[toni-a]

Some lenses are quite unique, you are ready to get the cameras that work with them because it's hard to take pictures without them.

For me it has bern Canon EFS 17-55f2.8 IS extremely handy, very reliable, never let me down, I missed it after going full frame and switched back without regrets. I even updated to D because of focus issues with 750D now I am very happy I can use it again

Amazing lens sharp straight from 2.8 ,ideal range, fast, great colors, decent bokeh, vignetting at 17mm can be easily corrected really nothing to complain about, if it's broken I won't hesitate buying it again.

[JJ_SO]

"You would invest" is not the same as "I know it after I got that system and I stick with the system because there's one standard zoom I like"

 

For instance, you didn't know how reliable it would be before you bought and used it. I can't say that any lens of two dozens ever "let me down" because that's basically the camera, rarely the lens. You also didn't know if it's not too short, too long, too slow - unless you tried it.

 

So, to me a thread title like that is kind of childish. And misleading, too. 

[wim]

What about a bunch of lenses?

 

When I got my first dslr, a Canon 350D, I went for Canon because of the user interface, the OVF which allowed me to focus manually with my bad eyes (I could not, and still can;t, with a Nikon), and because of the TS-E and MP-E lenses. I've always wanted to use a tilt-shift lens, and I have been doing macro and micro for a long time.

 

Of course I moved to FF quite a long time ago, when the 5D II came out, with a 5D first, and a year later with a 5D II, and based on my experiences, I would still go with Canon for exactly the same lenses, and the 24L, 50L and 135L in addition.

 

As to MFT, I got that first and foremost because of weight and size, and more than good enough IQ (Panasonic GF2 back then). These days, with what I know now, I would still go for MFT even if just because of the Oly 25 Pro (25 F/1.2). And I just love the higher end Oly bodies.

 

And as long as I can keep shooting these two systems, the way it looks now I will stay with these two systems.

 

Kind regards, Wim

[Brightcolours]

The Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 OS HSM is pretty close to what that Canon lens does, just cheaper, more sturdy and less heavy. That Canon 17-55mm is not a good example at all "for which one would invest in a system".

And you should not call it an investment, as one does not buy such consumer photo gear to make a profit with it. Rather, just call it an expense?

[obican]

Oh here I go

 

Sony FE:

 

12-24/4: Excellent quality and is tiny compared to all the alternatives in other systems. 

55/1.8: Again, Sigma 50mm Art and Otus are in the same league in quality, both are hilariously large and heavy comprared to it. Also, is as cheap as the Sigma.

 

There are many other impressive lenses in the system but those two have no alternatives in other systems if you factor in everything.

 

Fuji:

 

14/2.8: Only thing that is comparable is the Zeiss 21mm and the ART. Both are hilariously larger and more expensive.

16/1.4: Maybe Nikon 24/1.8G is as attractive. Maybe. Batis 25/2 too but that one comes with a price, otherwise I'd put it up there in the Sony section.

56/1.2: Magnificent. 

90/2: Another lovely lens. I just love how it works with the light.

55-200/3.5-4.8: Might be the best 70-300 equivalent lens. Has a nice aperture, is compact, quality is really good and is priced quite farily. Yes there are better lenses but this one is in such a sweet spot.

 

Canon EF:

 

Any of their TS-E lenses: Especially the 17mm. Nothing comes close. No, Nikon 19mm is not an alternative. And has been available for years.

135/2: Ridiculously good lens. I wouldn't search for anything sharper and is probably the most compact, fast, AF 135mm by anyone.

85/1.2: Huge, not really that sharp, focuses hilariously slow but that rendering is worth everything.

 

Nikon:

 

Their whole 1.8G series: Probably the best all-rounders. All very decent performers, all very decently sized and priced. 

 

 

I'm skipping some still excellent lenses such as Canon 100/2.8L, Batis 25/2, Sony 16-35/4, Fuji 10-24, Nikon 14-24/2.8 because while they are absolutely stellar options, other systems have just as viable options.

 

Also from legacy systems:

 

Hasselblad V:

 

Any of them. 

 

Sony/Minolta A:

 

Zeiss 50/1.4, 85/1.4, 135/1.8: Beautiful things!

Sony 85/2.8: Small, doesn't weigh anything nor cost anything and is very beautiful.

Minolta 70-210/4 Beercan: Can't beat it for the price. 

[mst]

The Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 OS HSM is pretty close to what that Canon lens does, just cheaper, more sturdy and less heavy. That Canon 17-55mm is not a good example at all "for which one would invest in a system".

And the Sigma is just a little less sharp, isn't it? Seriously: I don't see it as competition really. And I fully understand toni: when I switched to Nikon the EF-S 17-55 was on of the lenses I really missed afterwards. And there still is nothing like it.

To answer toni's question: I'm happy with what's available for the cameras I use. However, I was always very curious about trying out an STF lens in the field, but intentionally never did, just to avoid temptation

[davidmanze]

  Favourite lens?....no surprises the 150-600mm G2.... a FF lens, but I still get sharp images from 4 Mps crops (600mm) on the APSc sensor.

[Rover]

I second Obican's opinion on the Sony 12-24. Though Fuji has, or is poised to have, a great deal of excellent and unique lenses.

[JJ_SO]

I second Obican's opinion on the Sony 12-24. Though Fuji has, or is poised to have, a great deal of excellent and unique lenses.

 

yeah, with the small addendum "excellent lenses for those who have no problems with focus by wire"  <_<

[Rover]

yeah, with the small addendum "excellent lenses for those who have no problems with focus by wire"  <_<

I have zero issues with that since I use manual focus... well, for the practical purposes, never.