Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Canon 28mm question
#11
(02-04-2019, 11:21 PM)kevs Wrote: Thanks Wim, can you please define fringing and IQ? I been shooting on the 85mm for ages, I never notice a problem. Though I'm only shooting beauty/ headshots , so maybe it does not show for that use? (just double checked: the site gives it a whopping 4/4/5. rating.

Never use the fixed 28 too much either, as I got 24-105 L.

That said what are you other favorite Canon lenses. And there is no filter on this site to quickly find the 4-5?

Also, this site, does not show many old lenses ratings from old Canon / Nikon era?
The fringing I meant was purple fringing. In the review here it states it only occurs at F/1.8, but I found that with the best copy I had (of 3), it still occurred at F/2.2 to F/2.5. Also, I found it to be so bad, that you could barely see what the fringed items were. Do note that purple fringing, unlike “ bokeh fringing”, is impossible to completely remove in PP. If you are shooting events like weddings with it, that is a problem, I found. Also, close focusing it is not very good at. First of all, I found it misses focus quite easily when focusing close to the MFD, and it is a lot less sharp at close distances too, almost as if it becomes a little hazy. Since I tend to use my lenses often as close as I can get with it, that is a problem for me. Fall-off at the edges when focusing closer was also quite noticeable, as was vignetting.

With my 28 I never had any of these problems, plus it was quite sharp over the whole field, at any focusing distance, with very little fall-off in sharpness over the field. I reckon my 28 was a 4-4.5, and teh 85s I had were no more than 2.5-3s, in the rating scales of Photozone/OpticalLimits. Maybe I had an exceptional copy, which is possible, but with the 85 I had 3 of what were bad copies IMO, so I wondered what the chance was. I did try another photog’s copy a few years later, and it was the same, so I wrote it off as being not such a great lens as people said. Not fo rme anyway.

I’ve had two 24-105Ls, which I did not rate too highly either. They were OK, but certainly not great. At MFD they were not so great either, and neither were they when shooting in darker, less contrasty environments. For general, outdoors shooting with good light they were ok.

For me, the best lenses so far are 24L (I or II, the latter being even better), the 50L (I have a copy that was calibrated by Canon with very specific instructions from myself, and speaking personally with the engineer who did the calibration), 85L, 135L, 180L, 100-400L (I was good, II is better except for the zooming system), MP-E 65, and any of the TS-Es (had old TS-E 24L, TS-E 45, TS-E 90, now still have TS-E 24L II, TS-E 17L, and plan to get TS-E 50L, TS-E 90L and TS-E 120L). I also had the 40 F/2.8, and I liked it, but it got almost no use because of the 50L, so I sold it again. Other lenses I liked a lot are the old 50 macro, just that the AF motor made such a terrible noise, and I eventually sold it. The 70-200 F/4L I liked a lot, as well as the 70-200 F/4 L IS. The difference between the two apart from the IS was that the non-IS was better when focusing close to MFD, while the IS version was better at distances a little further away. All of the lenses I still own I use regularly close to MFD, and all Do well well at those distances, from 50 mm even with extension tubes except the 85L, or close focusing lens adapters (500D Canon), the latter specifically with the 100-400.

As to searching lenses with 4 or 5 stars, no, that is not so easy here. But then, that is not always that important, as generally speaking, only a single lens is tested, at a specific focusing distance. The best thing to do is read the text with a lens, and see if the plus points are of importance to you, and if you can live with the minus points, and then test or try a lens to see if that is really the case.

This site does not test many old lenses, no, it is rare, and more out of curiosity, when such an old lens is tested. Rightfully so, IMO Smile.

HTH, kind regards, Wim
Gear: a gaggle of Canon primes, a lone Canon zoom (sold 5D II recently Smile), an accessory plague, and an Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II, Pen F and Panasonic GM5 with 14 primes, 8 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
#12
Wim, I've had the 85 1.8 many years, I've never seen purple and it's quite sharp, so I'm puzzled. And the review on this site gives it a 4 optics which is huge.. so I don't get it!

You love fixed lenses, why so many fixed? What are you achieving that zoom can't do? I shoot people so it's nice to be able to slide through 4-5 lenses without taking them off the camera.. (The 85 is nice though because it's a killer portrait lens and so light)
#13
the EF 85mm f1.8 is a pretty nice lens. It renders reasonably well, is pretty sharp, and it focusses very fast. and light. It is normal that you like it. The LoCA can be quite strong, but that is not unusual for a fast 85mm lens. So, keep enjoying this rather nice lens, kevs.
#14
(02-07-2019, 03:11 AM)kevs Wrote: Wim, I've had the 85 1.8 many years, I've never seen purple and it's quite sharp, so I'm puzzled. And the review on this site gives it a 4 optics which is huge.. so I don't get it!

You love fixed lenses, why so many fixed? What are you achieving that zoom can't do? I shoot people so it's nice to be able to slide through 4-5 lenses without taking them off the camera.. (The 85 is nice though because it's a killer portrait lens and so light)
Well, it could be that you have been lucky, and I have had bad luck, although I had problems with 3 specimens of that lens.

I prefer fixed lenses because they work better with how I think: I normally know instantly which lens to use. Been busy with photography now for 56 years, 45 years with ILC’s, essentially from pre-zoom days, or when zooms were not that great Smile. In addition, max apertures are much larger, which is great for low(er) light shooting, but also for IQ, as these lenses reach optimal performance at larger apertures than zooms do. They also tend to have a wider range when it comes to optimum IQ than zoom lenses.

I used to do a lot of extreme macrophotography many years ago, which is why I like the MP-E 65, and one of the reasons for me to choose Canon was the range of TS-E lenses. I just love shooting with those Smile.

I did try many zoom lenses, and the only one I have stuck with is the 100-400L, basically because it is very good for a zoom, and because it is very versatile when it comes to close-up and macro-photography as well Smile.

I do have a few more zoom lenses for my MFT-outfit, but those are more for snapshots and such, with the exception of the 7-14 and the 35-100. Even so, I tend to use the 7-14 as a 7 mm UWA lens (14 mm FF equivalent), and the 35-100 as a 100 mm telelens (200 mm FF equivalent) Smile. That actually is another reason for doing away with zooms: I tend to use them most at their zoom range ends, with the only exception being the 100-400. So from that POV it also makes sense.

HTH, kind regards, Wim
Gear: a gaggle of Canon primes, a lone Canon zoom (sold 5D II recently Smile), an accessory plague, and an Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II, Pen F and Panasonic GM5 with 14 primes, 8 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)