What is your favorite lens?

[angry hampster]

My 24-70mm...heavy but a good lens. Click me.

Identical to my setup..and I wouldn't trade it for any other. <2 my 24-70+5D.

 

[finbarqs]

not loving the 24-70 f/2.8... bringing too many soft results... I've noticed that when I focus on objects > than 10 feet, it seems to fall apart. But then, I am pushing the lens with a 5D mark 2 sensor... 21mp needs a very high lens resolution in order to get all those pixels sharp!

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

My 24-70mm...heavy but a good lens. Click me.

I like the red line... reminds me of my old Hot Wheels.

 

[damocles]

not loving the 24-70 f/2.8... bringing too many soft results... I've noticed that when I focus on objects > than 10 feet, it seems to fall apart. But then, I am pushing the lens with a 5D mark 2 sensor... 21mp needs a very high lens resolution in order to get all those pixels sharp!

I have used a few and also haven't been that impressed re: sharpness. It needs an update

 

[randomlinh]

I have used a few and also haven't been that impressed re: sharpness. It needs an update

unfortunately, it'll probably get the same kind of update the 70-200 got, an extra $600, heh. more if they add IS.... at least it'll kick ass if it does.

 

[angry hampster]

not loving the 24-70 f/2.8... bringing too many soft results... I've noticed that when I focus on objects > than 10 feet, it seems to fall apart. But then, I am pushing the lens with a 5D mark 2 sensor... 21mp needs a very high lens resolution in order to get all those pixels sharp!

I've never had an issue with the one I own or the one at work.

 

[damocles]

unfortunately, it'll probably get the same kind of update the 70-200 got, an extra $600, heh. more if they add IS.... at least it'll kick ass if it does.

I hope it does. The improvement in sharpness on the 70-200 was quite impressive (shame about the extra cost though).

 

[moks78]

I hope it does. The improvement in sharpness on the 70-200 was quite impressive (shame about the extra cost though).

Got no problem with mine...always been sharp but hopefully, I'll be able to get a mark II to verify what you said.

They have updated their 100mm macro with IS so it's next in line but prepare to pay the extra $$.

 

[damocles]

Got no problem with mine...always been sharp but hopefully, I'll be able to get a mark II to verify what you said.

They have updated their 100mm macro with IS so it's next in line but prepare to pay the extra $$.

The older 70-200 2.8 is sharp but when I tested it I found the 70-200 F4 IS slightly sharper. The 70-200 2.8L II is sharper again (it was just reviewed on DPreview and there are plenty of forum posts). Some people are even getting decent results with a 2xTC.

I really like the new macro, mainly for the addition of IS (I use it as a general walk-about lens)

 

[jpeyton]

The older 70-200 2.8 is sharp but when I tested it I found the 70-200 F4 IS slightly sharper. The 70-200 2.8L II is sharper again (it was just reviewed on DPreview and there are plenty of forum posts). Some people are even getting decent results with a 2xTC.

Everybody has a different definition of sharpness.

When I tested a Canon 70-200/2.8L IS about a year ago, I didn't find it very sharp wide-open.

 

[damocles]

Everybody has a different definition of sharpness.

When I tested a Canon 70-200/2.8L IS about a year ago, I didn't find it very sharp wide-open.

There also seems to be wide sample variation among some lenses.

With older lenses I expect to stop down for them to be truly sharp, although recent lenses have been good wide open

 

[jpeyton]

There also seems to be wide sample variation among some lenses.

True, and I wonder if Canon refines their processes over time. For example, the 17-40L has been in production since 2003, and Canon has made a lot of advances in lens technology over that time. I wonder if a 2003 17-40L is any less sharp than a 2009 17-40L.

Also, sample variation seems to affect zoom lenses more than fixed focal length (prime) lenses.

 

[damocles]

True, and I wonder if Canon refines their processes over time. For example, the 17-40L has been in production since 2003, and Canon has made a lot of advances in lens technology over that time. I wonder if a 2003 17-40L is any less sharp than a 2009 17-40L.

Also, sample variation seems to affect zoom lenses more than fixed focal length (prime) lenses.

I am sure this is the case with some lenses. At the least, stealth changes are made to improve quality. Early copies of the 100-400L were often bad but recent copies have been uniformly better.

 

[foghorn67]

I am sure this is the case with some lenses. At the least, stealth changes are made to improve quality. Early copies of the 100-400L were often bad but recent copies have been uniformly better.

Yeah. I am now thinking of getting the 100-400L since the IQ issues seem to be in the past. Wouldn't have considered that a few years ago.

 

[foghorn67]

I could have done this with the 17-55. (or any other walkaround lens with a fast aperture.)
But throwing on a 70-200 2.8 for hood ornament sniping was fun. The bokeh and out of focus highlights were a bit better.

 

[PurdueRy]

I am sure this is the case with some lenses. At the least, stealth changes are made to improve quality. Early copies of the 100-400L were often bad but recent copies have been uniformly better.

I may have had an experience with this as well...bought a used 17-55mm F2.8 IS and the lens was soft on the extreme left of the frame and it sucked dust like many complained about with this lens. This lens was bought refurbished though.

I then returned that lens and bought a new version of the lens. The new one is perfect and has absolutely no dust in it after having been used much more than the first.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

I'm a cropper so 17-55mm IS f/2.8 all the way!

The 24-105 would be an awesome lens on FF. It's even better than the 17-55mm IMO except maybe in optical quality. The 17-55 may be sharper across the board, but you can get that 1 stop back with the better noise control of an FF sensor. Additionally, the FF DOF factor makes the 24-105 F4 have LESS DOF on FF than the 17-55 2.8 on crop. Additionally, you get more range (24-105 versus 28-88?? FF equivalent).

And perhaps the less amazing optical quality of the 24-105 is made up by the better FF sensor.

It's interesting. I'll certainly pick up the 24-105 if I ever move to FF though.

 

[angry hampster]

A bigger sensor doesn't make for less-than-stellar lens design. I've never been too fond of the 24-105.