Canon Lenses

Never having used the FD system, I'll concern myself only with EOS

16-35mm 2.8 L first version Fair lens at best. Sort of sharp in the middle of the frame at 2.8, pretty fuzzy on the corners until 4.5 or so. An unpleasant warpy sort of distortion when it's at 16-20mm or so. Noticeable distortion even at 28mm. Also, a bitch to focus manually. Can you tell I never liked it?

17-35mm 2.8 L About the same, maybe a little better.

20-35mm 2.8 L Non USM so worthless to focus manually but pretty sharp. Was the standard lens for many people for years and a lot of photogs think it's one of the best in this range.

24-70mm 2.8 L A real pro lens, good throughout the range but bulky as hell.

28mm 1.8 Not spectacular, but solid in the whole range. Stopped down it's basically indistinguishable for all the best 28's, except for maybe the Leica M's.

35mm 2.0 An underrated tool. Gives you a stop over a 2.8 zoom, is probably about the same sharpness-wise at the 2.8 L and will also allow you create a shallower depth of field. Feels like plastic junk, but it's inexpensive and light. Makes for a great all-purpose set up with a 5D or similar body.

35mm 1.4 L High marks. (See my blog entry "Best of the Best").

50mm 1.2 L Same here...(see my blog entry "Best of the Best").

50mm 1.8 Like the 35 2.0 a totally under-appreciated lens. If you can get your hands on the long-discontinued first version which has a metal mount instead of the cheap-ass plastic one of the last several years, buy it. Not super sharp at 1.8 but sharp enough and in the rest of the range, really good considering how compact and cheezy it feels.


85mm 1.8 Will not blow you away, until you consider the cost relative to more expensive options. Focuses fairly quickly, even in MF. If you need an 85 and $1,500 is a too much to spend, use with confidence. Pretty sharp even at 1.8, with decent contrast.

85mm 1.2 L Never owned it but everyone who does loves it.

100 2.0 About the same deal as the 85 1.8...not sexy but totally gets the job done.

135mm 2.0 Really good. Nice and compact, focuses manually easily. If you like this under-appreciated focal length it's a faster and way-more compact and lighter alternative to the 70-200mm 2.8 club.

70-200mm 2.8 L It's the standard lens in this focal length, optically solid, but freaking heavy for what you're getting out of it. With the hood attached it starts to get in RPG-looking territory. Focuses easily in manual.

70-200mm 4.0 L IS The versions with or without the IS are optically excellent, basically indistinguishable from the 2.8 but a much cheaper and small and lighter alternative. Consider with digital these days if you REALLY need that 2.8, cuz this little dude is much more pleasant to carry around and shoot with. You'll get shots you'd miss with the 2.8 because it's quicker to use....Not quite as sharp at 4.0 as stopped down a click or two but still perfectly fine and publishable, particularly if you've blurred the background. Having recently switched back to Nikon, this is the lens I miss the most. Would be nice if it came with a tripod collar.