[chrismiller]

fuji 23mm/2.0 (the one built into the x100)

Canon 35 1.4

[stoppingdown]

I'd like to thank Dave, who originated this post, not only for providing another excuse for pleasant chatting, but also because the topic made me think more than I expected... Ok, let's start from the simple part. As others, I had various phases:

 

• 1998-2000: first approach, Minolta cameras and two cheap lenses (24-70 and something like a 70-300). Just to spend less money and see whether the hobby was ok for me.
  
• 2000-2013: serious approach, embracing Nikon, with the intermediate switch to digital in 2003. I went for the prime way: 24 f/2.8, 35 f/2 (later f/1.8), 50 f/1.8, 85 f/1.8, 180 f/2.8, 300 f/4. My understanding - without being able to test the thing by myself - was that zooms (apart from the very expensive ones) were of inferior quality; and I liked the idea of walking rather than zooming. The only exception was for the 12-24mm f/4, because in the UWA a few mm make great changes, and would require too many lenses.
  
• 2012-2014: I realised that my approach to photography was changing. Around 2001 I had a "unofficial" nervous breakdown because of too much work, and I was ordered to relax. Photography in the open air was a perfect way of relaxing. I could afford to relax, because - at least - that too much work had brought some wealth. In years around 2005/2006 there was the peak of the relaxed approach. I was able to take advantage of any business travel to add some days of free journeys. For instance, I was attending a yearly business conference in Antwerp, and for 4 days of conference I was able to take 10 days: 3 to drive northbound from Genoa to Antwerp and 3 for the return trip, of course spending only the unavoidable on highways. I was able to wander through Bourgogne and Champagne, of spotting a ruined castle and take a few hours to drive and walk around to seek for the best perspective and light. I had time to change prime and walking instead of zooming. After some years, things started to change. The increasing uncertainty in Europe (2008 didn't strike hard in general, but at the time one of my major contractors was a USA university operating in Florence, and it was hit hard - I realised it was just a matter of time before the waves came to Europe), the continuous increase of taxes and, later, the surge of health problems with elder members of my family progressively eroded time. Photography was more and more done in a hurry. Furthermore, I "discovered" Alps and unfortunately walking through steep slopes for me is quite hard. Less time, less chances of walking... I was pushed to have another look at zooms. I read a very good review by Thom Hogan of an inexpensive lens such as the Nikkor 18-70mm and decided to have a try. It was revealing. Much more photos, much more keepers, no more little pain of seeing some photos that were just a bit "too narrow" on the subject, much more pleasure.
  
• 2014: In the meantime I started to have my own health problems at neck and back. Hence the desire of reducing weight and the mirroless switch. My excellent experience with the 18-70mm made me choose only zooms for the Sony system.
  

If I look at the statistics for the Nikkor system I see:

• 300mm 50%
  
• 12-24mm 18%
  
• 180mm 10%
  
• 85mm  6%
  
• 18-70mm 5%
  

The 300mm was for birding and wildlife, that in the former years were prevalent, so that figure is obvious. It's also probably magnified by the fact that I shoot much more at a moving subject, and have many keepers, than a static one. For the rest, the 18-70 stands out as its 5% was done in just a couple of years, while the other lenses were in my bag since a decade. If I look at statistics only for 2012-2014, the 18-70mm has got the 37% and the 300mm the 35%.

 

It turns out that the 12-24mm and the 18-70mm (for landscapes), and the 300mm f/4 (mostly for wildlife, with a switch towards landscape in the latest years) can be really nominated my favourites of the Nikkor phase.

 

A special mention, though, goes to the 180mm and the 85mm. In the age of the OVF I loved them because they were bright in the viewfinder, and really sharp. I'm still guessing whether I'll have the courage to sell the 180mm, even though I'll never use it.

 

The Samyang 8mm had a peak when I bought it, mostly used for "panoramas in a single shot" (with heavy vertical cropping, or defishing), but since Lightroom introduced the stitching feature I've switched to stitched panoramas with other lenses. Since then, it’s used for really “fish-eye” shots, but this makes it a specialty lens.

 

When looking at the Sony statistics I see:

• 16-70mm 43%
  
• 70-200mm f/4 28%
  
• 10-18mm 11%
  

Apparently, it makes sense: the 16-70 is the natural "heir" of the 18-70. But these numbers are not stable yet: my Nikon bag was completed in 2003, so those statistics are related to more than a decade of full availability, while my Sony bag has been completed just a few months ago. Also, there's a "énamourement" phenomenon so I'm using a lot the latest bought lens (also to get in acquaintance with it). In two months I've used the Sigma 150-600mm a lot, but it is a much shorter time than for the other lenses.

 

But - here the part that made me think - while for the Nikon age those numbers are telling the same story of my perception, I don't feel the same for the Sony lenses. The 16-70, if it was as it should be, should be the king. But its decentering defects prevent it from being (even though, clearly, the quality is much better than the Nikkor 18-70). In the end, my perceived favourite of the Sony system is the 70-200mm, even though it's not the typical "mirrorless" lens.

 

Doing the maths for this post, I realised that the 10-18mm is under-used. It's a bit strange. It's true that 10-11mm are somewhat hard to be properly used and the upper 2mm are covered by the 16-70. But the intermediate range 12-16mm? Perhaps I've just become too lazy and I'm reluctant to change lenses while on the field?

 

The Trioplan is another favourite (even though I'm still far from being able to use it at all its capabilities), but it's a specialty.

 

PS When I decided for zooms, I still thought I had to own a few primes and force myself to use them once in a while. But the Sigma 30mm f/2.8, that was the very first lens bought with the NEX-6 because it was good and inexpensive, and at first I wanted to experience the EVF, has been used only for the initial tests. The Samyang 12mm, as I told you in the past days, was only tested too - true that it has been intended by me as a specialty lens, for astro panoramas, and I hardly have chances for that kind of shots.

 

But in the past days I've actually forced myself to use it - also taking advantage from the fact that during this month I'm doing much more hikes than usual, in places that I know since I was a child and have been perused (so I have less fear of losing something fundamental if I go out just with a single lens). So far it gave me the highest satisfaction of the month, which is worth complimenting this post with an image. I fell I’ll think of it in the next weeks…

 

*** Edited to replace the photo with one with a hopefully better compression.

 

 [ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]

[Rover]

Canon 16-35/4L IS. It's as sure as death by 16 ton weight, and as perfect as a lens can be. It's impossible for this lens to fluff up; if I don't get the shot, it's my own fault. More so than with any other lens.

Canon 24/1.4L II. Do I need this lens? (which cost me over $1000 to buy new) No. Do I love to shoot with it? Hell yes. Even though it's finicky to focus in difficult light conditions (where the aforementioned 16-35 is so sure-footed that it's scary; unfortunately, that one does not do f/1.4 or even f/1.8 - the latter being my preferred aperture when I'm shooting with the 24 as the aberrations are reined in some).

Canon 70-200/2.8L IS. It's been my go-to lens for over 8 years now, and though I also own a Tamron 70-300/4-5.6 now, the Canon is still my default choice of a telephoto lens. Even so, lately I've been thinking of replacing it with a second version or even some manner of a 100-400/4.5-5.6, but either way I lack the resources to do that.

Sigma 14/2.8. This is a deeply flawed lens (soft at edges until stopped way down, flares too easily, the AF is again pretty erratic in bad light - the latter makes it my "spray and pray" lens more so than any other. But I love the output and while I don't whip it out every day, it made me some very memorable keepers. I've been keeping it for 6,5 years despite its shortcomings - that must be saying something.

 

That about concludes the tour of my lens shelf, by the way. Whatever I didn't like, I jettisoned one way or another. The Tamron is along for the ride... for now, and I also own a 50/1.8 II that is impossible to sell anyway. I guess my lineup would have been pretty standard for a journalistic cannon fodder 6 or 8 years ago (though with a different 16-35); not so now because everyone and their grandma are now shooting full frame cameras, and that demands a standard zoom more than a wide-angle one, so most people switched to 24-70 of some sort. I can admit that I never owned one.

 

And yes - I don't remember any lenses in the past that I regret not owning anymore. Maybe because my Minolta system was put together so haphazardly, and after I switched to Canon I've been steadily building up, not winding down.

[Guest]

In the days of film I used to have a special liking for the old

vivitar series one 90 f2.5

contax c/y 25f2.8mm (the ae version i hated; there was a change optically with the mm version)

contax 100f3.5 (still a very good lens but i sold my copy as too lazy to use adaptors and film is a pia (also sold my film cameras a few years ago)

-

I had a voigt 125f2.5 apo but sold it  - only used it once or twice but never really loved it. Didn't hurt that prices for the lens were very low when I purchased and astromical when I sold.

-

only modern lens I had a special liking for was the olympus 12-60 f2.8-f4 but in part because for such a wide range it was decent; the lens it self wasn't magic but it wasn't bad.

-

These days I mostly shoot micro 4/3 and fuji but in reality I don't take that many artistic pictures.

-

Another lens i liked a *lot* were the mamiya 7 lenses; these really were fantastic if you took the time to use the system. I esp liked the 150f4.5 and 65f4. They were extremely sharp with high saturation and decent rendering.

-

If fuji medium format system has lenses like those I might bite the bullet. To be honest I've been very disappointed with modern systems rendering. Perhaps I am more picky but digital system seem to have highlighted annoying flaws (esp chromatic shift); though olympus has also done a very poor job with fast lens rendering (50-200; 300; and a few others).

[Reinier]

My favourite lenses are start with a suprise.

 

My favourite lens starts with a Sigma 28-70 2.8, no EX or other fancy follow up. The lens was far from great if you look only to image quality, the AF was slow, it was heavy. So, why could this be a favourite lens? Because it is the lens with which my journey in photography really took off. And hence it is in that sense a favourite, because I hold some great memories using this lens in beautiful places. (which I am not able to re-visit anymore, because of my health). I used it on my EOS 5 analogue, together with Velvia 100 and Provia 100 slide film.

 

My current favourite lenses are:


- Canon 70-200mm 4.0 which yield beautiful sharp photographs. The focal length is not ideal, because I can hardly walk. But still the image and build quality are great. When I first bought this lens, a decade or so ago, I was disappointed with the lens and aksed myself how can all the tests say this lens is great. I sent my copy back to Canon Netherlands, but they say nothing is wrong with the lens. But the IQ wasn't there and there was something wrong. When I took a picture of a bed of flowers, then the center was sort of sharp, but the rest was distorted in a strange way. And four years ago I dropped the lens and the front element was cracked. So I had the lens repaired and since then the lens lifted up to its name. So, there was definitely something wrong, but why they told me otherwise? Maybe because my EOS 5D had to be sent back three times, because of a bad repair and my 70-200mm had to be sent back once. And that's not all the problems I have had with the Dutch repair center,

 

- Canon TS-E 24mm (mk. I), it is very versatile, sharp and great to work with. Sadly, because above mentioned problems, I don't use it much.

 

- Tamron SP AF200-500MM F/5-6.3 Di LD. It is heavy and big, but has a great focal length. Especially for someone who sits in a wheelchair outside of the house.

 

- Canon 100mm macro. I don't have this lens anymore, but it is still one of my favourites. Maybe in the future...........

 

I would love to have a favourite standard zoom lens, but I don't. I own a 28-105 II, but I just don't like it. Maybe a 28-135mm or a 24-105 4.0 will be bought in the future.

 

Kind regards,


Reinier

[wim]

I've wanted to add my thoughts here for quite a while, but work and other stuff prevailed.

 

Anyway, the oldest lens I recall I really liked, was an SMC Takumar 105 F/2.8. That was in the days I still owned a Praktica LTL and a Praktica LLC . This was my favourite lens by far in my early SLR days, back in1973 and 1974 . I owned 4 lenses back then (35 mm 3rd party, 50 mm Praktica, 105 mm Takuma and 135 mm Meyer, plus a Panagor macro-converter).

 

In 1974 or 1975 I got my first Pentax, an ME, and traded in the 105 Takumar for a 100 F/4 SMC Pentax Macro (which I still own ). I liked that lens too, but not as much as the 105. A few years later I got an MX as well, with a 40 F/2.8 and a bit later a 21 F/4. Those, with the 50 F/1.8 where the lenses I used most, and liked most, although I did get two of the better 3rd party zooms back then, Tokina I think. In the 1980s I did a lot of specialist macro work, I loved using the Leitz Focotar macro lenses back then, especially the 25 mm.

 

Forward to 1994, and I got another Pentax, MZ50 I think, but i never really liked that a lot, and sold that on, including the lenses I got with that. For about 10 years photographed very little, other than with compacts, too busy with work, family etc. Then I started to get more into another hobby of mine, requiring photographs again, for use digitally. After soem deliberation, I got a Canon G5, and got hooked again, resulting in my first dslr, a Canon 350D, immediately with a bunch of lenses I knew I wanted . Never looked back since either, and of all the lenses I tried, used, bought, sold on, rebought etc., my current lens line-up is really what I like a lot:

 

TS-E 17L

TS-E 24L II

TS-E 45

TS-E 90

 

24L II

50L

85L II

135L

180L Macro

 

MP-E 86 Macro

Extender 1.4x III

 

I also loved the 70-200 F/4 Ls, but always shot at the ends of the zoomrange, which is why I sold them, and the 100-400L, which I owned twice - great lens for macro actually. I will probably get the Mk II at soem stage, and that will likely be the only Canon zoom lens I will own, barring possibly the 8-16 Fisheye and the latest UWA zoom, 11-24. But then, I've got something with WAs .

 

Other lenses I really liked were the 24L Mk I, 28 F/1.8, 50 F/2.5 Macro and EF-S 60 Macro.

 

Other than my Canon FF setup, I also own an MFT setup, first a Panasonic GF-2, followed by an Olympus M10, and now an M-5 II. Love it because it is nice and compact, and easily better than my old 350D and/or 400D. Lenses wise I always enjoyed the pana 20 F/1.7, 14 F/2.5, 7-14 F/4, Leica 45 F/2.8 macro, and for casual shooting the panny 14-140 - I still own these, and still use them. Besides those I now also have and like the Oly 14-42 EZ, because it is nice and compact, the verdict for me is still out for the Oly 12-40, panny 35-105 and Oly 12-50. This because I mostly shoot with primes. The 12-40 is really excellent, as is the 35-105, the 12-50 is ok, but certainly not my favourite.

 

One thing I really love with MFT is the Metabones 0.64X EF to MFT adapter - I use that with my Canon lenses when I do not mind taking a little more stuff along when travelign light. Combined with the 85L II an 135L it is is utterly amazing. The 85L II becomes a 109 mm F/1.5 equivalent lens, which essentially brings me back to my favourite focal length of 43 years ago, just quite a bit faster. Love it.

 

Kind regards, Wim

 

 

 

[Rover]

For a couple of years back in 2005/6 my favourite lens was also my only lens, 18-70mm Nikkor.

 

Today, lenses are like trousers. I just put on what is needed for the day.

I had a similar situation for a year, with the Canon 17-55/2.8. If the lens hadn't screwed me over with mechanical failures, it would have been a pretty nice stint. Though by now, I don't own a standard lens - I much prefer a wider and a longer perspective.