Three Canon Lens Masters Pick Their Favourite Lenses

[StudentOfLight]

No distortion on the 11-24? That's a laugh. It hardly ever comes out my bag because I hate the distortion on the edges and corners. If there's a person not directly centered in the frame...forget about it.

Yet another poster who doesn't know the difference between lens distortions, barrel, pincushion etc, and projection distortion which is the unavoidable characteristic of projecting a scene whilst maintaining straight lines.

The 11-24 has remarkably little distortion aberrations, the fov necessitates extreme projection distortion but this is not an optical error, just the logical and unavoidable result of a rectilinear projection.

I do not use the term "projection distortion". Instead I use the word keystone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_effect
In layman's terms keystone can be summarized as follows ... what's closer looks bigger.

Personally I only use distortion to describe when a lens does not conform to the intended projection. So if a lens marketed as rectilinear lens does not project straight lines in the scene as straight lines on the sensor then it has distortion. If a lens marketed as stereographic fisheye does not project circular geometry onto the sensor as intended by such a projection scheme then it has distortion.

 

[StudentOfLight]

Ridiculously, my favorite general purpose Canon lens is the pancake 40, largely because of its negligible weight. It goes everywhere. My favorite of favorites isn't Canon brand, it is a Voigtlander 1:1 macro 125mm f/2.5.

Interesting. I'll have to look up this Voigtlander...

 

[jeffa4444]

My ultimate favourite lens is the EF 16-35mm f4L IS USM its so versatile and pin sharp, running it close in 2nd & 3rd place are the EF 100mm f2.8L IS USM Macro which excels as a macro and a pure 100mm, finally the EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM II which is definitely an improvement over the MK1 lens.

Ive not had the EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM II long but it may edge out one of the above judging by my early results from it.

 

[KimH]

My favorite is always the last one i bought 8)

Was 11-24 and now 100-400 II

 

[Loswr]

I do not use the term "projection distortion". Instead I use the word keystone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_effect
In layman's terms keystone can be summarized as follows ... what's closer looks bigger.

Keystoning is a type of projection distortion. With keystoning, the plane of the subject is at a different angle than the plane of the sensor, and that angled projection is what causes the effect.

 

[Lee Jay]

<ul>
<li><strong>Masato Okada: Deputy Chief Executive of Image Communication Products and Operation

</strong><em>Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L USM – “For me I’d have to say the 11-24mm F4L USM, because when launched, it allowed the widest angle possible on a full frame with no distortion.”</em></li>
<li><strong>Kenichi Izuki: Plant Manager</strong>
</ul>

I can't believe a lens-guy said that.

The only type of lens that doesn't produce distortion is an object-space telecentric. The 11-24 produces massive distortion simply because it's doing what most lenses do - smashing a spherical world onto a flat plane. The 11-24 uses rectilinear mapping which keeps straight lines straight but turns circles that aren't in the center of the frame into ovals. A fisheye keeps circles circular but makes straight lines that don't point at the center of the frame curved. There are a great many other types of mapping (and more than one type of fisheye).

Personally, I prefer the mapping of a fisheye to that of a rectilinear about 95% of the time on ultra wide angle shots. When shooting rectilinear, I try to avoid going wider than 14mm because the corner stretching gets too extreme. Regardless, I can re-map a fisheye to a rectilinear far easier than I can go the other way, which is why I mostly shoot wide angle with my 8-15/4L on crop. It's way, way wider than the 11-24 is on full-frame, and I have the flexibility use fisheye mapping, rectilinear mapping, or anywhere in between at the touch of a single slider in Lightroom. Yeah, when you go full rectilinear you lose a lot of resolving power in the corners, but like I said, that's rare for me, and especially rare at the wide end. At the long end, it's just as sharp in the corners at f/4 as the 10-18 is at 10-12mm and f/8.

 

[Legalese78]

Probably the 85mm 1.2, despite its several flaws. Close runner up is the 35mm 1.4 Mark II.

 

[Pookie]

No distortion on the 11-24? That's a laugh. It hardly ever comes out my bag because I hate the distortion on the edges and corners. If there's a person not directly centered in the frame...forget about it.

Yet another poster who doesn't know the difference between lens distortions, barrel, pincushion etc, and projection distortion which is the unavoidable characteristic of projecting a scene whilst maintaining straight lines.

The 11-24 has remarkably little distortion aberrations, the fov necessitates extreme projection distortion but this is not an optical error, just the logical and unavoidable result of a rectilinear projection.

While you are absolutely correct in identifying the phenomena as projection distortion, let's not forget the lens master said, "no distortion". While it may not be an optical error projection distortion is still distortion. I think this is unavoidable at this fov without a binocular lens

However, the barrel and pincushion distortion control is amazing to me.

Just for the record: I knew what pincushion and barrel distortion were, and knew the difference. I'd just never heard the term "projection distortion" until you wisely schooled me. I thank you for that, but don't assume that just because we didn't know what that is that we don't know the difference between barrel / pincushion distortion on top of that.

Take your well earned sage points and move on without the insult. If you didn't mean to insult then I'll add that your comment could have been worded differently.

Sounds like someone needs to take this poll...
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=32229.msg655079;boardseen#new

This is funny though CFB, in other words... DISTORTION. Doesn't matter how you dress it up, it's still distortion. Some people are more worried about semantics than they are about photography. Enjoy your Tammy, me personally I can't stand the 11-24 due to that "distortion" so it stays at home most of the time. I'll take the 16-35 f/4 over it any day of the week.

My personal fav though is the 24-70 II with the 85L coming right afterwards...

 

[privatebydesign]

Hilarious, in some places they call it learning something, here you get vilified either because of the tone you deliver that knowledge in or because, well just because you have actual knowledge.

You guys are comical. :

 

[Ozarker]

Hilarious, in some places they call it learning something, here you get vilified either because of the tone you deliver that knowledge in or because, well just because you have actual knowledge.

You guys are comical. :

Personally, I didn't villify you at all. I think my post was highly complimentary except for the part about your tone.

One can't blame students for liking a teacher that delivers knowledge in a professional manner more than the one who belittles.

The comical part is you getting butt hurt while being an a$$h@!e at the same time.

 

[privatebydesign]

Hilarious, in some places they call it learning something, here you get vilified either because of the tone you deliver that knowledge in or because, well just because you have actual knowledge.

You guys are comical. :

Personally, I didn't villify you at all. I think my post was highly complimentary except for the part about your tone.

One can't blame students for liking a teacher that delivers knowledge in a professional manner more than the one who belittles.

The comical part is you getting butt hurt while being an a$$h@!e at the same time.

I'm not butthurt and I don't give two shits if you think I am an asshole, or if you like me, you didn't pay me to teach you so you got more than your moneys worth. Why should I take the time and trouble to be a professional teacher when there was explicitly no quid pro quo in our relationship?

Further, I didn't give you any kind of attitude you snowflake, you took offense because I pointed out to another person who made the same error as you a few posts later, I can understand not searching through lots of threads but to not read a few posts previous seems beyond comprehension. That this was then piled onto by a third poster who has demonstrated on many occasions to have virtually no technical knowledge yet boundless opinions led me to comment.

Again, I don't give a shit, wallow in your ignorance, chastise the few people who you can learn from here for free because that is the new normal, rail against knowledge because it wasn't delivered as you need it in the way you are most receptive.

How I get all this crap when I was accurately explaining the differences between what you believe you are seeing and the words a master lens designer and builder are saying I don't know. I do know who would have a more interesting lunch with that master.

 

[slclick]

I'm just crushed none of them said the upcoming EF-S M.

 

[Ozarker]

Hilarious, in some places they call it learning something, here you get vilified either because of the tone you deliver that knowledge in or because, well just because you have actual knowledge.

You guys are comical. :

Personally, I didn't villify you at all. I think my post was highly complimentary except for the part about your tone.

One can't blame students for liking a teacher that delivers knowledge in a professional manner more than the one who belittles.

The comical part is you getting butt hurt while being an a$$h@!e at the same time.

I'm not butthurt and I don't give two S___s if you think I am an asshole, or if you like me, you didn't pay me to teach you so you got more than your moneys worth. Why should I take the time and trouble to be a professional teacher when there was explicitly no quid pro quo in our relationship?

Further, I didn't give you any kind of attitude you snowflake, you took offense because I pointed out to another person who made the same error as you a few posts later, I can understand not searching through lots of threads but to not read a few posts previous seems beyond comprehension. That this was then piled onto by a third poster who has demonstrated on many occasions to have virtually no technical knowledge yet boundless opinions led me to comment.

Again, I don't give a S___, wallow in your ignorance, chastise the few people who you can learn from here for free because that is the new normal, rail against knowledge because it wasn't delivered as you need it in the way you are most receptive.

How I get all this crap when I was accurately explaining the differences between what you believe you are seeing and the words a master lens designer and builder are saying I don't know. I do know who would have a more interesting lunch with that master.

I didn't make an error. I asked whether or not anyone could attest that there is "no distortion" and asked about stretching on the edges, snowflake.

Now, "Waaaaaa! Waaaaaa! Waaaaa!

People try to be nice and complimentary and you cry when they point out your poor 'tude.

"Waaaaa!" Lol! You're a real peach.

I'd have the more interesting lunch with the lens master because he probably doesn't want to be around your meltdowns, Snowflake.

 

[privatebydesign]

Hilarious, in some places they call it learning something, here you get vilified either because of the tone you deliver that knowledge in or because, well just because you have actual knowledge.

You guys are comical. :

Personally, I didn't villify you at all. I think my post was highly complimentary except for the part about your tone.

One can't blame students for liking a teacher that delivers knowledge in a professional manner more than the one who belittles.

The comical part is you getting butt hurt while being an a$$h@!e at the same time.

I'm not butthurt and I don't give two S___s if you think I am an asshole, or if you like me, you didn't pay me to teach you so you got more than your moneys worth. Why should I take the time and trouble to be a professional teacher when there was explicitly no quid pro quo in our relationship?

Further, I didn't give you any kind of attitude you snowflake, you took offense because I pointed out to another person who made the same error as you a few posts later, I can understand not searching through lots of threads but to not read a few posts previous seems beyond comprehension. That this was then piled onto by a third poster who has demonstrated on many occasions to have virtually no technical knowledge yet boundless opinions led me to comment.

Again, I don't give a S___, wallow in your ignorance, chastise the few people who you can learn from here for free because that is the new normal, rail against knowledge because it wasn't delivered as you need it in the way you are most receptive.

How I get all this crap when I was accurately explaining the differences between what you believe you are seeing and the words a master lens designer and builder are saying I don't know. I do know who would have a more interesting lunch with that master.

I didn't make an error. I asked whether or not anyone could attest that there is "no distortion" and asked about stretching on the edges, snowflake.

Now, "Waaaaaa! Waaaaaa! Waaaaa!

People try to be nice and complimentary and you cry when they point out your poor 'tude.

"Waaaaa!" Lol! You're a real peach.

I'd have the more interesting lunch with the lens master because he probably doesn't want to be around your meltdowns, Snowflake.

 

[sanj]

I do not understand this topic. I have no favourite lens. It all depends upon the photo. I would rarely use a superb lens like 35mm 2 for wildlife and the 500 for landscape.

Favourite for particular type of shot, and that would make sense. Favourite landscape, portrait, street etc. I hope I am making sense.

 

[fentiger]

there will always be some form of distortion when trying to project a 3D world on to a 2D media.

 

[epsiloneri]

While you are absolutely correct in identifying the phenomena as projection distortion, let's not forget the lens master said, "no distortion". While it may not be an optical error projection distortion is still distortion.

You cannot have a lens without project distortion, so of course the lens master did not mean that. That would be silly, something a newbie could have said (they often do) but not a lens master. It is worth pointing out, because it is a common mistake; projection distortion is not a deficiency of a lens: it is a result of focal length and chosen projection.

Regarding your Tamron 15-30, I would not be concerned at all. Since the projection distortion is so dominant for nearby off-centre objects, a small optical distortion is hardly noticeable. Unless you are shooting brick walls face-on. Grand panoramas (at large distances) could also be visibly affected, in particular if you like to stitch.

 

[epsiloneri]

I can't believe a lens-guy said that. The only type of lens that doesn't produce distortion is an object-space telecentric.

You cannot have projection without distortion, you just have to choose what quantity you want to conserve. Straight lines? Angles? Magnification? Thus all lenses, even telecentric, show a distorted view of reality. Rather than "no distortion", he clearly, more accurately stated, meant "little deviation from a perfectly rectilinear projection". People are often not precise in what they say, but mostly there is no need to, the meaning is accurately conveyed anyway. It of course can become a problem if the meaning is completely distorted or ambiguous, something certain politicians have turned into an art form.

 

[Loswr]

snowflake

Snowflake.

The MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro is another of my favorite lenses.

 

[josephandrews222]

I can't believe a lens-guy said that. The only type of lens that doesn't produce distortion is an object-space telecentric.

You cannot have projection without distortion, you just have to choose what quantity you want to conserve. Straight lines? Angles? Magnification? Thus all lenses, even telecentric, show a distorted view of reality. Rather than "no distortion", he clearly, more accurately stated, meant "little deviation from a perfectly rectilinear projection". People are often not precise in what they say, but mostly there is no need to, the meaning is accurately conveyed anyway. It of course can become a problem if the meaning is completely distorted or ambiguous, something certain politicians have turned into an art form.

What a marvelous post; thank you for your precise wording.

What you've written applies to some of what is written on this board--context is often difficult to convey without being in the same room with someone...listening to them and seeing their faces as they extol the virtues of one lens and complain about another.

I'm reminded of my favorite criticism of those who favor strict interpretation of everything that is written...

When you drive up to a red, octagonal stop sign...the only word on the sign is 'STOP'; the sign does not say 'STOP...and then GO'! It only says...'STOP'.

If the strict constructionists had their way, millions and millions of cars around the world would be stopped at stop signs...waiting for their next instruction.

In other words, some things are implied in this world.

=====

I was reminded, earlier this morning, that my favorite lens (for the M platform) is the EOS M 11-22 IS--such a small package for a truly wonderful lens.