I started getting into the ILC's with the purchase of a 70D. And although I had most/all of the STM's at the time, outside of some of the inexpensive EF's (40/2.8 & 50/1.8) the majority of the collection was EF-S (man, that was when glass was cheap... relative to L). I have to say, although lackluster compared to what I use now, I really liked the 18-135/3.5-5.6 at the time (paired with the 2 EF's mentioned).
Your top 10 ranked overall favorite EF lenses now that the final roster is available?
- Thread starter Ruined
- Start date
My best EF-S lens is the 10–22mm. I have been really pleased with its results on my T3i. I still have it, but have no occasion to use it, since I got the 16–35mm f/4 for the 6D2. Come to think of it, I should have said "better." It is the only EF-S lens I have other than the kit lens. Everything else I bought for the T3i was EF.
I just sold (actually part-exchanged with RF100-500) my EF70-200 2.8L IS II. I just couldn't justify having this and RF70-200 2.8L IS at the same time.
Other than that I do not think I will sell other overlapping lenses like EF24-70 2.8 II EF16-35 2.8L III EF35 2 IS EF100-400 4.5-5.6L or non-overlapping lenses like EF135 2L EF85 1.4L IS TS-E17 4L TS-24L II or the future overlapping lenses EF300 2.8L IS II EF400 4 DO II EF500 4L IS II.
I haven't decided about EF24-105 4L IS (Mk I) yet.
Other than that I do not think I will sell other overlapping lenses like EF24-70 2.8 II EF16-35 2.8L III EF35 2 IS EF100-400 4.5-5.6L or non-overlapping lenses like EF135 2L EF85 1.4L IS TS-E17 4L TS-24L II or the future overlapping lenses EF300 2.8L IS II EF400 4 DO II EF500 4L IS II.
I haven't decided about EF24-105 4L IS (Mk I) yet.
Just to make it clear for others who do not know, this dome is some 43m/142ft across, its center is 42 meters above the floor (you could fit a perfect 42m sphere into the building), was cast in one piece, in concrete, over 1800 years ago and is intact to this day! Those Romans could sure build.
The trick was that they made the dome thinner the higher it got. So it was thick at the bottom to support the weight, and thin at the top to cut down on the load. This is perhaps the best-preserved building from antiquity because it was converted into a church early on. Most of the old buildings (especially the Coliseum) were used as sources for building materials over the centuries.
But we've so much further developed since then
Today we try to fight a pandemic with the same methods of the pest.
Today we have the internet but we don't know how ro renovate Notre-Dame de Paris. Instead we try to burn it down.
Today we fight wars with drones but still have no key to peace.
Homo sapiens sapiens (lat.: "sapiens" = "wise", "sapient" = "knowledgeable")
The concrete itself was lighter the closer it got to the top, too, with pumice used as aggregate. The Colosseum also suffered damage from earthquakes, most of the outermost ring/uppermost level is gone today (those tidy slopes to what's left of the outer wall were added later).
A lot of classical buildings, incidentally, show where people chiseled holes where the blocks join, to get at the piece of iron that the builders had used to tie the blocks together. (This includes places in the Colosseum, but also, for instance, the theater at Miletus, over on what is today the west coast of Turkey.)
Saw this article, timing was too good and had to share re: dangers of wide angle portraits:
www.popsci.com
Can't believe the photog couldn't position subjects better than this heh
Understanding the weird Biden-Carter photo could help you take better selfies
It's likely not lens distortion that caused the curious appearance. Instead, it's something called perspective distortion.
www.popsci.com
Can't believe the photog couldn't position subjects better than this heh
This is pretty smart IMO . Most of the RF lenses offer no size / weight or even image quality benefits without some tradeoff. Even the RF 70-200 f/2.8 - while collapsed size is much appreciated - many will find the faster and smoother non-telescoping zoom mechanism of the EF version better; in fact, it was often cited as a major selling point how superior the internal zoom of the 70-200 f/2.8 handled vs telescoping zooms like the 70-300L before the RF was available. The RF is now the "new thing" so I think this is purposefully being glossed over. The biggest reason to buy the RF versions seems to be in general not to need an adapter.
Last edited:
The latest Sigma 70-200 is my favorite. It's the sharpest, fastest focusing, best IQ lens I've ever used. I'm still amazed that I was able to get it for $999 brand new. I'll be using it for years and years to come I'm sure.
135/2
180/3.5
600/4
50/1.8 Mk I (from 1987)
16-35/2.8, MAYBE
85/1.2 MAYBE
There's no other EF lens I ever have the least bit of excitement to use.
The 50/1.8 Mk I has the same optics the later budget 50/1.8 does, but in a pro-quality housing. Only a 5-blade aperture, though I used at 1.8 a lot so round highlights. It makes the camera just enough smaller to fit more comfortably in the backpack than the 50/1.4, and I don't typically need the extra 2/3 stop.
The 135/2 is magic--makes anyone look like they're a still from a movie. It was about the #2 sharpest black EF for a long time though I stopped paying attention to such figures 20 years ago. This (and the 600/4 and maybe 50/1.0, hmm and maybe 85/1.2) are the only lenses whose images can fill me with wonder, even though I took the photo!
The 180/3.5 was the #1 sharpest black EF for a long time.
The 16-35/2.8 never really disappointed, which is the best thing I can say for it. In contrast, ALL of the rest of the black lenses disappointed me a fair amount.
There was hardly ever a shot from say the EF 50/1.2 that DIDN'T disappoint. The 50/1.4 is no better, but at least is small, light and cheap.
The 85/1.2 MkI was the worst lens I ever owned in every dimension, except the images now and then were incredible. Too heavy, ungainly, slow-focusing, battery-eating, weird hood bayonet clamps, hard not to touch the rear element when changing lenses.
I didn't have the 35/1.4 MkII, which I hear made great images, but even with great images, I've had a Leica 35/1.4ASPH since like '97 and it's not only sharp and great images, but like 1/5 the size. So while the EF MkII images may not have been disappointing, using it would have been constantly disappointing. I had the 24/1.4 and 35/1.4 MkI, neither of which failed to disappoint.
The first three are the only EF lenses I kept once I moved to R.
180/3.5
600/4
50/1.8 Mk I (from 1987)
16-35/2.8, MAYBE
85/1.2 MAYBE
There's no other EF lens I ever have the least bit of excitement to use.
The 50/1.8 Mk I has the same optics the later budget 50/1.8 does, but in a pro-quality housing. Only a 5-blade aperture, though I used at 1.8 a lot so round highlights. It makes the camera just enough smaller to fit more comfortably in the backpack than the 50/1.4, and I don't typically need the extra 2/3 stop.
The 135/2 is magic--makes anyone look like they're a still from a movie. It was about the #2 sharpest black EF for a long time though I stopped paying attention to such figures 20 years ago. This (and the 600/4 and maybe 50/1.0, hmm and maybe 85/1.2) are the only lenses whose images can fill me with wonder, even though I took the photo!
The 180/3.5 was the #1 sharpest black EF for a long time.
The 16-35/2.8 never really disappointed, which is the best thing I can say for it. In contrast, ALL of the rest of the black lenses disappointed me a fair amount.
There was hardly ever a shot from say the EF 50/1.2 that DIDN'T disappoint. The 50/1.4 is no better, but at least is small, light and cheap.
The 85/1.2 MkI was the worst lens I ever owned in every dimension, except the images now and then were incredible. Too heavy, ungainly, slow-focusing, battery-eating, weird hood bayonet clamps, hard not to touch the rear element when changing lenses.
I didn't have the 35/1.4 MkII, which I hear made great images, but even with great images, I've had a Leica 35/1.4ASPH since like '97 and it's not only sharp and great images, but like 1/5 the size. So while the EF MkII images may not have been disappointing, using it would have been constantly disappointing. I had the 24/1.4 and 35/1.4 MkI, neither of which failed to disappoint.
The first three are the only EF lenses I kept once I moved to R.
At least, Notre-Dame will be rebuilt the way it was before the fire, using the original material, methods, contradicting the former wish by our dear president who wanted to make a "geste contemporainBut we've so much further developed since then
Today we try to fight a pandemic with the same methods of the pest.
Today we have the internet but we don't know how ro renovate Notre-Dame de Paris. Instead we try to burn it down.
Today we fight wars with drones but still have no key to peace.
Homo sapiens sapiens (lat.: "sapiens" = "wise", "sapient" = "knowledgeable")
", a contemporary statement(?) aka modernizing what should not be modernized. Even foreign donors had signaled no money would flow if the original construction plans were modified. Fortunately...
Last edited:
Really love the rendering of these two, my favorite rendering of all the Canon lenses - and would add the EF 50mm f/1.2L which has a similar type of rendering as these two lenses.
I just bought it. Will arrive tomorrow Tuesday. I'm a bit excited tryin it out. Not that many amateur-reviews out there but I hope it's a good lens. I have the RF 100-500 and it's okay, but a bit to slow for my needs. Going to sell that one.
It's an amazing lens....I still can't believe how great it is. It takes every "5-star" shot I took before and bumps them down to like 3.5 stars.
The irony I am seeing online is that softening filters are now becoming popular again because the newest batch of lenses look too sharp and clinical for portraits!
Similar threads
- Contains 3 staff post(s)
