Lenses

Make	Model	Lens mount	Focal length	Aperture	Min. aperture	Min. focusing distance	Autofocus	Image stabilisation	Introduction	Sample picture

Canon	New FD50mm f/1.8	FD	50 mm	f/1.8	f/22	0.60 m	-	-	1979	Ringtram	^[1]
Canon	New FD50mm f/1.8	FD	50 mm	f/1.8	f/22	0.60 m	-	-	1979	Ringtram	^[1]
Canon	EF50mm f/1.4 USM	EF	50 mm	f/1.4	f/22	0.45 m	Micro USM	-	1993	St. Michaelis Sagard	^[2]
Canon	EF35-70mm f/3.5-4.5	EF	35-70 mm	f/3.5-4.5	f/29	0.39 m	AF Motor	-	1987	St. Lamberti	^[3]
Canon	EF35-105mm f/3.5-4.5	EF	35-105 mm	f/3.5-4.5	f/29	0.85 m	AF Motor	-	1987	Putto	^[4]
Canon	EF70-210mm f/4	EF	70-210 mm	f/4.0	f/32	1.20 m	AF Motor	-	1987	Flirt 3	^[5]
Canon	New FD70-210mm f/4	FD	70-210 mm	f/4.0	f/32	1.20 m	-	-	1980	Pyrus	^[6]
Canon	EF70-200 f/2.8L IS III USM	EF	70-200 mm	f/2.8	f/32	1.20 m	USM	3.5 stops	2018	Eurosprinter	^[7]
Canon	EF70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM	EF	70-300 mm	f/4.0-5.6	f/32-45	1.50 m	USM	1.5 stops	2005	Catta	^[8]
Canon	EF35-350mm f/3.5-5.6L USM	EF	35-350 mm	f/3.5-5.6	f/22-32	0.60 m	USM	-	1993	Putto	^[9]
Canon	New FD28mm f/2.8	FD	28 mm	f/2.8	f/22	0.30 m	-	-	1979	St. Sebastian	^[10]
Canon	EF 17-40mm f/4L USM	EF	17-40 mm	f/4.0	f/22	0.28 m	USM	-	2003	Lambertikirche	^[11]
Sigma	17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Makro OS HSM Contemporary	EF (APS-H)	17-70 mm	f/2.8-4.0	f/22	0.22 m	USM	2.0 stops	2013	Halászbástya	^[12]
Samyang	AF 85mm/1.4 EF	EF	85 mm	f/1.4	f/16	0.90 m	DLSM	-	2019	Putto	^[13]
Tokina	Polar MC Auto Zoom 28-70mm	FD	28-70 mm	f/3.5-4.5	f/22	0.40 m	-	-	ca. 1975	Minoritenkirche	^[14]
KMZ	Helios-44M	M42	58 mm	f/2	f/16	0.55 m	-	-	1979	Putto	^[15]
Agfa	Agnar 1:4,5/85	Isolette 6x6	85 mm	f/4.5	f/22	1.50 m	-	-	ca. 1950		^[16]
Kodak	Kodak Doublet	Kodak 6x9	110 mm	f/11	f/32	3.05 m	-	-	1930		^[17]
Sigma	UC Zoom	Minolta-A	70-210 mm	f/4.0-5.6	f/22	1.20 m	-	-	ca. 1990
Minolta	AF Zoom	Minolta-A	35-70 mm	f/3.5-4.5	f/22	0.50 m	-	-	ca. 1990
LOMO	T-43	–	40 mm	f/4.0	f/16	1.00 m	-	-	1953

Cameras

Make	Model	Lens mount	Format	Type	Introduction
Canon	EOS 5D Mark IV	EF	36 × 24 mm	DSLR	2016
Canon	EOS 7D Mark I	EF	22.3 × 14.9 mm	DSLR	2009
Canon	EOS 70D	EF	22.5 × 15 mm	DSLR	2013
Canon	EOS 650	EF	36 × 24 mm	ESLR	1987
Canon	A-1	FD	36 × 24 mm	ESLR	1978
Canon	AV-1	FD	36 × 24 mm	ESLR	1979
Minolta	Dynax 5000i	Minolta-A	36 × 24 mm	ESLR	1989
Zenit	Zenit-TTL	M42	36 × 24 mm	SLR	1976
Agfa	Isolette 6×6	–	60 × 60 mm	RF	1950
Kodak	No. 1 Pocket Junior	–	60 × 90 mm	RF	1932
Canon	PowerShot S 110	–	7.4 × 5.6 mm	DRF	2012
Canon	PowerShot A 1300	–	6.2 × 4.6 mm	DRF	2012
Panasonic	Lumix DMC-TZ81	–	6.2 × 4.6 mm	DRF	2016
LOMO	SMENA 8M	–	36 × 24 mm	RF	1953

DSLR: Digital Single-Lens Reflex
ESLR: Electronic Single-Lens Reflex
SLR: Single-Lens Reflex
RF: Rangefinder
DRF: Digital Rangefinder

Johannes Maximilian's opinion

↑ ^a ^b The Canon NewFD 50 mm 1:1.8 is a solid piece of photography equipment. It produces a nice bokeh and is reasonably sharp considering its low price.
↑ The Canon EF 50 mm 1:1.4 is great in optical quality and produces very sharp images when stopped down, yet it has a nice bokeh. Chromatic abberations are pronounced but not a huge problem. What I dislike the most about this lens is its very poor build quality. Cheap plastic, brittle autofocus motor, bad weather sealing.
↑ The 35-70 mm/3.5-4.5 is possibly one of the most basic 2× zoom lenses that exists for the EF lens mount. It is neither exceptionally sharp nor does it produce any unusual effect. A basic, late-1980s kit lens that does its job. Virtually every other zoom lens outperforms The 35-70 mm/3.5-4.5 in terms of features, thus, it makes little sense to buy this lens unless a close focusing distance is needed. The lens is made from cheap plastic but has a sturdy build quality and is fitted with a reliable, but loud, and slow autofocus motor. This lense's biggest strengh is its minimum focusing distance of 39 cm. Produces decent pictures of close objects or if stopped down. Fails to outperform an iPhone at f/3.5; it suffers from horrible lateral chromatic abberations.
↑ The EF 35-105 mm/3.5-4.5 is the 1980's version of 24-105 mm f/4.0 (but its optical design resembles the FD 35-105 mm rather than the EF 24-105 mm). All-plastic body, but glass lenses and very good build quality. The image quality is fine, mostly above average; it can produce very sharp images and has the potential to outperform older L-Series lenses. Overall better performance at greater focal lengths, requires little downstopping. Not well-suited for macro shots. Fast and reliable, but loud autofocus. Push-pull zoom. Best "bang for the buck" option I am aware of!
↑ The EF version of the 1980 FD 70-210 f/4.0. A really nice lens that produces images of above-average quality. Good contrast. Nicely sharp at f/5.6, even at focal lengths beyond 150 mm. Pronounced chromatic abberations at 210 mm/4.0
↑ The FD 70-210 mm/4.0 is a really nice lens that produces images of above-average quality. Good contrast. Nicely sharp, even at focal lengths beyond 150 mm. Pronounced chromatic abberations at 210 mm / 4.0
↑ Canon's EF 70-200 mm f/2.8L lens is unarguably the best lens Canon ever made. Always sharp at every focal length, top-notch autofocus, well-suited for any situation that requires a telephoto lens. Negligble chromatic abberations present at lower focal lengths and wide-open apertures.
↑ The 70-300 mm delivers reasonable optical quality for the price point at lower focal lengths if combined with an APS-C camera; not sharp enough for 36×24 mm cameras. Beyond 200 mm this lens loses sharpness. Requires exposure values >14 to be useful if used without a tripod, or long exposure times. The image stabiliser produces a VERY annoying 15640 Hz hissing sound that is irritating to certain animals. I prefer the 70-210 mm f/4.0 because it has a wider aperture (thus eliminating the need for an image stabiliser), and because it produces sharper images.
↑ The 35-350 mm f/3.5-5.6L is one of the most interesting lenses I own; a jack of all trades. Really nice build quality; push-pull zoom. Produces sharp images from 35 to 250 mm; from 250 mm onwards, the images turn out blurry and useless unless both stopped down significantly, and combined with long exposures. From 35 mm to 60 mm, the chromatic abberations are visible and very pronounced. From 60 mm to 250 mm, image quality is good, even above average. Exceptionally sharp at 135 mm/5.0, better than the 70-200 f/2.8L IS III USM. Close minimum focusing distance of 60 cm. Sufficiently suited for taking pictures of fast-moving objects, and well-suited for taking portraits. Works both on 36×24 mm, and APS-C cameras. Might do well with in-body stabilisation.
↑ The FD 28 mm f/2.8 lens is average and produces sharp images when stopped down slightly.
↑ The EF 17-40 mm f/4.0 produces nice pictures that leave nothing to complain about. Compared with modern lens designs, this lens lacks in corner sharpness, but that doesn't matter to me.
↑ The Sigma 17-70 mm f/2.8-4.0 is a very nice lens, compares well against the 24-105 mm f/4.0. Produces sharp images at f/4.0 across the entire focal length range. The f/2.8 wide-open aperture is not too useful; at 17 mm, the lens requires downstopping to produce sharp images. Sturdy, fast, precise, and silent autofocus. Despite being an APS-H lens, it works well on the EOS 5D Mark IV when shooting 4K video. Well-suited for macro shots considering the 0.22 m minimum focusing distance.
↑ Samyang's 85 mm 1:1.4 lens is difficult to describe. It has a very good build quality, but overall, I have a hard time liking what this lens does. It produces sharp images by chance, which is very frustrating. I found to have the best luck when using this lens with a lot of light, and if stopped down slightly. The chromatic abberations this lens produces are so bad that it requires stopping down to f/3.2 to become bearable. It cannot be used indoors! This totally defeats the purpose of an f/1.4 lens. The autofocus is the worst I have ever seen on any EF lens; 9/10 images are off focus. In fact, the autofocus is so bad that this lens can only produce in-focus pictures with manual focus in live view.
↑ The Tokina Polar 28-70 mm f/3.5-4.5 lens delivers good results when using long exposure times, and if stopped down. Any aperture more open than f/8 results in ridiculous chromatic abberations and blurry images. Anything not 28 mm or 70 mm in macro mode is not sharp. Definitely not a well-rounded lens. An example of how bad this lens can be is this picture of a Steyr tractor.
↑ The Helios-44 is possibly one of the best lenses at this price point. It produces sharp images at virtually any aperture setting and has almost no chromatic abberations; it beats the Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS III USM in terms of longitudinal chromatic abberations, and is almost as sharp as the latter. The visible barrel distortion, poor coma, and unusual 300 degree bokeh are telltale signs this lens was designed in the 1930s. Very good low-light performance.
↑ The Agfa Isolette comes with a cheap 85 mm/4.5 lens that produces blurry images. Requires stopping down to produce decent results. Got a nice 360 degree bokeh at f/4.5
↑ Kodak's 110 mm f/11 lens is surprisingly sharp for what it is, but is easily beaten by Biotar-design lenses from the same era.

[FD50f1.8-1] The Canon NewFD 50 mm 1:1.8 is a solid piece of photography equipment. It produces a nice bokeh and is reasonably sharp considering its low price.

[2] The Canon EF 50 mm 1:1.4 is great in optical quality and produces very sharp images when stopped down, yet it has a nice bokeh. Chromatic abberations are pronounced but not a huge problem. What I dislike the most about this lens is its very poor build quality. Cheap plastic, brittle autofocus motor, bad weather sealing.

[3] The 35-70 mm/3.5-4.5 is possibly one of the most basic 2× zoom lenses that exists for the EF lens mount. It is neither exceptionally sharp nor does it produce any unusual effect. A basic, late-1980s kit lens that does its job. Virtually every other zoom lens outperforms The 35-70 mm/3.5-4.5 in terms of features, thus, it makes little sense to buy this lens unless a close focusing distance is needed. The lens is made from cheap plastic but has a sturdy build quality and is fitted with a reliable, but loud, and slow autofocus motor. This lense's biggest strengh is its minimum focusing distance of 39 cm. Produces decent pictures of close objects or if stopped down. Fails to outperform an iPhone at f/3.5; it suffers from horrible lateral chromatic abberations.

[4] The EF 35-105 mm/3.5-4.5 is the 1980's version of 24-105 mm f/4.0 (but its optical design resembles the FD 35-105 mm rather than the EF 24-105 mm). All-plastic body, but glass lenses and very good build quality. The image quality is fine, mostly above average; it can produce very sharp images and has the potential to outperform older L-Series lenses. Overall better performance at greater focal lengths, requires little downstopping. Not well-suited for macro shots. Fast and reliable, but loud autofocus. Push-pull zoom. Best "bang for the buck" option I am aware of!

[5] The EF version of the 1980 FD 70-210 f/4.0. A really nice lens that produces images of above-average quality. Good contrast. Nicely sharp at f/5.6, even at focal lengths beyond 150 mm. Pronounced chromatic abberations at 210 mm/4.0

[6] The FD 70-210 mm/4.0 is a really nice lens that produces images of above-average quality. Good contrast. Nicely sharp, even at focal lengths beyond 150 mm. Pronounced chromatic abberations at 210 mm / 4.0

[7] Canon's EF 70-200 mm f/2.8L lens is unarguably the best lens Canon ever made. Always sharp at every focal length, top-notch autofocus, well-suited for any situation that requires a telephoto lens. Negligble chromatic abberations present at lower focal lengths and wide-open apertures.

[8] The 70-300 mm delivers reasonable optical quality for the price point at lower focal lengths if combined with an APS-C camera; not sharp enough for 36×24 mm cameras. Beyond 200 mm this lens loses sharpness. Requires exposure values >14 to be useful if used without a tripod, or long exposure times. The image stabiliser produces a VERY annoying 15640 Hz hissing sound that is irritating to certain animals. I prefer the 70-210 mm f/4.0 because it has a wider aperture (thus eliminating the need for an image stabiliser), and because it produces sharper images.

[9] The 35-350 mm f/3.5-5.6L is one of the most interesting lenses I own; a jack of all trades. Really nice build quality; push-pull zoom. Produces sharp images from 35 to 250 mm; from 250 mm onwards, the images turn out blurry and useless unless both stopped down significantly, and combined with long exposures. From 35 mm to 60 mm, the chromatic abberations are visible and very pronounced. From 60 mm to 250 mm, image quality is good, even above average. Exceptionally sharp at 135 mm/5.0, better than the 70-200 f/2.8L IS III USM. Close minimum focusing distance of 60 cm. Sufficiently suited for taking pictures of fast-moving objects, and well-suited for taking portraits. Works both on 36×24 mm, and APS-C cameras. Might do well with in-body stabilisation.

[10] The FD 28 mm f/2.8 lens is average and produces sharp images when stopped down slightly.

[11] The EF 17-40 mm f/4.0 produces nice pictures that leave nothing to complain about. Compared with modern lens designs, this lens lacks in corner sharpness, but that doesn't matter to me.

[12] The Sigma 17-70 mm f/2.8-4.0 is a very nice lens, compares well against the 24-105 mm f/4.0. Produces sharp images at f/4.0 across the entire focal length range. The f/2.8 wide-open aperture is not too useful; at 17 mm, the lens requires downstopping to produce sharp images. Sturdy, fast, precise, and silent autofocus. Despite being an APS-H lens, it works well on the EOS 5D Mark IV when shooting 4K video. Well-suited for macro shots considering the 0.22 m minimum focusing distance.

[13] Samyang's 85 mm 1:1.4 lens is difficult to describe. It has a very good build quality, but overall, I have a hard time liking what this lens does. It produces sharp images by chance, which is very frustrating. I found to have the best luck when using this lens with a lot of light, and if stopped down slightly. The chromatic abberations this lens produces are so bad that it requires stopping down to f/3.2 to become bearable. It cannot be used indoors! This totally defeats the purpose of an f/1.4 lens. The autofocus is the worst I have ever seen on any EF lens; 9/10 images are off focus. In fact, the autofocus is so bad that this lens can only produce in-focus pictures with manual focus in live view.

[14] The Tokina Polar 28-70 mm f/3.5-4.5 lens delivers good results when using long exposure times, and if stopped down. Any aperture more open than f/8 results in ridiculous chromatic abberations and blurry images. Anything not 28 mm or 70 mm in macro mode is not sharp. Definitely not a well-rounded lens. An example of how bad this lens can be is this picture of a Steyr tractor.

[15] The Helios-44 is possibly one of the best lenses at this price point. It produces sharp images at virtually any aperture setting and has almost no chromatic abberations; it beats the Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS III USM in terms of longitudinal chromatic abberations, and is almost as sharp as the latter. The visible barrel distortion, poor coma, and unusual 300 degree bokeh are telltale signs this lens was designed in the 1930s. Very good low-light performance.

[16] The Agfa Isolette comes with a cheap 85 mm/4.5 lens that produces blurry images. Requires stopping down to produce decent results. Got a nice 360 degree bokeh at f/4.5

[17] Kodak's 110 mm f/11 lens is surprisingly sharp for what it is, but is easily beaten by Biotar-design lenses from the same era.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

User:Johannes Maximilian/Gear

Lenses

Cameras

Johannes Maximilian's opinion

Navigation menu

User:Johannes Maximilian/Gear

Lenses

Cameras

Johannes Maximilian's opinion

Navigation menu

Search