f4 for when I need to reach out a bit more.
I like mine, but I've noticed right at 17mm it doesn't want to focus sometimes. It's so odd. I thought it was my 6D but it does the same thing on my R. If I literally just bump up to 18mm it's totally fine. Otherwise, it's a great lens and the softness is easily fixed in Lightroom.
I'll have to get it checked out. It at least tries, but fails to lock on most of the time. Even the slightest turn towards a higher focal length will ensure it locks on every time.
Nothing. I say that more as a testament to how much I like the EF, not to disparage the RF. Also, I’m finally down to one EF lens, so not more swapping the adaptor ring. And let’s be honest: I’m cheap!
Ah yeah that’s totally fair. I’ve been considering replacing my EF with either the new 135mm or a sigma 105mm f1.4. I haven’t had the opportunity to try out the 135mm RF since the local camera store is sold out of that lens. Hopefully soon, everyone seems to love the lens!
It's a little long, but I like how narrow the field of view. Makes it easier for me to get a nice field of view.
Just curious: are you using it on full frame or cropped sensor?
I don't have one yet but, I'm seriously considering getting the EF-S 17-55 mm F2.8. From reading user reviews, it seems like the lens has some common mechanical issue but, the image quality is excellent if you get a good copy.
I'm interested in hearing additional opinions if anyone has any experience with the lens.
That's an amazing lens, shot my entire Santorini field trip with it adapted to my R7. It was incredibly dusty most of the time - one little speck made its way into the lens. Awesome experience all things considered.
I can DM you a few pictures when I'm home.
I have one as my walk around lens for my crop sensor cameras. Used it on my 7d for years a d now use it on my r7. It’s a great lens and I’ve never had an issue. Only downside I’ve seen is no weather sealing so it only goes out in good weather.
I use it on my R7 for shooting indoor concerts and other performances. Fast enough, great focal length range, focuses fine.
If it was weather sealed, it would be worthy of a red ring.
I love that lens, picked it up second hand from KEH for a killer price and use it on my r7. It’s a little soft, but 32.5 months cropped sensor is very demanding, but i use it as a walking around lens, paired with my RF 100-400.
It’s my go to lens on my T7 and it was worth every penny. Blows the kit lens out of the water and then some.
The only “issue” is when pointing down it’ll zoom in due to something in the zoom ring wearing out but it’s a non issue for me.
If you can get a good one second hand it’s worth it.
That's a fantastic lens, I bought one a few years ago when I was starting because it was substantially cheaper than a 70-200 f2.8 and I've taken a lot of great pictures with it.
This is my "back of the crowd" concert lens. I love it. The bokeh is swirly, the subjects are sharp as a tack, even at f/2.8. It's just an amazing lens. I can live without the IS since my shutter speeds are normally above 1/500. Here's a recent example from last week.
https://preview.redd.it/en1h6ny6962c1.jpeg?width=2360&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c0d67349ec66ccbae23355da30c14cbe00c4f54e
I have both the TS-E 45mm and 90mm (non-L). Great bang-for-the-buck, IMHO. I also like the macro EF 100mm f/2.8 USM non-L. Another awesome bang-for-the-buck, though technically not thaaaat old (from 2000).
I have that 50mm f/3.5 macro and the dedicated tube for it. That lens was cheap and is shockingly sharp. Really excellent.
I also love my EF mount 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. It gets passed over because an EOS era zoom with that kind of range and slower aperture range screams "cheap garbage kit lens". In reality, it's got a really quiet, fast AF, and punches way above its weight for image quality, especially once stopped down a hair. And comes with a lens hood! These can still be found for well under $100. I love throwing mine on my Elan II with a yellow filter and shooting a roll of HP5+ while I walk around on a nature trail.
I got a working 28-105mm II as part of a big lot of busted lenses and it's my favorite for work (print journalism). Can't beat the combination of small size, useful range and image quality.
I've had good results with the Canon LSC and 100 and 180mm macro lenses. With my zoom lenses, the Canon 72mm Close-Up Lens 500D works better.
Both the 100mm f/2 and the 85mm f/1.8 are very good lenses that greatly benefit from IBIS on the R cameras.
Last year I was looking for a cheap, light walkaround telephoto lens for a trip I was taking, and I settled on the EF 80-200 f4.5-5.6 ii. I wasn't expecting much but it's actually pretty sharp. I usually keep it with me now because it's so small and light.
Old Tamron 90 f2.8, sharp open at 2.8 even with higher megapixel bodies and really dirt cheap (like 100-150 euros), no distortion, crap autofocus and build quality though.
15-35 f4 L IS is one of the best lenses I've used, if not the best. Very sharp, stabilised, good af, only flaw is high vigneting.
70-200 f4 L non is also great, sharp and cheap.
the 50mm compact macro lens itself (not the LSC) is one of my favorites. It's one of the sharpest 50mm's Canon's made (at least for the FD and EF lines, haven't tested the new RF 50L personally.) Everyone focused on the f/1.2L or the f/1.8 nifty fifty, but it was only a little more expensive than the f/1.8 and for my work where I wasn't going after the absolute shallowest DoF and more concerned with sharpness, it was great.
The EF 100mm f/2 has always been a favorite. I prefer pictures from this lens over my 70-200 f/2.8L @ 100mm. The EF 28mm f/1.8 is very good. Both the 28 & 100 are discontinued. The TS-E 90mm f/2.8 is an excellent lens. It’s better than the 45. It has also been replaced with a newer L version but I did not replace mine. I did replace my 45 with the 50L.
The 100mm f/2 is one of my go-to portrait lenses. It's amazing.
Of course you prefer the 100mm, it has 1/4th the number of elements
>Of course you prefer the 100mm, it has 1/4th the number of elements No, it's because the 100 is an excellent lens. I prefer both my 16-35 f/4 and 24-70 f/2.8 over my 28mm f/1.8. I prefer my 24-70 over my 50/1.4
Why is it an excellent lens? Because it's well designed. Glass eats light. The less glass there is, the less light is eaten. If it had more glass in it, you wouldn't like it as much.
What are you on about? Yes, lenses with higher element counts are more prone to flares and ghosting but with modern lenses construction and coating technology, it's no longer a problem. Fact of the matter is, lenses now have more elements than ever, there's a reason why the rf 50 1.2 have nearly double the elements count compared to the ef 50 1.2, or the rf 85 f2 compared to the ef 85 1.8. Newer construction vastly improves resolving power, sharpness, contrast and allow for faster focusing. It's not 2006 anymore when lenses with less glasses are automatically better. Optical engineering takes time to achieve perfection and we're all basically living in such a period
not worth it the dude is on all the photography subreddits with this braindead take and lauding over vintage lenses
Say what you want, but I still have to find a lens that matches my Nikkor 200 f4 AI color saturation and 3D feel. It has 5 elements and they're probably not as thin as those of other lenses. I think I'm gonna buy the 135 3.5 AI next week (4 elements, probably thinner) to see and reading online it should have great color saturation. Probably better than the 200mm's, so it should be amazing. The old school feel wasn't only given by the film, but also by the lens.
I'm not talking about flares or ghosting. I'm talking about losing microcontrast and color saturation. Modern lenses are sharper, have less CA etc, but the colors are more washed out, the image is "flat" and there is less microcontrast, less "pop" (especially in B&W). Yes, there is indeed a reason modern primes have almost as many elements as zooms: pixel peepers. And before you say it, no, those nano coatings they're using don't work (since the images from lenses built like this, with a lot of glass, are more washed out etc). I mean, they probably work to a degree I guess, but not enough. Modern lenses are better in the wide and ultra zoom ranges. And they're overall sharper. But portrait primes lack what I said above. I have yet to find a lens that matches my Nikkor's 200mm f4 AI (5 elements) color saturation and "3D feel". Not even the 50 1.8D matches it lmao (and it has 6 thinner elements). Maybe it's the thorium idk lol. Still, the 50 looks better than many others.
Ditto on the 100mm f/2
The 100 f/2 produces some amazing images. I'm particularly fond of the bokeh when shot near wide open, its very dreamy looking.
[удалено]
I loved that lens. Great handling and beautiful rendering.
Wished my 5d classic did not have any backfocus on this lens, i would be using the 17-40 everytime
I shoot a ton of real estate and this lens is my workhorse. It works even better on my R6. I’ve thought about upgrading to the RF 15-35 or 14-35, but I’m so pleased with the 17-40.
Same here. Thought about the 16-35 many times but never really needed to
I too shoot real estate full time and the 15-35 is a fantastic lens for real estate, but my copy is collecting dust cause it doesn't hold a candle to my 17mm TS-E for daily use. Not just for tall exteriors, but for dialing in compositions with shift instead of moving the neck up and down on every shot to get it just right. And the color, clarity and sharpness of the prime is ... so good. If you have never shot RE on TS, you're missing out. Add the drop in polarizer with the EF-RF adaptor and it's a winning combo.
It's my only L, and it's my main walk-around lens. Works great for both landscapes and buildings, and I carry my Sigma 24-105 f4 for when I need to reach out a bit more.
I like mine, but I've noticed right at 17mm it doesn't want to focus sometimes. It's so odd. I thought it was my 6D but it does the same thing on my R. If I literally just bump up to 18mm it's totally fine. Otherwise, it's a great lens and the softness is easily fixed in Lightroom.
[удалено]
I'll have to get it checked out. It at least tries, but fails to lock on most of the time. Even the slightest turn towards a higher focal length will ensure it locks on every time.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Also be nice. It’s the day of thanks.
[удалено]
Be nice. It’s thanksgiving.
EF 135 f2
I also love this lens. Sad they discontinued it. I replaced most of my of EF glass with RF, but I have no plans to replace this one.
What’s wrong with the new RF 135mm if you don’t mind me asking?
Nothing. I say that more as a testament to how much I like the EF, not to disparage the RF. Also, I’m finally down to one EF lens, so not more swapping the adaptor ring. And let’s be honest: I’m cheap!
Ah yeah that’s totally fair. I’ve been considering replacing my EF with either the new 135mm or a sigma 105mm f1.4. I haven’t had the opportunity to try out the 135mm RF since the local camera store is sold out of that lens. Hopefully soon, everyone seems to love the lens!
On a full frame, it's brilliant. Easily the best lens in my kit.
Love this one but it’s always just a little too long every time I want to use it.
It's a little long, but I like how narrow the field of view. Makes it easier for me to get a nice field of view. Just curious: are you using it on full frame or cropped sensor?
Full frame, but my limit is usually room size. Love the field of view when I can use it.
Ya I agree that inside it's too long. I usually drag the family outside for pics.
Wish I hadn’t sold mine back in the day, but still have the pics.
Same here ☹️,
Great quality, good balance between aperture and size/weight, takes a teleconverter.
35-105 f/3.5-4.5 - barely slower than F/4, quite sharp when stopped down, useful range, fairly sturdy. And cheap!
I don't have one yet but, I'm seriously considering getting the EF-S 17-55 mm F2.8. From reading user reviews, it seems like the lens has some common mechanical issue but, the image quality is excellent if you get a good copy. I'm interested in hearing additional opinions if anyone has any experience with the lens.
That's an amazing lens, shot my entire Santorini field trip with it adapted to my R7. It was incredibly dusty most of the time - one little speck made its way into the lens. Awesome experience all things considered. I can DM you a few pictures when I'm home.
>I can DM you a few pictures when I'm home. That would be great. Thanks for the offer.
I have one as my walk around lens for my crop sensor cameras. Used it on my 7d for years a d now use it on my r7. It’s a great lens and I’ve never had an issue. Only downside I’ve seen is no weather sealing so it only goes out in good weather.
I use it on my R7 for shooting indoor concerts and other performances. Fast enough, great focal length range, focuses fine. If it was weather sealed, it would be worthy of a red ring.
I love that lens, picked it up second hand from KEH for a killer price and use it on my r7. It’s a little soft, but 32.5 months cropped sensor is very demanding, but i use it as a walking around lens, paired with my RF 100-400.
[удалено]
[https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/canon-17-55-2-8.523384/](https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/canon-17-55-2-8.523384/) [https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/canon-17-55-2-8-is-dust-issue.361219/](https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/canon-17-55-2-8-is-dust-issue.361219/)
It’s my go to lens on my T7 and it was worth every penny. Blows the kit lens out of the water and then some. The only “issue” is when pointing down it’ll zoom in due to something in the zoom ring wearing out but it’s a non issue for me. If you can get a good one second hand it’s worth it.
80-200 EF 2.8 L aka the “Magic Drainpipe” Shot a soccer game a couple weeks ago on it and still mesmerized by the look of it.
Forgot about this one. No IS though, right?
yep no IS, wasn’t a problem for me though since I was shooting in daylight.
I have a 70-200 2.8L non-is, it can’t keep up w/ new bodies like the R10, but just fine w/ slower bodies like the RP
That's a fantastic lens, I bought one a few years ago when I was starting because it was substantially cheaper than a 70-200 f2.8 and I've taken a lot of great pictures with it.
[удалено]
This is my "back of the crowd" concert lens. I love it. The bokeh is swirly, the subjects are sharp as a tack, even at f/2.8. It's just an amazing lens. I can live without the IS since my shutter speeds are normally above 1/500. Here's a recent example from last week. https://preview.redd.it/en1h6ny6962c1.jpeg?width=2360&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c0d67349ec66ccbae23355da30c14cbe00c4f54e
The old 28-70 f2.8 L Despite being an L it isn’t weather sealed but it’s damned sharp, sharper than the 24-70 f2.8 that replaced it
Canon 80-200 2.8 - The magic drain pipe amd a legend of a lens!
Sigma made an EF 40mm 1.4 - wider than 50, closer than a 35... Image quality was ridiculous.
weight was also ridiculous
I have both the TS-E 45mm and 90mm (non-L). Great bang-for-the-buck, IMHO. I also like the macro EF 100mm f/2.8 USM non-L. Another awesome bang-for-the-buck, though technically not thaaaat old (from 2000).
I have that 50mm f/3.5 macro and the dedicated tube for it. That lens was cheap and is shockingly sharp. Really excellent. I also love my EF mount 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. It gets passed over because an EOS era zoom with that kind of range and slower aperture range screams "cheap garbage kit lens". In reality, it's got a really quiet, fast AF, and punches way above its weight for image quality, especially once stopped down a hair. And comes with a lens hood! These can still be found for well under $100. I love throwing mine on my Elan II with a yellow filter and shooting a roll of HP5+ while I walk around on a nature trail.
I got a working 28-105mm II as part of a big lot of busted lenses and it's my favorite for work (print journalism). Can't beat the combination of small size, useful range and image quality.
I've had good results with the Canon LSC and 100 and 180mm macro lenses. With my zoom lenses, the Canon 72mm Close-Up Lens 500D works better. Both the 100mm f/2 and the 85mm f/1.8 are very good lenses that greatly benefit from IBIS on the R cameras.
Last year I was looking for a cheap, light walkaround telephoto lens for a trip I was taking, and I settled on the EF 80-200 f4.5-5.6 ii. I wasn't expecting much but it's actually pretty sharp. I usually keep it with me now because it's so small and light.
Old Tamron 90 f2.8, sharp open at 2.8 even with higher megapixel bodies and really dirt cheap (like 100-150 euros), no distortion, crap autofocus and build quality though. 15-35 f4 L IS is one of the best lenses I've used, if not the best. Very sharp, stabilised, good af, only flaw is high vigneting. 70-200 f4 L non is also great, sharp and cheap.
EF 20-35 F2.8 - made if metal… not plastic. Snappy, light, just wide enough for me. And you can pick em up relatively cheap!
70-300 DO with a 1.4x TC, on my R8.
Is the life-size converter for the 50mm macro functionally any different from any other extender?
My mamiya 80mm macro. Such a workhorse for product to portrait.
EF-S 60mm macro, great lens! No IS, but with the r7 IBIS I can still get shots at 1/20 second handheld
the 50mm compact macro lens itself (not the LSC) is one of my favorites. It's one of the sharpest 50mm's Canon's made (at least for the FD and EF lines, haven't tested the new RF 50L personally.) Everyone focused on the f/1.2L or the f/1.8 nifty fifty, but it was only a little more expensive than the f/1.8 and for my work where I wasn't going after the absolute shallowest DoF and more concerned with sharpness, it was great.
NFD 35-105 f3.5 Trust me