DPReview.com is closing April 10th - Find out more

Canon lenses are unbeatable

Started Jul 26, 2020 | Discussions
nonproshooterdad Senior Member • Posts: 1,104
Canon lenses are unbeatable
7

I sold my Sony 70-200/4, after compared my Canon 70-200/4L IS mark I. Canon obviously wins at 200mm. I used my M11-22 to replace my Zeiss 16-35/4 lens because the Sony lens gave me blurry corners on my A7R iii when handholding. I was looking at a pancake lens for FE mount. The only option is 35/2.8 Sony or Samyang, but no, M22 is equivalent and more compact.

Later on I compared the Sony 24-105/4G and the Canon 24-105/4L mark I, Canon wins at 70mm, ties at shorter focal lengths, Sony only wins at 105mm. And the Sony price is more than double of Canon. Sony sensor is better, but you need lenses. I then realized it is more in lenses when you choose a system. 24-105/4G is never my favorite, it feels front heavy. So it's gone. I now have Tamron 18-400 instead. 24-105/4  was for the local trips. Tamron is more flexible for that.

And now I am looking at the Sony 55/1.8. The M32 can replace it. But I am still balancing. Maybe when I get the Tamron 28-75, the 55mm will go.

I am planning on Tamron 28-75/2.8, 70-180/2.8. These maybe the better match on the Sony. And M cannot replace them.

Canon EOS M3 Sony a7 Sony a7R Sony a7R II Sony a7R III
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
nnowak Veteran Member • Posts: 9,070
Re: Canon lenses are unbeatable
2

nonproshooterdad wrote:

I sold my Sony 70-200/4, after compared my Canon 70-200/4L IS mark I. Canon obviously wins at 200mm. I used my M11-22 to replace my Zeiss 16-35/4 lens because the Sony lens gave me blurry corners on my A7R iii when handholding. I was looking at a pancake lens for FE mount. The only option is 35/2.8 Sony or Samyang, but no, M22 is equivalent and more compact.

Later on I compared the Sony 24-105/4G and the Canon 24-105/4L mark I, Canon wins at 70mm, ties at shorter focal lengths, Sony only wins at 105mm. And the Sony price is more than double of Canon. Sony sensor is better, but you need lenses. I then realized it is more in lenses when you choose a system. 24-105/4G is never my favorite, it feels front heavy. So it's gone. I now have Tamron 18-400 instead. 24-105/4 was for the local trips. Tamron is more flexible for that.

Let me get this straight.... You are pixel peeping the Sony FE 24-105mm vs the Canon EF 24-105mm, and you determine the Sony inferior.  So, you are replacing the Sony FE 24-105mm with a Tamron superzoom 18-400mm.  A lens that ends up about 40mm longer and 200g heavier than the Sony FE lens you found front heavy.

OP nonproshooterdad Senior Member • Posts: 1,104
Re: Canon lenses are unbeatable

nnowak wrote:

nonproshooterdad wrote:

I sold my Sony 70-200/4, after compared my Canon 70-200/4L IS mark I. Canon obviously wins at 200mm. I used my M11-22 to replace my Zeiss 16-35/4 lens because the Sony lens gave me blurry corners on my A7R iii when handholding. I was looking at a pancake lens for FE mount. The only option is 35/2.8 Sony or Samyang, but no, M22 is equivalent and more compact.

Later on I compared the Sony 24-105/4G and the Canon 24-105/4L mark I, Canon wins at 70mm, ties at shorter focal lengths, Sony only wins at 105mm. And the Sony price is more than double of Canon. Sony sensor is better, but you need lenses. I then realized it is more in lenses when you choose a system. 24-105/4G is never my favorite, it feels front heavy. So it's gone. I now have Tamron 18-400 instead. 24-105/4 was for the local trips. Tamron is more flexible for that.

Let me get this straight.... You are pixel peeping the Sony FE 24-105mm vs the Canon EF 24-105mm, and you determine the Sony inferior. So, you are replacing the Sony FE 24-105mm with a Tamron superzoom 18-400mm. A lens that ends up about 40mm longer and 200g heavier than the Sony FE lens you found front heavy.

You can always find something in the text if you want to. Yes, that's what I meant. I didn't really like the Sony 24-105, and those are the reasons I didn't like it. That comparison finally lead to the decision to get rid of it. 400mm is good for geese in fly and 105mm is not. I can stand with the front heavy if it works for me.

nnowak Veteran Member • Posts: 9,070
Re: Canon lenses are unbeatable
4

nonproshooterdad wrote:

nnowak wrote:

nonproshooterdad wrote:

I sold my Sony 70-200/4, after compared my Canon 70-200/4L IS mark I. Canon obviously wins at 200mm. I used my M11-22 to replace my Zeiss 16-35/4 lens because the Sony lens gave me blurry corners on my A7R iii when handholding. I was looking at a pancake lens for FE mount. The only option is 35/2.8 Sony or Samyang, but no, M22 is equivalent and more compact.

Later on I compared the Sony 24-105/4G and the Canon 24-105/4L mark I, Canon wins at 70mm, ties at shorter focal lengths, Sony only wins at 105mm. And the Sony price is more than double of Canon. Sony sensor is better, but you need lenses. I then realized it is more in lenses when you choose a system. 24-105/4G is never my favorite, it feels front heavy. So it's gone. I now have Tamron 18-400 instead. 24-105/4 was for the local trips. Tamron is more flexible for that.

Let me get this straight.... You are pixel peeping the Sony FE 24-105mm vs the Canon EF 24-105mm, and you determine the Sony inferior. So, you are replacing the Sony FE 24-105mm with a Tamron superzoom 18-400mm. A lens that ends up about 40mm longer and 200g heavier than the Sony FE lens you found front heavy.

You can always find something in the text if you want to. Yes, that's what I meant. I didn't really like the Sony 24-105, and those are the reasons I didn't like it. That comparison finally lead to the decision to get rid of it. 400mm is good for geese in fly and 105mm is not. I can stand with the front heavy if it works for me.

That's fine if 105mm was not enough reach and 400mm works better, but your entire post read like it is about how the Sony lenses are optically inferior, yet you replace one of them with one of the most optically inferior lenses available.

OP nonproshooterdad Senior Member • Posts: 1,104
Re: Canon lenses are unbeatable
1

nnowak wrote:

nonproshooterdad wrote:

nnowak wrote:

nonproshooterdad wrote:

I sold my Sony 70-200/4, after compared my Canon 70-200/4L IS mark I. Canon obviously wins at 200mm. I used my M11-22 to replace my Zeiss 16-35/4 lens because the Sony lens gave me blurry corners on my A7R iii when handholding. I was looking at a pancake lens for FE mount. The only option is 35/2.8 Sony or Samyang, but no, M22 is equivalent and more compact.

Later on I compared the Sony 24-105/4G and the Canon 24-105/4L mark I, Canon wins at 70mm, ties at shorter focal lengths, Sony only wins at 105mm. And the Sony price is more than double of Canon. Sony sensor is better, but you need lenses. I then realized it is more in lenses when you choose a system. 24-105/4G is never my favorite, it feels front heavy. So it's gone. I now have Tamron 18-400 instead. 24-105/4 was for the local trips. Tamron is more flexible for that.

Let me get this straight.... You are pixel peeping the Sony FE 24-105mm vs the Canon EF 24-105mm, and you determine the Sony inferior. So, you are replacing the Sony FE 24-105mm with a Tamron superzoom 18-400mm. A lens that ends up about 40mm longer and 200g heavier than the Sony FE lens you found front heavy.

You can always find something in the text if you want to. Yes, that's what I meant. I didn't really like the Sony 24-105, and those are the reasons I didn't like it. That comparison finally lead to the decision to get rid of it. 400mm is good for geese in fly and 105mm is not. I can stand with the front heavy if it works for me.

That's fine if 105mm was not enough reach and 400mm works better, but your entire post read like it is about how the Sony lenses are optically inferior, yet you replace one of them with one of the most optically inferior lenses available.

No. It's you who read it that way. By the way, 18-400 is not the most inferior lens. It's the same as 18-135 STM in IQ in the same range and even better at some points. It's a decent lens.

R2D2 Forum Pro • Posts: 26,528
Re: Canon lenses are unbeatable

nonproshooterdad wrote:

nnowak wrote:

nonproshooterdad wrote:

nnowak wrote:

nonproshooterdad wrote:

I sold my Sony 70-200/4, after compared my Canon 70-200/4L IS mark I. Canon obviously wins at 200mm. I used my M11-22 to replace my Zeiss 16-35/4 lens because the Sony lens gave me blurry corners on my A7R iii when handholding. I was looking at a pancake lens for FE mount. The only option is 35/2.8 Sony or Samyang, but no, M22 is equivalent and more compact.

Later on I compared the Sony 24-105/4G and the Canon 24-105/4L mark I, Canon wins at 70mm, ties at shorter focal lengths, Sony only wins at 105mm. And the Sony price is more than double of Canon. Sony sensor is better, but you need lenses. I then realized it is more in lenses when you choose a system. 24-105/4G is never my favorite, it feels front heavy. So it's gone. I now have Tamron 18-400 instead. 24-105/4 was for the local trips. Tamron is more flexible for that.

Let me get this straight.... You are pixel peeping the Sony FE 24-105mm vs the Canon EF 24-105mm, and you determine the Sony inferior. So, you are replacing the Sony FE 24-105mm with a Tamron superzoom 18-400mm. A lens that ends up about 40mm longer and 200g heavier than the Sony FE lens you found front heavy.

You can always find something in the text if you want to. Yes, that's what I meant. I didn't really like the Sony 24-105, and those are the reasons I didn't like it. That comparison finally lead to the decision to get rid of it. 400mm is good for geese in fly and 105mm is not. I can stand with the front heavy if it works for me.

That's fine if 105mm was not enough reach and 400mm works better, but your entire post read like it is about how the Sony lenses are optically inferior, yet you replace one of them with one of the most optically inferior lenses available.

No. It's you who read it that way. By the way, 18-400 is not the most inferior lens. It's the same as 18-135 STM in IQ in the same range and even better at some points. It's a decent lens.

+1 Kudos for figuring out what works for you, then getting it, and then shooting with it!

May the light be with you!

R2

-- hide signature --

Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries

 R2D2's gear list:R2D2's gear list
Canon EOS M6 Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R5 Canon EOS R6 Canon EOS R7 +1 more
J A C S
J A C S Forum Pro • Posts: 20,518
Re: Canon lenses are unbeatable

nonproshooterdad wrote:

Later on I compared the Sony 24-105/4G and the Canon 24-105/4L mark I, Canon wins at 70mm, ties at shorter focal lengths, Sony only wins at 105mm.

The Canon RF 24-105 is even better than the EF (it will not fit on an M camera though).

dpeete Contributing Member • Posts: 746
Re: Canon lenses are unbeatable

I don’t feel the same way about the Samyang 35mm 2.8... I don’t expect it to be smaller than the 22mm. And I don’t see it as really mattering: as either lens creates the most compact version of carry: M6 with 22mm fits in a Lowepro Dashpoint 20 and the A7r3 with Samyang/Rokinon fits into a Lowpro Dashpoint 30. Not that much difference in size for a whole lot more firepower. But the use case is that I bring the 35mm 2.8 along when I travel with my GM zooms, giving me a compact street kit for next to nothing.

I find the Samyang/Rokinon lenses are great light carry options, owning the 45mm 1.8 (try it instead of the 55mm), the 75mm 1.8 (amazingly small portrait lens - not much bigger than an M with the 50mm 1.8) and the 18mm 2.8. I can put the 16-35mm zoom with the 45mm and 75mm, or the 24-70mm zoom with the 18mm and the 75mm and have a small system with pro-level output.

And the RF crowd can join in: the Samyang/Rokinon 85mm 1.4 is now being made for the Canon mount. I’ve used it on Sony and it is very good. It is hard to go back to shooting portraits on the M once you shoot and 85mm 1.4 on FF.

 dpeete's gear list:dpeete's gear list
Canon EOS M Canon EOS M6 Sony a7R III Canon EF 85mm F1.8 USM Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM +17 more
R2D2 Forum Pro • Posts: 26,528
Re: Canon lenses are unbeatable
1

dpeete wrote:

I don’t feel the same way about the Samyang 35mm 2.8... I don’t expect it to be smaller than the 22mm. And I don’t see it as really mattering: as either lens creates the most compact version of carry: M6 with 22mm fits in a Lowepro Dashpoint 20 and the A7r3 with Samyang/Rokinon fits into a Lowpro Dashpoint 30. Not that much difference in size for a whole lot more firepower. But the use case is that I bring the 35mm 2.8 along when I travel with my GM zooms, giving me a compact street kit for next to nothing.

I find the Samyang/Rokinon lenses are great light carry options, owning the 45mm 1.8 (try it instead of the 55mm), the 75mm 1.8 (amazingly small portrait lens - not much bigger than an M with the 50mm 1.8) and the 18mm 2.8. I can put the 16-35mm zoom with the 45mm and 75mm, or the 24-70mm zoom with the 18mm and the 75mm and have a small system with pro-level output.

And the RF crowd can join in: the Samyang/Rokinon 85mm 1.4 is now being made for the Canon mount. I’ve used it on Sony and it is very good. It is hard to go back to shooting portraits on the M once you shoot and 85mm 1.4 on FF.

Indeed everyone has their favorites for each system.

I’ll say again that I wish Canon would come out with a sweet fast standard zoom to top things off.  Not likely until they’ve finished feeding the new R-System Pit Bulls in the room though.

I have however always liked shooting with fast sharp primes, so the big zoom’s absence doesn’t really bother me much.  In fact I’d very much like to see a 23mm f/1.4 to fit with the rest of my trinity (quadrinity?) 16, 32, and 56.  

R2

-- hide signature --

Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries

 R2D2's gear list:R2D2's gear list
Canon EOS M6 Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R5 Canon EOS R6 Canon EOS R7 +1 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads