I keep seeing articles and videos on underrated and overrated features of photography, so it's time to step out in front of the firing line with my contentious answer to the above question.
Fellow editor Alex Cooke's recent article titled "If You Could Only Shoot With One Lens, What Would It Be?" got me thinking. We have discussions based on similar questions on a daily basis, and are usually pretty in sync. But his answer to that question, while not completely different to my answer as I too would go for a prime, did prompt me to finally write this article: What's the most overrated lens?
These sort of questions are invariably quite tricky because you have to tick a number of boxes for your answer to be a viable candidate for discussion. That is, a lens must be good enough that it has mass appeal and is a common feature in camera bags around the world, but not so good that calling it overrated would be unfair. I have had a knee-jerk response to this question without it ever being posed quite as directly; a lens that is as staple as any and in almost every beginner's gear article you'll ever read. But for the sake of discussion, I'll go through what my thought process would be if I didn't already have my answer.
I'll add in a caveat to say that your answer can be both very specific (a particular model, of a particular brand's lens) or the more difficult route of naming a type of lens (say, all 35mm lenses.)
In terms of types of lenses that are common, the 24-70mm and the 70-200mm are always around and about the discussion over kit. I've owned at least one of each for as long as I can remember, and it's difficult to say they're overrated. Particularly for coverage of events, weddings, and assignments, you're well supported with this duo. You could put forward arguments for one particular model or brand of each being overrated, but having used Canon, Sony, and Sigma, I haven't found it to be the case quite yet; so that's out.
The next up for consideration would be the UWAs. No UWA has been particularly prevalent to my eye, or unjustified in its prevalence, and the type of lens as a whole is crucial to many genres. Then we move on to prime lenses. The 85mm is a popular choice and raved about; so it could be a candidate for being considered "overrated". Is it though? Not to my eyes. I've had one of the cheapest version of this prime — Canon 85mm f/1.8 — for a long time and I would certainly upgrade to an f/1.2 if I could justify the cost. But we're getting warmer, and for me, we're right next door.
So what do I consider to be the most overrated lens?
The 50mm f/1.8
Not specifically the Canon, or the Nikon, or any of the other brands. All modern f/1.8 50mm lenses. Every photographer upon buying their first camera has this little cheap prime rammed down their throat at every turn. I'm not unreasonable — I promise — I'm aware of its upsides; it's by far the cheapest way to a wide aperture, it can sort-of fit in to a number of different photography genres, and it's nice and light. I'm not saying it's a bad lens, what I am saying is it's overrated.
It is in the must-have, god-like lens tier and for me, it doesn't warrant it. The 50mm is a half measure; for portraits you'd generally do better with a longer prime, or even dropping down to a 35mm. For landscapes, it again sits in that awkward range between wide-angle, and longer. For the more niche categories of photography it's even less useful. I can honestly say that in all my years as a photographer, on private shoots, commercial shoots, and shooting just for fun, I've never thought "ah the 50mm would work nicely here."
Yes, it's cheap, it's light, and it's a good way for beginners to play around with narrow depth of field, but should it have this title of a staple in photographers' camera bags? Absolutely not. If it wasn't cheap, it'd be completely forgettable. So while it has its perks for beginners, the reverence for the 50mm f/1.8 is just confused driftwood being washed along by sound advice that it's a nice lens for beginners.
Shoot me down or offer an alternative lens that's overrated in the comments below.
Respectfully, I think you are confusing the idea of overrated and commonly recommended. By your own assessment, the 50mm 1.8 does all of the things that the people recommending it say it will. It is accessible to complete newbies which is why it is a familiar sight. Additionally, a 50mm 1.8 on an APS-C sensor turns into an 80mm 2.8 (Canon1.6x crop factor) so that is a super useful focal length.
If the 50mm 1.8 is overrated, it is not because of the lens but because of this bokeh-mania that is rammed down every new shooters throat constantly. No, you really don't need to shoot every portrait wide open. In fact, few lenses are sharpest wide open. You can get pleasing bokeh and have the subject head - from tip of the nose to back of the head - entirely in focus, people.
Sigma Art lenses. Not because they aren't sharp or render poor color, it's the fact that so many people that own them complain about focusing inconsistencies. I don't have an art, but did have the 50 and had to do major micro adjustments to get it right. I also have the 100-400 and it took a lot of adjusting to get it right.
Conversely, I have the Tamron 35 f1.8 and it's been a gem right out of the box.
24-70 and 35 ART lenses are some of the most reliable. In fact, I have 2 of the 35s. I don't have many focus problems with these, and I shoot low light events so AF is important to me.
Now the 135 f1.8 ART on the other hand...couldn't find an elephant under a spotlight. Totally regret buying that lens, especially as it also doesn't have IS.
When the 35 first hit the market, my son bought one. He had to send it back twice for the barrel loosening up. It was the type of thread sealant that Sigma was using at the beginning of the Art series. Either they weren't putting enough on or it just didn't hold. It's not been a problem since the early days, but it certainly left a sour taste in his mouth.
Fstoppers had an article last week saying that if you could have only one lens for the rest of your life it should a 50mm. They place the click bait on both sides. The 50mm f1.8 is not at all overrated. It is the best value lens out there by far considering you can get one for around $100 and it will outperform most lenses that cost $500. I shoot with a 50mm f1.8 on a regular basis and I find it to be perfect for an everyday lens because it sits in the middle making it's useful for just about anything. Landscape photography, street photography, portraits, travel, family photos it does it all. If you want to see how much a lens doesn't matter to make good photography then look at the 50mm lens. A great photographer can shoot anything with it and a crappy photographer will take boring photos with it.
Any super fast lens. The obsession with bokeh generates an outsize regard for any super fast lens far out of proportion to its utility.
For me the use of any lens is far more frequent at moderate apertures and paying a premium to stare at OOF areas is a waste of money.
I agree. The problem with super fast lenses is that they're so big and heavy. This means they often stay at home in the cupboard rather than going with you on your carry-around camera.
We have our opinions and so do my customers (I sell prints). My best selling prints are wildlife shots with quite blurred backgrounds. Just about every person that buys these prints marvels at the blurred foreground/background. Perhaps overused, but has a profound affect on a properly done image.
As a commercial photographer my goal is rarely to have BG so OOF as to be unreal. We strive to mimic the human view of the world where the BG is OOF but recognizable if examined.
Look at ads in every medium. Nearly all have deep DOF.
When it comes to tabletop and still life deep DOF is mandatory.
Some food fashion shots have shallow DOF but at close range and the correct lens you can do that at f4.
That's what works for your type of shooting. I use both depending on the shot. I sell prints, so I cater to what my clients like/want. You do the same, but your requirements differ from mine. My best selling print was shot at f6.3, but at 400mm and is nicely blurred with the subject in focus. That was my intent and it has proven to be a profitable choice.
The question is what is the most overrated lens. My answer doesn't work for you but considering that the vast bulk of photographers, both pro and amateur, do not use nor do they need fast lenses despite the endless articles on them and the endless posts extolling their excellence.
The best analogy is the auto enthusiast magazines with endless articles on high horsepower cars aimed at consumers whose basic needs are satisfied with a Honda Accord. When they do get ahold of an exotic, they are thrilled for a bit but slowly realize the fact that tooling around town and shopping in an $90,000 car is more of a drudge than delight.
OTOH there are many who like to stand next to their shiny lux-mobile and pose.
Vast bulk of photographers? Did you do a survey?
I can't say that I know a lot of photographers, but those that I do have at least a part of what many call the 'trinity''; f2.8 zooms of the 24-70 and/or 70-200. The lens that pretty much stays on my camera is an f1.8 Tamron 35. And, if I could afford it, I'd be driving an M4 and LOVING it. While not in the same class, I had a 350Z and I relished every moment in the seat. I like having fun getting from point A to point B. I think you're painting with a much too broad a brush.
As an event photographer inside dark venues, a fast aperture is the only way for me to keep the ISO down. Typically I will get up to around ISO 10,000 at f2.8
If I use a 1.4 lens I can get away with even darker shots, and sometimes still use ISO 6400 with that kind of aperture.
In my line of work, it is much better to have an OOF background than the picture be so dark you can't see anything.
So I would say actually a direct correlation between a wide aperture and the utility of a lens.
While I agree with Indy Thomas's comments about bokeh chasers, I'd disagree that the logical conclusion is "any superfast lens".
I shoot a lot of ice hockey. I would say that 95% of my shots are taken at f/2.8 on my 70-200. I'm not chasing bokeh but rather images with no motion blur at ISO levels that don't make me cry. In all the rinks I shoot in, the best ISO I can get for 1/1000th at f/2.8 is ISO4000. I have two rinks where I have to drop to 1/640th just to get ISO10000.
I think my biggest disagreement is that "the use of any lens is far more frequent at moderate apertures". I would argue that lenses with longer focal length ranges are far more likely to be used at extreme apertures due to their more frequent subject matter and the need for faster shutter speeds to prevent camera shake.
There seems to be a bit of confusion here. The question was "What is the most overrated lens?"
I stand by my answer. That answer does not mean that if you use a lens at wide open aperture that somehow it negates my position.
If I say "Porsche is an overrated car" saying "I own one and you are wrong" does not mean that it is no longer overrated. For the bulk of its performance envelope it is equalled or exceed by humbler vehicles. In the small slice of its performance envelope where it excels, you pay a very large premium for something that is used infrequently.
In the same way, each lens category has its modest spec lenses and its hero spec lenses. For the hero lenses you get performance that exceeds that of the modest lenses for a significant premium in price for a feature that is often infrequently used. ( I do acknowledge that you are far more likely to use and survive f 1.2 than a series of trips to 200MPH in a school zone).
The crux here is that for the user who lives at 175MPH (a professional racer) or the photographer that uses their lens ONLY at f1.2 for their business, then the tool is not overrated. I would argue that it would be hard to find data that supports the contention that those who buy ultra fast glass use it solely at maximum aperture every day (or at least with the frequency that they can boast "it is glued onto my camera").
Conversely, I would argue that the "holy trinity" lenses are the most underrated (especially the f4 class) as they represent the bulk of revenue generation among pros actually making their livings from photography.
sony 24-70gm, sony zeiss 35mm f1.4, canon 50,85 L f1.2 EF
I no longer own my Canon 6D nor my nifty-fifty. All I can say is that when I did, it was the nifty-fifty which spent most time on the front despite having a bag full of expensive L-series glass. It's light, it's flexible and it's fun. No, it's not the "best lens ever!!!!!" but I've never known anyone claim that it is. It has a job and it does it well.
I'm a hobbyist since 1977, and I learn something new with every lens I use. I cannot say that a lens is overrated, but I do have a bunch of them sitting unused & collecting dust. Today, I only use two lenses on two bodies (yes I carry two bodies 😊): The Canon EF 40mm f/2.8, and the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II.
Very interesting that you dish the humble 50mm 1.8. This was a total surprise to me...
I shoot with two lenses mainly, 50mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.8. Small, light, sharp and they don’t get in the way of getting the shot.
Last week I used a 24-70mm 2.8, I had to, it was a rush job, last minute for a great client and my lenses we being serviced.
I can honestly say the zoom, was heavy, slow to focus, dark, massively long and just too big and bulky...
The pictures were fine but the extra effort I had to put in because this big lump of glass just got in the way, would occasionally hunt etc...
We all shoot differently and modern lenses are brilliant but that zoom, albeit high end and popular just got in the way.
Robert knocking the 50mm...!!!
You need to get out and move your feet more.
G
I agree. 50mm was my second lens. And when I upgraded from Canon to GH5, I found myself getting a 25mm f0.95. Problem is, on both systems, I never really used it. My go to run an gun low light prime is the Sig 16 f1.4 because its a little wider for inside, and in general a more usable lens.
But if I were to pick another lens to choice from, it would be the 150-600mm. Rarely do I find myself needing to go past 200mm. Birds are kinda boring. Atmosphere distortions wreak it for landscape. And yet the only way to know is to have one. So the lesson was worth it and I will keep this lens for those times I will never use it. lol
To take a more philosophical approach, perhaps the most overrated lens is that which you've purchased because your favourite photographer/friends/colleagues/blogs have suggested is the best lens for everything you'll shoot, but it spends its time in the bag, or at home, as it does not suit you/your style.
50mm doesn't get a look-in here. I have an older Nikkor 50 1.4 but I never use it.
No amount of 'nifty-fifty' personal projects seem to make it attractive to me. Odd, dunno why really.
Any Leica or Zeiss branded lens.
While I personally think the trend of superfast f/1.1+ lenses is "overrated". To me, calling a particular type of lens "overrated" is pretty ridiculous because:
1) it's a completely subjective opinion and...
2) every lens in a photographer's kit has it's purpose, or at least provides the user with valuable experience.
Author is dead wrong here to the point where it seems like he is just trying to provoke a response. A cheap compact lens that you can literally shoot anything with is invaluable. I've worked on countless commercial jobs where the 50mm is used for 80% of the shots.
For fine art photography especially, you do not want to draw attention to the effect the focal length is having on your subject. For this reason alone a lens in the 40-60 range is incredibly useful. Look at the majority of images made on medium format cameras. 80mm on a Rolleiflex or Hasselblad, 75mm on Mamiya 6, 80mm on Mamiya 7, 90mm on Pentax 67, 80mm on Voigtlander Bessa III, list goes on. So many amazing photographers shooting portraits, reportage, landscape etc.. working with just a "normal" lens. Not to mention the long list of photographers with with a Leica + 50mm.
My vote is 24-70mm f/2,8. Many photographers tout it as their primary workhorse lens but no manufacturer makes on that is particularly good. They are always expensive, heavy, and have mediocre IQ at best. Unless you need the versatility of its zoom range while in a situation where you don't have the time to swap on-the-go there is virtually always a better choice that is cheaper and will render nicer images.
Well, your comment "while in a situation where you don't have the time to swap on-the-go" is pretty much every wedding photographer. LOL..... I must say my 24-70 is one of my favorite lenses and it always will be. All about preference I suppose.
As an exercise, this at least surfaces arguments for the 50mm focal length. Ultimately people shoot with the length they find appealing, intriguing, useful. "Always act in accordance with the dictates of your conscience, my boy, and chance the consequences."
24mm, 50mm prime lenses and 70-200mm lenses.
Obvious photographic click-bait! Weeeee!!!!! When "Robert K Baggs" achieves the iconic status of such photographers as Henri Cartier-Bresson or a Ralph Gibson (and others) who leaned toward shooting 50mm, I will take you seriously. Also -- cheap? Summicrons? Sigma Art? Not where I come from. And where, pray, in the UK is it where 50mm are "being shoved down your throat"? Scotland maybe? Dunno. I hope your photography is more creative and sound than your click-bait efforts.
Whatever your thoughts on the 50mm, it definitely is the most common lens that people recommend. It comes as a kit lens for a lot of entry level cameras, and I know several people who are not serious photographers but have told me about the "nifty-fifty" they got with their base level DSLR at Christmas. When the general population seems to know the specific term "nifty-fifty", I think it has reached a certain level of notoriety.
I do mostly portraits and I think the 50mm 1.8 is a great in studio lens for smaller studios/spaces if used correctly. For how inexpensive they are, there's almost no reason to not have one.
In my opinion.
As an aside, the flip side of most overrated; that being the most underrated. The Nikon 85mm 1.8g is perhaps one of the most underrated lenses around.
Again, in my opinion.
I have 2x 50mm 1.8 lenses. One came with the first camera I ever bought, and the other I bought myself at a later date.
To be honest, I don't even remember the last time I put them in my kit bag let alone used them. But I don't really mind as they are so cheap. I agree, they are so inexpensive there is no reason not to have it.
What I do use quite a lot though is the Canon 40mm 2.8 pancake lens. I have it on a Canon 200d, and use it as my general walkabout camera. If we go out for a family trip, I take that combo as a) it is actually lighter than the equivalent Fuji or Olympus setup b) It is cheap and I don't mind if it gets damaged.
That 40mm pancake costs about £100 second hand, and the slightly shorter focal length makes it more useful than the 50mm to pop on an APS-C body in my opinion
I've seen essays by third graders that are less vacuous. What an asinine waste of time.
100 2.8L macro
TL;DR it's a great lens for wading into macro and a capable portrait lens. The honeymoon ends pretty quick though.
There are a thousand articles out there suggesting a macro is indispensible but in my case it's my least used lens because it's the least useful. At macro distances the DOF is so shallow it's basically useless without focus stacking. You can only take so many handheld frozen bubble & single petal in focus flower shots before it runs its course. It's a lens that needs to be stopped down. IS loses effectiveness at MFD, so you increase the shutter speed and crank ISO to compensate. Or you drag along a speedlite, modifier and related accessories. PITA. Tripod is great in the studio, sucks in the field. Bugs move. Wind is not your friend for longish flower exposures. If the wind decides to cooperate you still need to take a dozen frames and stack them to get the whole thing in focus. Or back up and crop which sucks in its own way as well.
It is an awesome product photography lens in the studio however.
I also think the 85 1.8 is highly overrated. The colour fringing on my copy is so bad @ 1.8-2.5 that I shoot the thing in mono most of the time. It's just not an effective use of time trying to eliminate all the purple and green. A cheap lens doesn't justify the time spent dealing with its artifacts.
I was never a fan of the 50mm lens and I never understood what all the hype was about. It is not good in tight spaces and it has alot of distortion for portraits. My favorite lens for portraits has to be the 85mm. I would also choose the 35mm over the 50 any day. When photographers rave about the 50 I never get it. I think it has to do with the cost of the lens, but for me regardless of price, I just don't like it. I don't like the focal length and I don't like the distortion of it.
Any 70-200, no matter the make, no matter the version, no matter if the range is a bit out of that. They're all over rated. The only time I'll touch one is if I'm shooting something such as auto racing. Otherwise, it's junk.
The relatively expensive Sony/Zeiss 55/1.8 is my most used lens by far. I find that it's a great lens for casual portraits and candid shooting. The least used prime focal length in my bag is 85mm, but that's mainly because I favor the 135mm.
I consider an 85mm on a full frame body to be the most over-rated lens--for portraits at least. It produces homogenized (by now) boring shots that involve little thinking and creativity. Just frame the subject, blur the background, and call it a day. Other lenses really make you think, and stress, and come up with better ideas. Which is a good thing. Once you really get experience and confidence, you might one day even be able to rock a 28mm for portraits like, say, Jeanloup Sieff or Antonin Kratochvil.
IMO the MOST overrated lens isn't even from this decade.
Its the Meyer Goerlitz Trioplan 100mm 2.8, a lens that is still hyped for its bubbly bokeh. In the 90s and 2000s when adapting vintage glass was not as popular yet, you could pick it up for 50 bucks. But nowadays this lens sells for over $300 although its just a basic outdated 3 element design. It even got a remake that sells for around $700.
I can't really agree with the statement "all 50mm lenses are over-rated." When someone tells me they are getting their first real camera, and asks me what they ought to get in addition to the kit lens, I guess I ram the 50mm down their throat. Or at least, I ram a very specific 50mm down their throat- the fantastic plastic. I recommend it not because it's an amazing prime (it's OK) or because the focal length is so very very useful ([t's workable, but that's about it). I recommend it because these people are broke (they just splashed out for their first DSLR) and this is the best bang for the buck you can get for $100 ($50 if you buy the yongnuo). They get to play with thin DOF without shelling out a car payment. The lens would have to be terrible to be not worth such a cheap price. It's not terrible- it's OK.
Why there are any other 50mm lenses passes beyond my understanding. the EF 50mm f1.8 is a lens whose reason for existence is puzzling, the EF 50mm f1,2 is positively baffling. the RF 50mm f1.2 even more so. It costs more than the EOS R camera and weighs as much as a human head. (don't ask me how I know that.) It costs 3 times as much as my first car. And my first car was a beautiful white 1976 Monte Carlo with leather seats, not some clapped out Fiat Punto. If it was 35mm... well, I still wouldn't get it, because I don't really "get" the entire R system- but that's grist for another mill.
So, I would agree with you abut 50mm lenses, with a caveat excluding the cheapo 50s.
I never go anywhere without a little 50mm, takes up bugger all space and is useful in small spaces where a longer lens won't work
Overrated ... Leica 50 Noc
Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art - The sharpness was great but lens flare and CA was too much for my liking. Replaced it with the Zeiss 50mm 1.4 Planar ZF, different league altogether, smaller and lighter is a bonus too.
I leave my 50mm attached to my 5D2. I do find I always need to go wider or longer when I use it. But I enjoy it's size.
It's obviously all very subjective according to your photography style. But, for me, I do have to agree.
I fell into the trap of getting a 50 f/1.8 for no other reason than I had read so many articles telling me that I should as it would improve me as a photographer. I tried so hard to like that lens but just couldn't get on with it. In the end I put it down to not liking primes and stuck with zooms.
Then, earlier this year, I switched to a Canon RP and decided to get the RF 35mm f/1.8 to go with it. It's a combination that I love and, outside of sport, I haven't shot with a zoom lens since.
What it's made me realise is that the 50mm's strength, "it kind of works in many different scenarios", was even more true for my zoom lenses. And the zoom lenses disadvantages (heavier, larger aperture) hurt me less than the nifty-fifty's (it isn't great for anything that I was typically shooting). So the 50 has just sat gathering dust. I genuinely couldn't tell you when it was last put on the front of a camera. I do know that it is at least over three years ago. If it was worth more, it would have been on eBay long ago.
So, it's not that the 50 is a bad lens. It just didn't live up to the expectations that I'd been set because I've since discovered that I'm a 35mm photographer, not a 50mm photographer and that there is a world of difference between those two photographers.
It definitely didn't make me a better photographer. Just one who was £100 poorer. Which is why it's my personal most overrated lens.
Agree,
I never liked the 50mm length and therefor own the Nikon 35mm 1.4G, 58mm 1.4G and 85mm 1.4G using the 58mm the least of the three primes I shoot. However the Nikon 50mm 1.8G is an amazing lens for the value and I do recommend it for beginners. I never liked the 50mm focal length and disagree it's most like normal eye site, believing the 35mm focal length to be much closer to our normal vision.
Agree - its naturalistic perspective is boring in my eyes.
Anything over $500?