Careful, another rant !!

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

About "L quality" autofocus lenses, this time.

Typical comment read many times from "normal" photographers who sneeze at our manual lenses: "Why spending money on this old stuff when you can buy an autofocus lens?".

Want really to hear why? Ok, here we go.

This lens, for example:

Click here to see on Ebay

1065 Euros on Ebay (which means 200-300 Euros more in regular shops).

Here's a few comments read on one of the most respected forums out there about this lens:

- Mediocre sharpness at f1.4 through f/2, This issue does not concern me a great deal as long as I'm getting the shot. Sharpness is subjective.

- For uge prints it is not sharp enough before f/4! Is it worth the money? I don't know... Am I satified with the lens? Not realy. It was not what I expacted of a lens in this pricerange.

- Terrible CA all the way up to f/8 Very blurry, can't seem to focus at infinity. When people say there's quality control problem at Canon, its true. I talked with the sales clerk about QA issues, and he told me Nikon is the same. Always try before you buy to save you lots of trouble. When online reviews says a lens have QA issues, it does.

Ok this is just a sample - FROM THE FIRST PAGE ONLY!- of the comments on this lens.

Now please re-read the comments. If we wrote these things about one of our manual lenses, we would baptize it as trash, a dog, whatever.
This is because our standard of expectation is very high, due to the quality of the manual lenses.

Who of us would pay more, than, say, 20 Euros, for a lens that has "loads of CA", is "not sharp enough for prints" and "can not focus to infinite"?
Yet, there are people - more than you would think - that judge this lens as junk, but are keeping it because "it's nice to keep"

That's a fact, people using only autofocus lenses has this attitude now, they spend thousands (literally) to get crappy L wides from Canon, and they just accept they are crap, because, well, there is no real alternative to this, if you want a 24mm prime it's either this or the Sigma...

As photographers, they are still able to see the problems in the lenses, but as consumers, they are unable to react to this. They accept passively the LOW CONSUMER STANDARD that the 2-3 companies in the world still really active in lenses nowadays have imposed. Read the comment of the salesman: "Nikon's (24mm prime) is the same".
What does it mean? In the age of manual lenses, there was a fierce competition. Not only Canon, Nikon and Sigma, but also Pentax, Olympus, Contax, Leica, Minolta, Yashica, Zeiss Jena, you name it. Everyone had to make their best to make great lenses, else the competition would kill you.

Today, there is no competition. There is only Nikon and Canon, basically, and a small (very small, about 10% or less) share for the others like Pentax, Sony etc). Nikon and Canon make the prices and decide about the investments and quality. Sigma picks up the low end of the market, so it does not get in real competition with the two big names.
That's it. Competition non-existing. And what does this determine? Well, for instance, the two big names don't care about quality control at all. Because 90% of the people will accept their crap and keep it. And for the remaining 10%, it's a lot cheaper to have the lens returned and trashed in change of a new copy. Such is the huge profit that these companies get form their lens sales. A Canon L 24mm prime that costs more than 1000 Euros to the final customer, may probably cost 50-100 Euros to produce, because like I said there is no competition and so no worry about quality in production.

And I should listen to the jokes of the autofocus people about our manual lenses? I bet that not only the Distagon, but also the old Nikkor and the Yashica 24mm can beat the Canon L by a distance.
So please autofocus guys, if you want to keep trashing your money by buying thousands-of-euros crap lenses, go on, I will not stop you. BUT DO NOT DARE TO JOKE AT OUR LENSES. If you do, I may get one of your crappy toys and make a lens comparison with the cheapest available manual focus of the same lens. And put you to shame!

End of rant.

Farside · Expire: 2013-12-27

patrickh · Expire: 2011-11-18

Orio

My experience has shown that some of the other forums are merely places for bragadoccio about who has the biggest, most expensive new toy - the latest or the greatest. Here I find a real love of the lenses and what they can actually do. And of course there is that wonderful tactile experience....

patrickh

lahnet · Joined: 10 Apr 2007 Posts: 1164 Location: Denmark

You are so right Very Happy

It is strange that the qualiy of lenses do not improve like everthing else.

Everything hig-tech decrease prices and increase quality over time. But when it comes to lenses prices increase and quality decrease.

LucisPictor · Expire: 2013-12-03

Well spoken, Orio! Hear, hear!

[rant]

I totally agree with you. The bad thing is that those "L"unatics will either not read this or just ignore it.

I used to be a regular in a Canon DSLR forum. (Haven't been there for quite a while. I wonder why. Wink

) There everybody was showing off their latest "L"-lenses and just smiled at those members who could not (or did not want to) afford these so-called "pro" lenses. (At that time, we were "DINKs", double income - no kids, so I was able to afford them, but I didn't think it was right to spend so much money on a lens.)
When I met with some of these "Canonians" at a forum meeting, they all waved around with their white tele or red-ringed wide-angle lenses and clandestinally laughed at me when I shot with my Sigma 17-70 (� 300,-), my Tokina 12-24 (� 400,-) and my CZJ Sonnar 4/135 (� 30,-). (I was not yet really into MF lenses those days. That was before I've met you guys. Wink

)
Each of their lenses was at least twice as expensive as my three lenses together!
You should have seen their faces when we exchanged our pictures. Shocked

You could virtually "hear" their thoughts: "How is that possible? How can this guy shoot photos that are at least equally good as ours with such a cheap gear?"

Here are some shots that I took with my "crappy", i.e. non-L lenses:

Suddenly, they started to ask me about my stuff and for the first time they listened without an arrogant expression on their faces.

Well, I have to be honest, there were some really nice guys who did not look at the gear you had, but just talked to you and were interested in what you think. Not all of them were "L"unatics. Wink

To put in into a nutshell, I think there are only two real reason to go for an "L" lens:
1) You need a weather-proof equipment.
2) And I can understand that people buy the long "L" tele lenses. With a 400 or 500mm manual focus lens, you sometimes are just not quick enough, esp. when shooting sports or planes and the like.

But as far as wide angle or normal lenses are concerned, "L" mostly just is both a "rip-off" and a "show-off".

[/rant]

bob955i · Joined: 15 Apr 2007 Posts: 2495

C'mon guys loosen up a bit - you're falling into the same trap as those who dismiss all old manual focus lenses as junk.

Just the opposite way around.... Wink

poilu · Expire: 2019-08-29

Nobody here make the devil so I will be the first Twisted Evil

I am sure that canon L are better than old manual lenses.
Where is the old 24 1.4 who is better than the L at 1.4
The new leica are better than the old leica, new nikon better than old same for zeiss canon sigma etc...
Complaint are from user who rely to AF and cannot manual focus at 1.4
Many 'photographer' buy a camera the morning for a wedding in the afternoon and ask why their L are soft.
CA is a problem of the sensor and will be surely fixed in future body and can now be fixed by soft. CA doesn't exist on film. If you see CA on film it's come from the digital scanner.
Some L lenses are from the film age and are not good on digital. New model are better and will continue to improve.
It's like someone who say car's from the 70's are better than today.
When you had a crash the car was intact but you were death.
You buy a lens with 10 euros and you say look what 10 euros can do.
It is not fair. You should say the sigma 30 1.4 is 400 euros and the canon 35 1.4 is 1300 euros. It is 3 times the price, then you could ask yourself if the difference justify the cost and if you plan to go FF.
I like manual lenses because the L are too big to go in my bag.
If I was a pro I would use them.

LucisPictor · Expire: 2013-12-03

bob955i · Joined: 15 Apr 2007 Posts: 2495

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

lahnet · Joined: 10 Apr 2007 Posts: 1164 Location: Denmark

I have the Carl Zeiss AF 16-80mm, in some test the best zoom lens ever.

It is expensive - at least to me - and I am very happy that I own this lens. It just makes me wonder, why the image quality, when it comes to sharpness, is not as good as my best 50mm M42 lenses.

It seems to me that new technology is supposed to make things better Question

But what do I know Very Happy

bob955i · Joined: 15 Apr 2007 Posts: 2495

LucisPictor · Expire: 2013-12-03

@Lahnet: Well, you should not really compare a zoom lens (esp. a 16-80!) with a standard prime. 50mm lenses are some of the easiest lenses to calculate and designers have several decades of experience. Wink

Farside · Expire: 2013-12-27

In honesty - the main reason I'm buying manual lenses now is when I had film SLRs I couldn't afford the best lenses. I still can't, but I can use some of the lenses that used to be among the best and are good enough for me and the types of pics I like to take.

I'd say, in relation to earnings, the prices of 'L' lenses is still about the same as it was 20 or 30 years ago - still unaffordable for most people who are just wanting to point and shoot and far far too much for me to justify spending on a lens that isn't going to earn its keep. If I was a busy pro photog, it'd be different.
My latest aquisition is an ex-pro tool - a Novoflex 400mm - one of the tool lenses I wouldn't have bought 20 / 30 years ago, it was just an unattainable object then. Dirt cheap now, though and still just as good as the day it was made.

For me, it's about the using of quaility bits of kit that are now within my reach and if I'm lucky, picking up a real bargain here and there in terms of pic quality per buck.

Let the 'L'-istis spend their money on their male jewellery, what do I care about them? Mind you, somebody has to buy the new stuff so I can pick it up cheaply a couple of years down the line Smile

lahnet · Joined: 10 Apr 2007 Posts: 1164 Location: Denmark

LucisPictor · Expire: 2013-12-03

I know that you know. Wink

And I agree to you, absolutely. I just wanted to mention that. Wink

spkennedy3000 · Joined: 12 Apr 2007 Posts: 334 Location: London

I think this is an interesting discussion.

Personally, although I only have 1 AF lens now (traded the others for infinitely superior MF), I still think autofocus is a pretty handy invention. There are situations in which it is invaluable. Many pros are much better off with autofocus, but then many are or would be better off with higher quality MF lenses, perhaps photographing jewelry or other studio based practices.

I am considering a mountaineering trip next year, and although I love my Zeiss and Zuiko primes, there is really no way they are a practical solution for this. A 16-35 mkII however, would be great.

Given th choice I would use my MF primes, but AF is a useul thing to have where necessary.

LucisPictor · Expire: 2013-12-03

patrickh · Expire: 2011-11-18

LucisPictor

It is also true of the nikkors - they have effectively not introduced a new prime lens in many years, concentrating on zooms (which are after all what the screaming masses want). However, zooms have improved considerably, demonstrating what they could have done with primes if they had chosen. Unfortunately plastic is much cheaper than metal now and very few lens makers are still using metal barrels... Crying or Very sad

patrickh

poilu · Expire: 2019-08-29

welcome niblue

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

In my opinion lenses are very important I couldn't make same quality shoots with my AF lenses than average MF lenses. I have a couple of fine lenses, they make incredible good pictures compare with AF lenses. So I really believe tools and photographer both are same important.

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

Well, I compared the photos that I could find on the Canon site. I am certainly not going to buy a Canon wide angle prime to compare and find out! Eveyone, even the most faithful Canoneers, agree they're nearly rubbish in the corners.
With that money, I could buy 3 or 4 mf lenses that would give me much more joy! Very Happy

BTW I have three Canon AF primes. The EF 2/100, EF 1.8/50 II and the EF-S 2.8/60 Macro.
I am keeping them for work, exactly for the performance reason discussed earlier: when someone else is paying me for a photographic job, I respect their money and take as less chances as possible: for the work I do, a mediocre but safe photo is better than a potential masterpiece that failed. But I never use my EF lenses for my personal enjoyment. I tried once to use the 2/100 in a personal photo project, last year, and I was so unhappy with the results, that I never touched it since.