Fixable lens? - DPChallenge Forums

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR DI-II VC LD Aspherical (IF) Zoom Lens for Canon

04/16/2011 02:44:21 AM · #1

I am looking around to get a nice prime for portraits and I saw this post on craigslist "The lens is in perfect condition, i dropped it once and it still auto focuses and everything but the pictures look like it has a defuser on it".

Is this fixable? If so how much would it run to fix it?

PS. If anyone has a nifty fifty, 35, or 85 for sale I am looking for a nice prime.

GinaRothfels

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III

Olympus 8mm f/1.8 M.Zuiko Digital ED Fisheye PRO Lens

04/16/2011 05:43:34 AM · #2

Unless they are giving it away almost for nothing, I wouldn't take a chance.

04/16/2011 09:53:11 AM · #3

Not a chance that I'd pay for that about $40 for that... Remember, the Canon repair fee is usually something like $250, so unless it's a fairly valuable lens (like an 85 f/1.2) then I'd just not worry about it, however, if it is an 85 f/1.2, and you're not buying, let me know and I might go for it, as I think Canon can fix just about anything that might be wrong with it (short of a sledgehammer impact anyway..)

Patrick_D_Harrington

Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM

04/19/2011 12:07:35 PM · #4

Originally posted by Eagle40Fox2:

I'm not sure what your budget is but the 24-70mm f2.8L USM is an absolutely increadible zoom that shoots like several Primes. I am a huge fan of prime lenses for image quality, simple optics are key to clean clear sharp images but this lens is unbelievable. It isn't cheep but if you factor in what you get for what you pay it is a bargain at retail, I have seen them on CL from time to time for around $1200. The 50 1.8 is deffinately a super value as well for around $150 retail.

//www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/canon-ef-24-70mm-f-2.8-l-usm-lens-review.aspx

Kelli

Canon EOS-D60

04/19/2011 01:41:45 PM · #5

Go to this website, //www.precisioncamera.com/, click on lens repair and plug in your data. They'll give you a price. They fixed my 28-135mm, which was dropped for $86 (which was the quoted price). You'd never know anything had been wrong with it.

spiritualspatula

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX100

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

04/19/2011 02:11:44 PM · #6

Yeah... realistically you can get lenses without such a horrific defect for reasonable cost. Watch Craigslist, and be wary. Also keep an eye on Adorama used and KEH. I don't have an account at FM, but that's another choice. Seriously, if you're patient, you'll get a great deal. You'll might find some good deals on here. At the very least, there always seems to be more Canon's for sale than Nikons, so you've got that working for you.
ETA: Adorama seems to have a much larger used department than BH, from my searching, at any rate...

Message edited by author 2011-04-19 14:13:48.

04/19/2011 03:11:38 PM · #7

Originally posted by Patrick_D_Harrington:

...I am a huge fan of prime lenses for image quality, simple optics are key to clean clear sharp images .....

LOL... And that's why you own so many of them?

Originally posted by Patrick_D_Harrington:

... the 24-70mm f2.8L USM is an absolutely increadible zoom that shoots like several Primes.

Nope. Unless, of course, you mean "like several very inexpensive third party primes"..

I won't argue the point in this forum, but instead I'll just invite you to have a look at this:
//www.fredmiranda.com/24-70/

It seems fairly obvious to me that, while the 24-70 is (mostly) an improvement over the 28-70, it's still not as sharp or contrasty and well behaved as a prime lens should be.

With that being said, there are some damn fine zooms out there - I wouldn't even think about trading my 100-400 for a prime, but there are inevitable trade offs in terms of image quality.

Message edited by author 2011-04-19 15:14:33.

Eagle40Fox2

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR DI-II VC LD Aspherical (IF) Zoom Lens for Canon

04/19/2011 04:03:46 PM · #8

Thanks everyone!

Patrick_D_Harrington

04/19/2011 10:49:30 PM · #9

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Patrick_D_Harrington:
...I am a huge fan of prime lenses for image quality, simple optics are key to clean clear sharp images .....

LOL... And that's why you own so many of them?

Originally posted by Patrick_D_Harrington:
... the 24-70mm f2.8L USM is an absolutely increadible zoom that shoots like several Primes.

Nope. Unless, of course, you mean "like several very inexpensive third party primes"..

I won't argue the point in this forum, but instead I'll just invite you to have a look at this:
//www.fredmiranda.com/24-70/

It seems fairly obvious to me that, while the 24-70 is (mostly) an improvement over the 28-70, it's still not as sharp or contrasty and well behaved as a prime lens should be.

**It is verry close!

With that being said, there are some damn fine zooms out there - I wouldn't even think about trading my 100-400 for a prime, but there are inevitable trade offs in terms of image quality.

While it is obvious in theory that more elements would equate to increased degradation of light, the amount that is lost or corrupted by this lens is marginal if not almost completely negligible. I also shoot the 100-400 and find it a little "unsaturated" but would not trade it for a third nut. A "clear' "prime" example, pardon the pun, of the inherent quality of fixed or dedicated focal length lenses is the surprising image quality or �bang for buck� from the 50mm f1.8. I shoot the 24-70 f2.8 L USM and I love it. It isn't a prime lens but there aren�t many I would trade it for either.

04/20/2011 05:50:11 AM · #10

Originally posted by Patrick_D_Harrington:

A "clear' "prime" example, pardon the pun, of the inherent quality of fixed or dedicated focal length lenses is the surprising image quality or �bang for buck� from the 50mm f1.8.

Sorry mate, but the 50mm f1.8 is a dreadful lens. Its `handy` if you want to cram a bit more light onto your sensor using shorter shutter speeds, but the colour/contrast on it is questionable and the bokeh is poorly rendered. Cheap as chips but not for the serious hobbyist in my opinion - now the 50mm f1.4 for a small increase in price is a MASSIVE increase in quality.

However, changing subject slightly, the 85mm f1.8 is an amazing lens - I have owned both the 85 f1.8 and currently own the 85mm f1.2mk2 and to be honest the price difference between the two is not reflected in the gains you get with the f1.2 - sure the colour/contrast are marginally better, sharpness is about the same, and at f1.2 the lens sucks in light like a blackhole - but its not worth the extra £1000 I dropped on it.

04/20/2011 09:49:54 AM · #11

Originally posted by Simms:

Originally posted by Patrick_D_Harrington:
A "clear' "prime" example, pardon the pun, of the inherent quality of fixed or dedicated focal length lenses is the surprising image quality or �bang for buck� from the 50mm f1.8.

Sorry mate, but the 50mm f1.8 is a dreadful lens. Its `handy` if you want to cram a bit more light onto your sensor using shorter shutter speeds, but the colour/contrast on it is questionable and the bokeh is poorly rendered. Cheap as chips but not for the serious hobbyist in my opinion - now the 50mm f1.4 for a small increase in price is a MASSIVE increase in quality.

However, changing subject slightly, the 85mm f1.8 is an amazing lens - I have owned both the 85 f1.8 and currently own the 85mm f1.2mk2 and to be honest the price difference between the two is not reflected in the gains you get with the f1.2 - sure the colour/contrast are marginally better, sharpness is about the same, and at f1.2 the lens sucks in light like a blackhole - but its not worth the extra £1000 I dropped on it.

Amen to that. I've used several copies of the 50 1.8... They were all pretty much terrible, for exactly the reasons you listed above, but you forgot that awful autofocus and no USM. yak.

And the 85 f/1.8 is indeed an AMAZING lens, I'm thinking about adding either the 200 f/2.8 or the 135 f/2 as my next killer lens, but I'm having a pretty hard time deciding which one, I hear the 135 is actually better than my 85 f/1.8 - so it's gotta be pretty amazing.

Patrick_D_Harrington

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 E-mount

04/20/2011 01:41:08 PM · #12

Originally posted by Simms:

You have missed my point completely "mate". My point was that Prime lenses tend to pose less of a threat to image quality due to their simplicity in design and construction, or more accurately it is easier to build a quality lens for less if you only have one focal length to consider. The "nifty" 50 is a great illustration of this point, not so much for its incredible quality but for its incredible quality for the price!!! It is after all a $120-$150 lens, I have spent more of on Filters, to complain that this lens does not perform as well as a lenses 3 to 15 times its price ( $450.00 - $2200.00 ) is beyond ridiculous and completely extraneous to the point.

I am surprised, for a community of creative people whose intellectual level I would expect to be slightly more developed than that of the general population there sure are allot of individuals here who love to get into pissing contests.

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6000

04/20/2011 01:49:14 PM · #13

Are you interested in a 50mm f/1.4?

Eagle40Fox2

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR DI-II VC LD Aspherical (IF) Zoom Lens for Canon

04/20/2011 02:27:56 PM · #14

PM sent

04/20/2011 03:42:31 PM · #15

deleted comment.

Message edited by author 2011-04-20 15:44:15.

04/20/2011 03:45:43 PM · #16

Originally posted by Patrick_D_Harrington:

Originally posted by Simms:

Originally posted by Patrick_D_Harrington:
A "clear' "prime" example, pardon the pun, of the inherent quality of fixed or dedicated focal length lenses is the surprising image quality or �bang for buck� from the 50mm f1.8.

Sorry mate, but the 50mm f1.8 is a dreadful lens. Its `handy` if you want to cram a bit more light onto your sensor using shorter shutter speeds, but the colour/contrast on it is questionable and the bokeh is poorly rendered. Cheap as chips but not for the serious hobbyist in my opinion - now the 50mm f1.4 for a small increase in price is a MASSIVE increase in quality.

However, changing subject slightly, the 85mm f1.8 is an amazing lens - I have owned both the 85 f1.8 and currently own the 85mm f1.2mk2 and to be honest the price difference between the two is not reflected in the gains you get with the f1.2 - sure the colour/contrast are marginally better, sharpness is about the same, and at f1.2 the lens sucks in light like a blackhole - but its not worth the extra £1000 I dropped on it.

You have missed my point completely "mate". My point was that Prime lenses tend to pose less of a threat to image quality due to their simplicity in design and construction, or more accurately it is easier to build a quality lens for less if you only have one focal length to consider. The "nifty" 50 is a great illustration of this point, not so much for its incredible quality but for its incredible quality for the price!!! It is after all a $120-$150 lens, I have spent more of on Filters, to complain that this lens does not perform as well as a lenses 3 to 15 times its price ( $450.00 - $2200.00 ) is beyond ridiculous and completely extraneous to the point.

I am surprised, for a community of creative people whose intellectual level I would expect to be slightly more developed than that of the general population there sure are allot of individuals here who love to get into pissing contests.

OK, chill out. Just stick with your 24-70 `multi prime` lens you keep going on about.

Just trying to engage you in conversation - not start a war.

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

Canon EF-M 22mm STM Lens

04/20/2011 03:50:05 PM · #17

Originally posted by Simms:

deleted comment.

Awww.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

04/20/2011 03:51:07 PM · #18

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by Simms:
deleted comment.

Awww.

;)

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

04/20/2011 04:02:10 PM · #19

Originally posted by Simms:

Your metrics must be different than mine. What percentage of all the lenses out there are "dreadful"? The "small price" increase between the 1.4 and the 1.8 is a threefold increase in cost. Is it as good as the 1.4? Of course not. Fred Miranda rating of 8.6 (for the 1.8) and a rating of 8.9 (for the 1.4) is not a "MASSIVE increase in quality" by my metrics.

Given unlimited funds I would replace every piece of equipment I own. But I can't, I have a budget, and so I look for bang for the buck, and to hear a very nice lens decried as "dreadful" because it is not optimal pisses me off. I may not be able to afford what you describe as "cheap as chips" and hence not a "serious hobbyist".

"The best is the enemy of good." Voltaire

That said, the 50mm 1.8 is staying in the camera bag for Bokeh, but it did fine for Puns.

Message edited by author 2011-04-20 16:15:21.

04/20/2011 04:18:53 PM · #20

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by Simms:
Sorry mate, but the 50mm f1.8 is a dreadful lens. Its `handy` if you want to cram a bit more light onto your sensor using shorter shutter speeds, but the colour/contrast on it is questionable and the bokeh is poorly rendered. Cheap as chips but not for the serious hobbyist in my opinion - now the 50mm f1.4 for a small increase in price is a MASSIVE increase in quality.

Your metrics must be different than mine. What percentage of all the lenses out there are "dreadful"? The "small price" increase between the 1.4 and the 1.8 is a threefold increase in cost. Is it as good as the 1.4? Of course not. Fred Miranda rating of 8.6 (for the 1.8) and a rating of 8.9 (for the 1.4) is not a "MASSIVE increase in quality" by my metrics.

Given unlimited funds I would replace every piece of equipment I own. But I can't, I have a budget, and so I look for bang for the buck, and to hear a very nice lens decried as "dreadful" because it is not optimal pisses me off. I may not be able to afford what you describe as "cheap as chips" and hence not a "serious hobbyist".

"The best is the enemy of good." Voltaire

OK then, its a great lens, really, the lovely rough bokeh and the gorgeous chromatic aberration introduce a rainbow of colours to the drabbest of images. Sorry, but a Fred Miranda rating means nothing - lets face it, a large number of people who use a 50mm 1.8 are using it as their first step-up lens from the kit lens - so yes, in terms of sharpness, speed etc. its a revelation, they add their comment on Fred Miranda and mark it high as they love the little `nifty fifty` without ever comparing it directly to the 1.4 . The 50mm 1.2 has a rating of 8.7 - so you`re telling me that it is 0.1 (on the Fred Miranda rating) than the 50mm 1.8 - nonsense. I`ve had both lenses so feel qualified to make a direct comparison between the two..

Let me take the last two comments on the 50mm 1.8.

"Having shot with lens for nearly 5 years, I must say it has served me rather well. The big question many photogs might face is whether to get this or the EF 50mm 1.4. That one has full time manual focusing, a focus distance scale, and of course a faster aperture, gathering 2/3rds more light. Personally, I should have probably gone with the 1.4 version, considering my love of shallow depth of field and creamy smooth bokeh (of which the 1.4 outperforms the 1.8) but that doesn't mean the 1.8 is not a good bargain. "

Or

"The build is really cheap . It's soft wide open, but usable , better at 2.2 . But the Af is really a joke , it's hit or miss and it doesn't seem to matter how good the lighting is.
I've had a few copies , but the outcome has been the same for all of them. Sure it's cheap , but that doesn't make it a great lens. "

Oh, lets add the third as well

"I had one of these a couple of years ago, and remember it being better than this. I just recently came back to Canon from Nikon (for the video features) and the cheap Nikon 50 completely blows this one away, in build quality and IQ. Shame, because this is one of the most recommended lenses.

I took mine back and swapped for the f1.4 instead"

And for some balance I`ll add the forth & fifth review...

"At this price as long as it mounts on my camera it�s worth it. The fact that it works as well as it does....icing on the cake."

And

"I own the 50 1.4 and used to own the 50mm 1.2.
This is the BEST lens for the money! You can get it under $100 one ebay.

AF is fast maybe a little noisy but this lens is under $100!!! Come on!
I used to take this lens everywhere! It is so small and so convenient. Also, you don't scare away people with this lens. Once you own it you'll take it everywhere in your bag! It is always ready to be thrown on the camera when needed. You don't even need to carry around a flash. You can take pictures with it in very low light without a flash.

At 1.8 it does show vignetting. It gets much better at 2.8, and f4 looks the very best.
You can see some samples in my blog: //www.haringphotography.com/blog/
How about the 50mm 1.4? Is it worth the upgrade from the nifty fifty 1.8? To tell you the truth it is worth to upgrade. There is not much price difference but the quality of the 1.4 is much better. "