Canon 2750B002

Based on when customers actually wrote their reviews - so you can see whether early praise held up.

1. Q4 202240/1001.0★3 reviews

   Buyers in Q4 2022 reported mixed experiences: one praised image quality and unique look, while another criticized severe coma for astrophotography and a third had autofocus failures on two copies.

   • 👎Autofocus problems on two copies, unlike other L lenses.
   • 👎Severe coma at wide apertures, unsuitable for astrophotography.
   • 👍Amazing image quality wide open, unique look, recommended.
2. Q3 2019100/1005.0★4 reviews

   Buyers in Q3 2019 praised the lens for its sharpness, beautiful bokeh, and low-light performance, noting it outperforms zooms and is versatile for close-ups and landscapes. Despite its age and price, they found it worth the investment.

   • 👍Sharpness and bokeh at f/1.4 are outstanding, with minimal distortion compared to zooms.
   • 👍Excellent low-light autofocus and performance, ideal for nightclubs and indoor shooting.
   • 👍Versatile close focus and landscape capability, replacing zoom lenses for many users.
   • 👍Solid build, good weight and balance, with no regrets despite the high price.
3. Q2 2014100/1005.0★3 reviews

   Buyers praised the lens for portraits, product shots, and night photography, highlighting sharpness, low-light capability, and minimal coma. Distortion was noted but correctable.

   • 👍Excellent sharpness and edge-to-edge definition, especially for product photography.
   • 👍F1.4 aperture enables low-light shooting with low ISO and minimal coma.
   • 🤔Wide-angle distortion exists at close distances but is correctable in post-processing.
   • 👍Versatile for portraits in small spaces and full-body shots with shallow depth of field.
4. Q3 201388/1004.8★4 reviews

   Buyers praise the lens's exceptional optics, build quality, and low-light performance, but note autofocus inconsistency at f/1.4, plastic barrel parts, and a high price.

   • 👍Exceptional image quality: sharpness, contrast, color, and minimal distortion, with great low-light capability.
   • 👍Solid build with metal body and weather sealing; survived a drop, though some plastic parts noted.
   • 🤔Autofocus unreliable at f/1.4, varying shot-to-shot; users suggest burst mode to ensure focus.
   • 👎High price and plastic barrel (except filter thread) are drawbacks; bokeh not as good as longer lenses.
5. Q1 201367/1004.0★3 reviews

   Buyers praise sharpness, build, and low-light performance, but one notes severe distortion on full-frame and another mentions chromatic aberration and flare.

   • 👍Excellent image quality, sharpness, and build; great for low light and landscapes.
   • 👎Pronounced distortion on full-frame creates fish-eye effect, unacceptable for professional use.
   • 🤔Chromatic aberration and flare at wide apertures, but controlled and not as bad as 35L.
   • 👍Fast, accurate autofocus and smooth manual focus ring; reliable in tough conditions.
6. Q3 201260/1004.0★5 reviews

   Buyers praised image quality and build, but several reported soft focus, especially wide open and at infinity, with one noting a defective first copy.

   • 👎Soft focus issues, particularly wide open and at infinity, disappointed landscape and low-light shooters.
   • 👍Excellent image quality, especially for night star photography, with superb background blur and solid construction.
   • 🤔Focus accuracy varied: one copy front-focused consistently, while a replacement performed flawlessly.
   • 👍Fast and accurate autofocus on a good copy, making it versatile for all-around use.
7. Q2 201295/1005.0★4 reviews

   Buyers praised the lens for its sharpness, fast focus, and build quality. Minor vignetting at wide apertures was noted but easily corrected. One reviewer mentioned concerns about focus issues, but their copy worked well.

   • 👍Sharpness and image quality consistently praised, with excellent color and low distortion.
   • 👍Fast and quick autofocus, contributing to overall satisfaction.
   • 🤔Vignetting at f/1.4 on full frame, but easily fixed in post-processing.
   • 🤔Some users reported focus issues, but this reviewer's copy worked fine, suggesting possible user error.
8. Q4 201152/1003.4★5 reviews

   Buyers praised image quality, speed, and build, but several reported serious autofocus failures, with one returning the lens. Value for money was questioned due to high price and limited versatility.

   • 👎Autofocus unreliable: random misses, only one-third of shots focused on 7D, leading to returns.
   • 👍Excellent image quality: sharp, great color/contrast, fast in low light, ideal for landscapes.
   • 🤔Expensive and single-use prime; some suggest zoom alternatives for versatility.
   • 🤔Build quality rugged, but sample variation: soft center, vignetting, and exposure quirks noted.
9. Q3 201123/1002.3★3 reviews

   Buyers in this period praised build quality and wide-angle use, but most reported severe autofocus inconsistency, front-focus issues, and repeated defective copies, suggesting a design flaw.

   • 👎Autofocus often missed or broke down; inconsistent focus and severe front focus at f/1.8.
   • 👎Multiple defective copies (fourth return) indicate quality control or design flaw.
   • 👍Build quality is high as expected; good for panoramic photos and interesting portraits.
   • 🤔Compared to 85L, autofocus is night and day; 85L is magical but this lens disappoints.
10. Q4 201075/1004.5★4 reviews

    Buyers praise the lens for sharpness, color, and build, but one reports serious autofocus issues requiring repair, while others found AF accurate.

    • 👍Exceptional sharpness, color, and contrast; images need less post-processing.
    • 🤔Autofocus performance varies: one unit missed focus 80% of the time, others were accurate.
    • 👍Lightweight, well-built, with fast and quiet focusing; weather sealing appreciated.
    • 👎High price is a notable drawback, though some consider it justified.
11. Q1 200972/1004.2★5 reviews

    Buyers praise the lens's sharpness, build, and performance, especially for underwater photography, but several report quality control issues requiring exchanges.

    • 👍Sharpness and image quality are excellent, especially wide open, and it outperforms the previous version.
    • 👎Quality control issues: multiple copies with back focus or softness at f/1.4, requiring returns or exchanges.
    • 👍Excellent for underwater photography with close focus capability and compatibility with housings.
    • 🤔Build and handling are improved, but some advise testing copies before purchase due to variability.

Based on 75 dated customer reviews, grouped by calendar quarter. Period analysis is in English.