CAUTION! Avoid These 4 Terrible EF Lenses At All Costs!
Vložit
- čas přidán 31. 01. 2021
- FREE EOS R6 Menu Reference Guide
www.danielwhitecourses.com/eo...
All Guides www.danielwhitecourses.com/fr...
🔴Learn How to Shoot In Manual Mode in 7 Days www.danielwhitecourses.com/
Save yourself countless hours searching on CZcams
MAIN GEAR
📷 A Camera (Body) Current geni.us/Q6I6A (Amazon)
or
📷 B Camera(Body) geni.us/iv5Lc (Amazon)
⚡Extra Battery geni.us/AY7UU (Amazon)
⭕King Of Broll geni.us/Uu1y (MY FAVORITE LENS) (Amazon)
⭕Portraits Lens geni.us/oxwe0S (close second) (Amazon)
⭕All Round Lens geni.us/r3LnKu (Amazon)
⚙ EOS R Lens Adaptor EF geni.us/5B6o2lc (Amazon)
OTHER GEAR
TELEPHOTO geni.us/A3RcKUy (Amazon)
MY FAVORITE LENS geni.us/Uu1y (Amazon)
TOP ACCESSORIES
🎤 Video Mic geni.us/aLfVPz (Amazon)
💡 Flash geni.us/4vjCUWA (Amazon)
🔱 Tripod geni.us/Klyr (Amazon)
✅ Best SD Card Ever geni.us/8RpFAq (Amazon)
🧹Cleaning kit geni.us/6dmf7X (Amazon)
FOR CZcams
On The Go Camera geni.us/KZIeo7K (Amazon)
On the Go Nice Lens amzn.to/2LCnTMf(Amazon)
Three part light box geni.us/AusRMl (Amazon)
Editing laptop geni.us/bbCU(Amazon)
4 Terrible EF Lenses You Should Avoid At All Costs!
I have owned the 16-35 2.8L, 16 -35 2.8L II, 24 - 70 2.8 I and the 50mm 1.8 for quite a long time. They all managed to get very good results. This is a dumb clickbait title, especially since you haven´t even touched those lenses at all. If any one is interested in any of those lenses, check the results it should bring on camera charts and make sure you get a good example of that lens.
A skilled photographer will achieve stunning results with any of the lenses listed here. Sharp images require good technique even with very high-end glass. Stop belly-aching and improve your chops.
Sorry, lots of wrong advice here. Hopefully some beginners watching this video can get some extra good deals now on the EF 50/1.4 (which everyone knows is soft at f1.4, but biting sharp from f/2.0) and EF 17-40/4L (again, biting sharp in the center, soft in corners wide open but sharp everywhere at f/8). Look at the thousands of real publication-quality images taken by these lenses and you will see that are good reasons that they've sold well over long production lives.
Ken, I have to agree with you; I no longer use prime lenses, but I have both the original 24-70 f/2.8 and the 17-40 f/4. I rarely shoot at the lowest f-stop, so I am not really concerned about the drop offs in the corners of these lenses. I shoot real estate, landscapes, and the occasional portrait. All are done at f-stops ranging in the f/8 to f/11 and have absolutely no issues with clarity and sharpness. The author of this video seems to be selling the concept you need to get the fastest lenses to be viable, but that's just not true. It depends on your particular choices and style.
Ken, your right. This is really off base here. I don't have really fast glass, but I have been able to get great photos with what I can afford. I have the 50 f/1.8, and I have gotten great photos from it. I have looked into getting a few of the other lens that he talked about on here. For the most part, the reviews that I have seen on those lens all say the are pretty good lens. I just got a 70-200 f/4 and so I can't get another lens right now. I even got the 75-300 f/4-5.6, years ago, and even though he is right about the chromatic aberrations are bad, the lens it's self is good, for the price point. As beginners, you can't afford to get the best glass and that 75-300 works great, if you learn what its flaws are and how to work around the flaws.(mainly not taking photos with high contrast with this lens.) I don't have the budget now to get any of the 2.8's yet, but soon maybe. I don't consider my self a beginner any more, but not a pro by any means, and I know this advice here is wrong too.
According to MTF curves (and my own practical experience) the EF 50 mm 1.8 is actually among Canon's sharpest lens in general when stopped down to the middle of its range around f/4-f/8. Rockwell has all the associated data and a few posts about the cost-benefit diminishing returns of all the different 50mm primes . To get rid of the softness and aberration around 1.8, you have to spend $500 on a used EF 50mm f/1.2 at least or similar for a comparable third party. the 50mm 1.8 is a monster punching above its weight class when you consider it can be had for $150 used or even less sometimes..
75-300mm is fine on fullframe, would be good if you knew what you were talking about🤣
I just bought a 40mm pancake (used) in the beginning of 2022 and it is "tack sharp". I use it on my 17 year old 5d Classic. I wonder if you're trying to run these older lens on the newer Canon bodies and that's where you are getting you problems with sharpness. The other think to look at is that some of there lens are really 'full frame' lens. They will sort of work on a cropper but you'll get better results on a full frame.
Same here on my 5d classic as well. Cant believe i dont see more people rockin the OG 5D
I agree my copy of my 40mm 2.8 is tack sharp both on my Canon and Sony bodies.
Yes, the 40mm is L glass in a cheap body. It's a cracker of a lens
40mm 2.8 “let me down”? Really? The 40mm 2.8? You must be kidding
I still have my 17-40L tack sharp images after 15 years of use, plus the 50 F1.8 I never had an issue with.
Funny how ppl pay all attention in sharpness. These guys just shoot wide open 100% of the time and pixel peep 600 % at the back of the screen.
I just added this channel to one of the top photography channels to avoid in youtube at all cosr.
Yes avoiding this channel at all COSR too 👍👍
75-300 gets too much hate ngl. it was a great starting lense, and although it wasn't very sharp or quick, I still got some awesome pics on it and I don't regret buying it. But if you have actual money, then yeah, skip it.
The only EF I have on this list is the 50 f/1.4 and find it quite good on my R5. Maybe a little soft wide open, but not bad. Once you stop down from 1.4 it gets much better.
Yeah... You got a bad 40mm my dude. My copy was as sharp as any other L glass i ever shot with and was one of my favourite canon lenses.
I seem to have gotten very lucky with my 17-40 lens. Bought it used and it yields surprisingly sharp images for me.
For me I think it's any revision of Canon EF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 or Nikon equivalent both D and G model. Because it's an absolutely cheapest lenses from film era that has very poor built quality and I don't like it just because of that. Other lenses I don't like are any lenses with power zoom function from any brand as it feel sluggish and unpractical for using it.
In term of image quality, I don't want to point out which lenses has bad image quality in anyway, as I don't really notice them (or don't make me much concern when I noticed), all the lenses you have bring up, as far as I have experience of them, can produce good image when condition it right and I can't really notice how they are not sharp, indeed sometime cheap lenses like any F/3.5-5.6 lenses in normal range are sometime a bit hard to handle due to how I have to compromised with not so helpful maximum aperture in many situation but I never think their image look that bad unless I shoot it bad myself. Also, the only wide angle zoom lens I own for my Canon EF 17-35mm f/2.8L USM which I got a long time ago in a pretty much worn down condition that look like it didn't even get hold up together properly as the phrase "canon EF Lenses Ultrasonic" in front of the lens didn't get placed in the right position, but its pictures still very sharp on digital camera and its heavy vignette it something I can accept somewhat in many cases, and to say the lenses from a newer generation like Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L (or even L II) USM or Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM didn't produce acceptable image quality is making me confused. Indeed there're lenses that produced better image quality in the market but I don't really think the older optics which usually are also cheaper are terrible to the point it can't produce image with acceptable quality and should be avoid at all cost.
for me, the only lenses that could be considered terrible and should be avoid at all cost in term of image reproduction are any lenses which are fogged out that when you look into the lens by the light source it looks opaque you can barely see anything through it.
Hey! Don’t poop on the 75-300mm 😢 It’s not that bad
True, If the bought it for 35 euros there was probably something wrong with the lens
The 50mm f1.8 is a fine lens. Why would anyone want to use any lens at its maximum aperture? If I was using this lens for portraiture, I’d stop it down to at least f2.8. People these days seem to be obsessed with “bokeh”, something nobody spoke about just a few years ago.
Hey Ian Hand! I know exactly what you mean. I have found that going for the bokeh it is a huge crutch. It takes away from composing the image because it won't matter that much as no one can see what the background was. I think everyone goes for it because it makes taking amature portraits easier. Anyways I 100% feel you. Thanks for the great comment!
I don't know. I was very bokeh happy in 2015. That's more than a few years ago.
I have a Zeiss lens and a sigma lens that are tack sharp wide open. Granted they were very expensive compared to the lenses in this video.
Honestly I like the 75-300 I’ve taken really good pictures with it, but the 0 stability sucks
I'm with you on the 17-40 f4 , I've had one nearly 10 years and used it twice , first time on honey moon with the wife in Las Vegas , second time I did a long exposure down the beach .
Just managed to sell it thank God.
Hey Harvey yea it was underwhelming to say the least.
Nifty-Fifty is a good cost-effective lens tho
The 75-300 is great for things like astrophotography and moon photos and a great example is from astro backyard who captured two nebulas (4,077 light years away) and had a total exposure time of 2hrs and 49 mins, and i will be picking up this lens for that purpose.
I would only pretty much use that lens for only that, but probably will pick up other lenses that are affordable and great too
GET THE PANCAKE
I have the 16-35 F2.8 II. That's the lens I use for interior photos. These shots, you don't need the absolutely highest image quality (it isn't a portrait). You just need an ultra-wide lens to capture it all in. I bought mine 2nd hand dirt cheap, and it has a ton of dust or small fungus in it. Whatever, don't really notice them because the focus point for interior shots is so far away.
50mm F1.8 II. I bought my 2nd hand for like $30. Aperture blade died shortly after. I don't really use it either way. When at F1.8, it is hard to focus. And even when in focus, it is soft. I mean yeah if you are in a very dark place, this lens is useful for brightening up the scene. The secret lens to get is actually the 50mm F2.5 Macro. That lens is super sharp. Remember, this lens was supposed to work with a life-size converter (like a teleconverter) and still produce decent images. With this, you don't even need to buy any 24-70 lens. Take one step back, take one step forward, there you go.
50mm F1.4. Never used it. But I heard this is by far the more fragile Canon lens ever. You do anything wrong, like storing that lens forgetting to focus to infinity, that focus motor will die on you, and there goes your $200. You really have to baby this lens. And I heard at F1.4, it is soft. I don't recommend this lens to anyone, I would rate it 2nd worst just behind the 75-300mm.
75-300mm. Never used. But look at the samples online. What a piece of junk. Some people will say it is usable. But that's it, usable. You will almost never heard anyone say they capture some kind of epic or award winning shot with this lens. The secret lens to get is the old EF 100-300 F5.6L from Japan ebay, if you are really tight on budget. Or get the 55-250mm IS STM if you use APS-C.
That 50mm 1.4 has produced millions of professional photographs. Its been a portrait workhorse for decades. Have absolutely no clue why a lens that broadly used by professionals would make this list. Apparently many people dont know how to use a quality prime lens.
Why film this aiming the camera at a bright window and then not light youself to compensate
Would agree re the 75-300 - BUT - the 17-40 f4 L ??? Not really certain why people found this so bad ? For the money an excellent lens really .
Hi Terry! The thing about this poll wasn’t it was more about sharp and high quality lenses than “value” lenses. Just like a 50mm 1.8 is a value lens it’s still not terribly sharp. Thanks for the comment :D
This lens has it fans and detractors. A few days ago I saw a fan post an indoor picture of a room. The photo was washed out with a complete lack of contrast, having been shot into the light. The cause, the 17 to 40. The owner of the lens was convinced it was a camera issue.
I have a 300mm f2.8 prime and yes that thing is 1000 times better than the 75-300. However I also have a 75-300 that I used for over 5 years and got many decent images on the thing. Am I ever going to use it again? Personally no, but it’s an amazing telephoto for beginners. Yes the 300mm f2.8 is better, but it’s the best of the best in its class, and ridiculously expensive!
Nifty Fiftys are ok ?! If you know what youre doing !! 💯%😂😂😂
70-300 isnt bad. Really no any big problems just avoid 300 mm. It works well with SB or fullframe. 40 mm is one of sharpest EF lenses.
What is SB?
I was literally wondering weither i get the 24 70 f2.8 L usm for 390 or the 28 135 f3.5 to 5.6 for 150 😂😂 i got the L serie 👌
There are three versions of the 50mm f1.8. The STM version is sharp (not like the Tamron 45mm or the Sigma 50mm Art lenses, but it punches above its weight), and it's not just opinion. You can see scientific measurements from OpticalLimits or Dxomark). The 50mm f1.8 and the 50mm f1.8 II are not very sharp. Neither is the f1.4. But the Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, and both the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS and the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II versions are truly horrific. All of the EF-M zooms are terrible. Only the Sigma glass saves the Canon EF-M mount. The Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM is often named as a jewel of a lens. At such times I recall a line from a Pink Floyd song... "I don't know. I was very drunk at the time."
I don't think this is a good list... I mean idk if the lenses are crap or not, I don't have canon lenses, but you shouldn't just say "75-300 mm lenses are bad" and finish the video. If I have that amount of money and I need a telephoto lens with that range, and then you say that I shouldn't buy that lens, you should recommend a different lens that would perform better for a similar price, or else you're just saying that expensive shit is better than cheap shit, and we already know that.
Also I have the kit lens equivalent on nikon (70-300) and it's decent for my use (mainly astrophotography)
I had a 75-300and it sucked so bad I gave it away. I then got a 70-300 IS USM version !! and love it. I never understood Canon. Also hate my 18-35 IS STM and hate it also.
you re so wrong man! 75-300 is a GOOD lens for the price...just dont use it on aps-c
I like what you're trying to do here, but two pieces of advice. Get better audio, get a dedicated microphone or something to improve your audio, it sounds like you're using the onboard microphones on the camera and it's really distracting. Also, your light seems to be almost tungsten balanced and you have daylight coming through the window. The two different color temperatures are distracting as well. A couple of easy fixes and I think the production quality of your videos can improve dramatically. Keep it up, hoping you make it big in the CZcams world.
Hi Jose thanks for the advice! This video is a product of the youtube dogma "a done video is better than a perfect video." Yes I left my tungsten lights on, yes the audio was not tuned to perfection (that is the video mic pro). Thanks for the comment :)
@@DanielWhiteWithCanon agree, better to get content out there than not. Just remember, you're trying to appeal to one of the most nitpicky and opinionated niches out there! Again, good luck and I wish you and your channel great success.
You should do a 55-250 EF-S vs RF 70-200mm. My 55-250 came with superior silicone and it’s better than any L-series lens. Would like to see a comparison.
Hey Photos By Goose! Hmm maybe if I can get my hands on that lens.
Photos By Goose. You are trying to compare apples to watermelons here. First off, what do you mean by "Superior Silicone". I have the 55-250 same lens that I got years ago, and I am not sure where you are talking about the silicone. What silicone? You mean the rubber grip on the zoom ring? Secondly. You want to compare a $300 lens for a CROP sensor camera to a NEW Mirrorless system - Full Frame, $1,600 RF 70-200 F/4 or even the Full Frame, $2,700 RF 70-200 F/2.8?? Really??? Have you even used any L-series lens? Especially any 70-200 L- series lens of 'EF' or 'RF' of any F-stop? So are you saying that all the pro-photographers are totally wrong about the 70-200 L-series lens - EF or RF? Because I have the EF 70-200 F/4 L, and it BLOWS the 55-250 lens out of the water in all regards; Build quality, sharpness, image quality, by far! Now I am not saying the 55-250 lens is not a good lens. It is a good lens and I have loved it for years now. But the only thing that it has over the 70-200's are the PRICE. This is it.
Avoid this video!!! Do not waste your time!!!
Wow this is a pretty poor click baiting post....think you need some practice with your camera if you can't get good photo's with the 40mm f2.8 lens awesome quality definitely on par with L glass...when used on either FF or Crop sensor canon camera as for the 75-300 when used correctly in creative modes can get some good quality results....
Wait I haven't vote. The ugliest ef lens is the 17-40. The corner sharpness is very week. I love mine 16-35 F4 is usm
WOW.. how much WRONG INFO CAN YOU SQUEESE INTO ONE VIDEO??..pls research more before you just make stuff up for clicks..
Goober
The 75-300 is awesome for playing around. Where this lens doesnt suck is in the area of moon and solar photos.
I have some crisp lunar photos, and clean looking solar sun spot photos.
I have even taken nice photos of constellations!
I think more folks could enjoy the 75-300 if it was viewed more of a toy lens, than a professional lens.
I miss mine every day. After 5 years, from purchasing it used, it took its last breath.
The newer canon 75-300 with IS has my attention for another play lens. 😊
Which 75-300mm f/4-5.6 do you mean? Canon has made so many of them that even Wikipedia can't keep track of them.
skill issue honestly, 75-300 is great if you are creative and a good photographer
What is the worst lens you have ever used.
I AGREE! Hands down the WORST lens- EF 75-300 4-5.6 Man, that lens SUCKS!!!! Some are suggesting it is good on a full frame. I do not own a full frame. Not planning on it either. I have a Canon 90D, which I really like. My next plan is to move up to the Mirrorless R models in the future. I need to sell it and use the money to go towards a better lens. I rented the 85mm 1.8 for family gathering portraits and loved it.