What's you favorite DSR lenses? Even if you use another brand!

[Diane Fields]

Well Ken, I back what you say and would go one step further.

It is best for a new photgrapher to have just one lens for at least the first year. I would suggest the 50 1.8 or the 501.4 or best the 50 2.5 Macro.

One lens can give mastery of something and a feel for photography. The point to learn is framing. Zooming can be done with the feet or with Photoshop.

Unless one is starting with birds or sports, there's no need, IMHO, for any other lens most of the time.

I find it useful to see how some lenses are utilized by others who's work I admire. For example, only by hearing from Nicolas, did I have any idea how great hte sigma 12-24 zoom is. So these threads can reveal where one could indeed get rid of lenses and consolidate.

I'm not that cynical. I take the good and am not bothered about the rest.

Asher

When I look back at my film cams I know I shot for years and years on various film cameras with a 50---and finally added a 70/200 and that kept me happy for years and years--Not sure why I never added a wider but have shot on the wider end (well 'standard' and wider) now for years with the majority of my photography.

I think I've only been pushed to explore another lens by one photographer--otherwise, I've just watched what FL I've been shooting, what my intention is---and I've moved more in that FL range. I've also found that its been helpful to have 2 'kits' so to speak--a zoom (of which the 24-70 is by far the most used--both for commercial and personal) and my later preferences for faster primes. I would always use my primes but sometimes they are less than appropriate for the situation.

Diane

 

[Ken Tanaka]

When I look back at my film cams I know I shot for years and years on various film cameras with a 50---and finally added a 70/200 and that kept me happy for years and years--Not sure why I never added a wider but have shot on the wider end (well 'standard' and wider) now for years with the majority of my photography.

I think I've only been pushed to explore another lens by one photographer--otherwise, I've just watched what FL I've been shooting, what my intention is---and I've moved more in that FL range. I've also found that its been helpful to have 2 'kits' so to speak--a zoom (of which the 24-70 is by far the most used--both for commercial and personal) and my later preferences for faster primes. I would always use my primes but sometimes they are less than appropriate for the situation.

Diane

Diane and Asher:
I, too, used only a 50mm lens when I got my first "serious" camera (a Canon TLb, circa 1974/75). It was the kit lens and my budget, as a poor student, could not accommodate anything more. In retrospect, I think poverty often begets creativity. Until approximately 1980 I had to explore everything possible with that 50mm lens and that very modest (but extremely robust) slr. No auto-focus (it didn't exist), no auto-exposure.

Of course it's a new photographic world today. Folks coming into single lens reflex photography today are generally coming from digital point-and-shoot cameras, even the most modest of which features a zoom lens. The thought of starting with a sole fixed focal length lens on a more capable camera is unthinkable, particularly since many of the dslr kits feature good zoomers.

Still, like you, I do strongly endorse a 1-lens approach to new photographers even if it's a zoom lens. Not only will it more effectively channel one's creativity towards the image, rather than lenses, it will also keep your sensor cleaner!

 

[Diane Fields]

Diane and Asher:
Isnip
Of course it's a new photographic world today. Folks coming into single lens reflex photography today are generally coming from digital point-and-shoot cameras, even the most modest of which features a zoom lens. The thought of starting with a sole fixed focal length lens on a more capable camera is unthinkable, particularly since many of the dslr kits feature good zoomers.

I think this is exactly correct. Very few 'new' dslr photographers will be happy with a one lens approach at first, because, as you say, they are coming from a zoom world. I think it may be more likely as they mature with the camera and find this a good way to push themselves a bit.

Diane

 

[Erik DeBill]

I think this is exactly correct. Very few 'new' dslr photographers will be happy with a one lens approach at first, because, as you say, they are coming from a zoom world. I think it may be more likely as they mature with the camera and find this a good way to push themselves a bit.

I wonder if the opposite won't happen. People's art is always influenced by the technology available to implement it.

The current crop of photographers are used to some very different things.

• smaller, more ubiquitous and unobtrusive cameras
• easier access to larger prints
• publishing prints online, where they are effectively smaller and less detailed than anything but snapshots were previously
• color. always color.
• easy manipulation of the image after capture
• all cameras can zoom
• consumer cameras that can produce large prints at high quality
• houses are much larger, with more wall space

I know that I look at 50mm-e as feeling quite wide angle. For all intents and purposes I did my formative photography on a 1.6x crop factor camera with a 112-480mm-e lens. When I got a 50mm prime it seemed impossibly wide - at 80mm-e!

8x10's used to be "wow" big. You needed much larger printing equipment and you couldn't go much larger than that with 35mm negatives in most cases anyway. Now I regularly print 10x15's from my 8MP camera, sometimes as little more than test prints.

I'm sure we've all noticed how pictures for the web need to be very simple, with bold elements in order to stand up to the lower resolution of monitors (in many cases further shrunk my the encroachments of flickr or other sites). Surfers have shorter attention spans, that necessitate a big emotional impact and don't leave room for subtlety.

We've all cut and pasted someone's head onto someone else's body, or added someone to a picture that wasn't there before. How will this play out in the world of art?

I'm betting that we end up with completely new sensibilities after a while.

Why try to push people into the old paradigm?

 

[Asher Kelman]

Why try to push people into the old paradigm?

The issue is to keep things simple and cause the photographer to walk around the subject and contemplate how to take the picture.

The skill thus aquired will then make it much more worthwhile to use any other lenses.

One can also do it with a zoom, but I think it is more complicated and doesn't force one to think and hunt so much for the best composition one can imagine.

It's all about learning "Grays Anatomy" before doing heart surgery, so to speak.

Asher

 

[Diane Fields]

The issue is to keep things simple and cause the photographer to walk around the subject and contemplate how to take the picture.

The skill thus aquired will then make it much more worthwhile to use any other lenses.

One can also do it with a zoom, but I think it is more complicated and doesn't force one to think and hunt so much for the best composition one can imagine.

It's all about learning "Grays Anatomy" before doing heart surgery, so to speak.

Asher

That was my thinking--maybe I didn't convey that thought well. The single lens certainly doesn't have to be a 50--it could be an 85, a 28, a 100--a macro for that matter.

Diane

 

[Deborah Kolt]

Lenses again

Hi Deborah,

The 70-200 is everyone's favorite, although I think that the star might become the new 4.0 IS especially as Canon advances in low noise at high ISO.

How does one break in a 200 1.8? More important, how did you find it?

(The 24-70 you would use more often if you did the weddings where they demand 500 social pictures at the reception, or maybe you use the 35 1.4 L.)

Anyway, I'm impressed at your lens collection!

Asher

Hi Asher,

I would love to use the 70-200 f4, if only I were shooting in more locations with decent light. Sigh.

Hopefully, I'm not breaking in the 200 the same way I did the 70-200! After I had been shooting with it for about a month, one afternoon the 70-200 rolled towards the edge of the desk - slowmotion, as if my life were slowly passing in front of my eyes - and hit the floor. (And I thought that desk was level!) When I began breathing again and tried it out, it was as if nothing had ever happened - not a hiccup. It definitely is built like a tank.

I bought the 200 from Lee at Chamcamera in South Korea. He regularly sells them on ebay - finding them seems to be his specialty. Condition was even better than advertised, and his service is incredible. I wired payment (he doesn't deal with Paypal), and in less than 48 hours the lens was in the US. Fantastically packed, all sorts of extras included in the box, plus he also sent me $200 to have it cleaned because when shipping they discovered some dust inside that they they hadn't noticed initially, and thus hadn't disclosed. (I don't see it, but will take his word for it.) Can't remember when I've had service like his, but judging from comments from others who have purchased from him, he treats all his customers this way. HIGHLY recommended. Oh, and he has a 30-day guarantee, which I don't doubt he would honor.

The inventory of lenses is because I'm constantly being called on to do something different: architecture, interiors, sports, portraits, events, etc. Never boring, and I love the variety and challenge. But weddings? That's high stress stuff!

Deborah

 

[Erik DeBill]

The issue is to keep things simple and cause the photgrapher to walk around the subject and contemplate how to take the picture.

The skill thus acquired will then make it much more worthwhile to use any other lenses.

One can also do it with a zoom, but I think it is more complicated and doesn't force one to think and hunt so much for the best composition one can imagine.

The most important thing for a new photographer to do is to actually think about their pictures, both before and after they take them. That's what makes them get better. Anything that makes it harder to take the picture they imagine is a speedbump, not a virtue.

It used to be that zooms had poor optical quality, but that isn't necessarily true any more. I suspect that our average every day consumer level zooms are better than average every day consumer level primes from 20-30 years ago.

We don't suggest that beginners give up autofocus and TTL metering any more. Why ask them to giveup zooms?

The only reason for new photographers to avoid buying additional lenses is to avoid spending money that turns out to be wasted if they don't get into the hobby. Some of the cheap zoom kits out there make even that fairly doubtful. You can get a new DSLR and a pair of Sigma zooms that do 28-300mm (plus 1:2 macro) for $120 more than that DSLR + factory kit lens, and the pair of zooms will come with a camera bag, too. Having all that capability cuts down on frustrations with not being able to zoom in close enough, or constantly having to move around to try and get the subject to fill the frame.

 

[Ken Tanaka]

A good discussion.

The most important thing for a new photographer to do is to actually think about their pictures, both before and after they take them. That's what makes them get better. Anything that makes it harder to take the picture they imagine is a speedbump, not a virtue.

I think I'm conceptually in agreement with you, Erik, but I think greater precision refines the observation. I would say that shooting with forethought and deliberation is a key, but not the sole key, to eventually being able to use a camera as an effective communication device. Mastery of one's camera and lenses is another key. An abundance of cameras and lenses actually can present a more formidable "speed-bump" for a new photographer than a paucity.

We don't suggest that beginners give up autofocus and TTL metering any more. Why ask them to giveup zooms?

Actually I do suggest that beginners spend most, or at least much, of their click time away from program exposure control features and auto-focus. "Speed-bumps" can be quite effective for forcing newcomers (and old-comers, for that matter) to devote that forethought to their images. I would not necessarily expect a new photographer to initially eschew zoom lenses today even though I can think of several reasons why it would benefit their skill development. I would, however, recommend that they gain solid, second-nature abilities to run their camera completely manually. Maybe I'm a fuddy, but I'm quite convinced that automated exposure programming and auto-focus, while very handy, are the culprits behind much of the numbing mediocrity we see today in amateur photography. (Perhaps a good topic for debate in another thread.) Good photography is still as firmly grounded in craftsmanship as in conceptualization. Acquiring that craftsmanship still requires effort beyond buying equipment.

The only reason for new photographers to avoid buying additional lenses is to avoid spending money that turns out to be wasted if they don't get into the hobby. .... Having all that capability cuts down on frustrations with not being able to zoom in close enough, or constantly having to move around to try and get the subject to fill the frame.

No, I do not agree. While economy is always a good reason for restraint unlimited budgets do not produce better photographers. Yes, if you want to photograph wildlife or action sports and do not have a long focal length lens you will become frustrated. But having, say, six long lenses is not likely to make someone a measurably better photographer unless each lens was selected for a practical and specific application driven by knowledge and deliberation. My perspective is, therefore, the inverse of yours; don't buy a lens unless you have a damn good reason to do so. Deborah's remark that she has gained a bit of a collection of lenses mainly due to they varying demands of her commercial work is such a reason.

I see many people, particularly young men, slide into becoming fetishistic collectors rather than better photographers. Browse through Fred Miranda's Canon forum, for example, and you'll see many posters who list enormous inventories of camera gear in their signatures, like service ribbons on a military uniform. Looking at the image galleries of some of these folks (the relatively few who actually show any of their photography) rarely reveals anything beyond basic competence and almost never a contiguous body of thoughtful work. So many of these folks seem to spend the majority of their available time buying and selling lenses and debating about gear on the Internet rather than spending that time plotting and executing photographic projects. I suppose it's just human nature and perhaps this is how some people find enjoyment in "photography". But I find it a bit sad.

Sorry for droning on here.

 

[Ken Tanaka]

I guess I'm working backwards here, Erik! I read your previous post after your latest. You make some keen observations. I don't mean to seem to be picking on you but I'd also like to comment on some of your earlier remarks.

I wonder if the opposite won't happen. People's art is always influenced by the technology available to implement it.

True. Very true.

I'm sure we've all noticed how pictures for the web need to be very simple, with bold elements in order to stand up to the lower resolution of monitors (in many cases further shrunk my the encroachments of flickr or other sites). Surfers have shorter attention spans, that necessitate a big emotional impact and don't leave room for subtlety.

If your primary intended photographic audience is Internet surfers then indeed such characteristics come into play. May I suggest, however, that people not fall into the trap of looking for gratification solely, or even principally, on this medium. While powerful and pervasive it's also the visual and intellectual equivalent of Charmin, mostly for the same reasons you cite. Build bodies of work based on richer media (i.e. prints) and directed toward more thoughtful audiences. Use the Internet to represent some of this work.

We've all cut and pasted someone's head onto someone else's body, or added someone to a picture that wasn't there before. How will this play out in the world of art?

I'm betting that we end up with completely new sensibilities after a while.

I know a little bit about the larger art world and its scruffy cousin, the collectible "fine art" photography world. So I'm confident in writing that the attributes of today's compositing possibilities and the infinite reproducibility of digital images (whether captured digitally or chemically) are indeed "playing out" in interesting ways in the art world. The good news is that photographic artists creating some truly imaginative and innovative imagery using varying degrees of manipulation are beginning to be recognized and widely shown in prominent venues. The bad news is that, with some exceptions, digital imaging has greatly retarded the valuations of much current work. Prints have always been, and will continue to be, the "object" in the world of photography art. Collectors, including museum curators, expecting eventual appreciation of a work are reluctant to bid-up a print that could be reproduced like postage stamps. This may change but I don't see how or when.

Why try to push people into the old paradigm?

Hmmm. Be careful to maintain distinctions between mindless dogma ("old paradigm" in your nomenclature) and structured skill development regimens. While there have been many advancements in photographic technology the fact is that the principles of photography have not fundamentally changed since shortly after its introduction in 1839. One still needs only a lens, a shutter, and a recording medium. What has been suggested above is that newcomers limit their equipment options, at least initially, to gain firmer traction with the medium and its methods. This is most certainly not an old paradigm. It's as effective of an instructional strategy today as it was in, say, the 1950s.

 

[Asher Kelman]

I think that the best way for any photographer to start on a path to excellence is to start simply.

I walked around town with my little boys, each with a "magic camera". They could have all the film they wanted and free processing.

Well the camera was home made, just the forefinger and thumb of the left hand in a U and the forefinger of the other hand completing the frame.

With this we took so many pictures scouting subjects, stalking animals in the petting zoo, stretching up or crouching to get the subject framed and composed.

The next stage was a real camera with a fixed lens.

That was used for 10 years! These boys are now young men and accomplished photographers.

Zoom: Of course one can take a faster track, the zoom lenses! Zooms are great for working pros with time pressure and need to frame quickly hundreds of shots one after the other.

For a newbie, a zoom also allows such framing, (knocking out distractions by blur) if you wish.

This is, perhaps, a danger for the newcomer as it may bypass skill development in composition and point of view, the need to stalk to exclude and include, to weigh choices more. These are skills that must be second nature, like scouting, looking at the light and planning the shoot.

Focus: Now autofocus is a boon for sports and other action photography; for bird photography too. However, when achievable, focus manually will deliver more lines per mm resolution. Many pros use manual focus and exposure for their finest work. Why? Not because the eschew modernity! It's because they know that for certain pictures they have achieved better results that way.

Now the lens and viewfinder is best optimized for manual focus. The Leica R series does this splendidly, so do Rangefinder cameras that every photographer should at least borrow and shoot for a weekend! However many cameras work fine in manual focus.

Exposure: The principals of lighting in photography can be learned many ways. One excellent way is to use a spot meter to measure the light in different parts of the subject and then decide on an exposure to cover these differences.

One may decide to add more light or to filter some of the light to even out the brightness somewhat so as to be able to actually capture all the range of brightness and shadow within the capability of the camera.

These skills can be achieved using the central focus point of a point and shoot camera set to AV and then read off the proposed shutter speed for each position on the subject that this point is aimed at.

Of course you can again bypass this using an auto program from you camera, but then you will not learn the advanced skills needed to advance.

Anyway, that is my suggested approach.

Rarely photographers will start and continue to use the auto-everything cameras, even simple digicams to become accomplished wonderful even famous photographers.

Still, who knows, the might, perhaps, excel even more having apprenticed using one lens and their own hands and brains for at least 6 months first!

Asher

 

[Chris Midyet]

The Canon 135mm f/2.0 L is truly great. I use it for indoor wrestling a lot, but I find it great at everything on a 20D (216mm view in full frame terms) requiring medium telephoto capability. I don't like white colored lenses and I've never liked the regular zooms from Canon. This lens is faster, lighter and sharper IMO than the L zooms (and cheaper than some of them too). Because of it's black color and smaller size, you just don't feel as conspicuous using it! Also, my copy focussed perfectly right out of the box ...didn't need to send it off to Canon for calibration.

My experience with the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro has been excellent, as well. This lens is soooo much lighter than the Canon 100 and the image quality is superb.

Not thrilled with WA lenses from Canon or Nikon, but overall, my 16-35mm L is certainly satisfactory and has provided some wonderful shots. Corner sharpness could be better, and even on the 20D, geometric distortiion is a problem.

 

[Jim Davies]

Of the lenses I own it's a tough choice. here they are in my order of use/preference.

The 24-105 is probably my most used lens. A terrific lens that is sharp throughout the range even wide open! f4 was initially a worry (after using the excellent Tamron 28-75 f2.8) but honestly f4 with IS has been (for me) a better choice. The Tamron is never used any more and is a backup to the f4L.

The 70-200 f2.8L IS is my next most used lens. Super sharp throughout the range and IS makes this a truly amazing and useable lens in many circumstances (particularly useful for weddings in lower light). I previously had the f4L and although this was a great lens it really needs light to be useful. Here in Scotland, evenings can get pretty dull and you have to boost ISO to get shutter speeds in excess of 1/200. With the f2.8L IS I can shoot as low as 1/25th and get amazingly sharp images. The f4L IS however has my interest just now...... the weight/size advantage of the f4 is certainly worth considering.

10-22 f3.5-4.5 - Sharp sharp sharp! Great lens. Used for arty shots and landscapes. (I need to practice more with this lens). Takes some getting used to but the close focus and perspectiove can give some great results.

85mm f1.8 - A superb peice of glass. Great for portraits and especially useful at concerts if you can get reasonably close to the action.

50mm f1.4 - Sharp and faster than the 85. Nice lens that gets used when faster shutter speeds are required. Depth of field is very narrow at f1.4 though!

100mm f2.8 Macro - Super sharp and is great for getting in close. Very nice portrait lens but can be a little a little long on a 20D. Used for its main purpose as a macro lens it's a stellar performer.

300 f4L IS - My longest lens. It's sharp and built well but it's not used too often. Only purchased it a few months ago and I'm now wondering about selling this on to a better home. It works very well with the 1.4x. A tough one for me as I like it but it's a lot of cash sitting around doing nothing really. The 70-200 f2.8L IS becomes a 98-280 f4 with IS and I prefer this range. Decisions, decisions!

Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4 - I've not used this since I bought the 10-22 but it's still a stellar lens. Sharp and contrasty and a good alternative to the 17-40L.

Tamron 28-75 f2.8 - It's a shame I don't use this any more. I use it as a backup to the excellent 24-105.

So there you have my lenses and to pick a favourite is hard as it depends on what I'm shooting at the time.

Favourite Wedding Lens - 70-200 f2.8L IS
Favourite Outdoor Portrait lens - 70-200 f2.8L IS
Favourite Indoor Portrait Lens - 50mm f1.4
Favourite Landscape lens - 10-22 f3.5-4.5
Favourite Walk Around - 24-105 f4L IS
Favourite Wildlife Lens - 300f4L IS (with or without 1.4x attached)
Favourite Zoo Lens - 70-200 f2.8L IS (with or without 1.4x attached)
Favourite Sports lens - 70-200 f2.8L IS (with or without the 1.4x attached)
Favourite Low Light lens - 50mm f1.4
Favourite Concert lens - 85 f1.8
Favourite Macro lens - 100 f2.8
Favourite Studio Lens - 24-105 f4L IS

Too many lenses can be a bad thing. I find myself changing far too often.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Jim,

It is interesting just how popular the 70-200 2.8 IS has become.

The 24-105 is surprisingly high up on the list too. I wish it was faster. I often run out of light with it.

I'm wondering whether wedding photographers like this over the 24-70 2.8 for this reason. But then one has flash.

Thanks for sharing your experience,

Asher

BTW It might be a good idea to move your lenses from your signature line to somewhere else in your profile so they are only visible to registered members. Just a matter of security!

 

[Jim Davies]

Asher
The 70-200 f2.8L IS has to be one of Canon's best lenses. People argue the non-IS is slightly sharper but my eyes could not tell the difference. Used as a wedding lens, it's almost unbeatable. In a church when not allowed to stand near the alter I can use this from the back of the church and shoot at shutter speeds of 1/30th and less and get sharp images. Given that the ceremony is a slow affair it really works very well.

The 24-105 has a great range. Perhaps not wide enough for some but works well also at weddings. With IS again you can shoot at extremely low shutter speeds with amazing results. f4 is a little narrow on the apperture and 2.8 would have been great but mostly I can get away with the f4 and a slightly higher ISO. Used with flash and it really does an amazing job.

Some wedding photographers would never give up the 24-70 for a slower lens and it is a hard desicion but I find the combo of the 24-105 and the 70-200 perfect.

I acvtually think the best wedding lens to go with the 70-200 is the 17-55 f2.8 IS and may splash out if I get some spare cash. Unlikely at the moment though!

Regards
Jim
PS I'm not too worried about security (I have the same sig on a few forums) but if you'd prefer I remove my sig I'll do so.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Asher
I actually think the best wedding lens to go with the 70-200 is the 17-55 f2.8 IS and may splash out if I get some spare cash. Unlikely at the moment though!

I've never seen a 15-55 f2.8 IS! What do you know about it? I presume this is for full frame or is this one of those lenses for the 20D and 30D cameras?

PS I'm not too worried about security (I have the same sig on a few forums) but if you'd prefer I remove my sig I'll do so.

We had several photographers victimized throught identifying their load of lenses and gear, but on other camera websites, not here! From this and the fact that we have a bunch of us removing new memebership for 2-6 spammers and other miscreants, every day, I want to make this infertile terrritory for crooks!

Putting in your list of equipment is so helpful when people are looking for advice, but it's best in your profile under say "Interests" or another heading, so it does not appear on a post.

People who are actually members can search, send PM's and access your profile, (but not visitors or banned evil do-ers, miscreants or merchants)!!

Asher

 

[Jim Davies]

Asher
The 17-55 f2.8 IS is an EF-S lens and is by all accounts, one of Canon's sharpest zooms. It would probably have been an L had it not been for EF-S only. So 20D/30D or the 350D/400D. Not a cheap lens and a limited range when compared to the great 24-105 but this and a 70-200 would be a killer wedding combo.

The range is like that of the older 28-70 f2.8 on a FF (well it's 27-88 equiv) and the advantage of IS makes it a real winner. A shame they didn't make it available for FF cameras but I suppose that would have killed a lot of sales of the 24-70!

Sig will be removed today.

Regards
Jim

I've never seen a 15-55 f2.8 IS! What do you know about it? I presume this is for full frame or is this one of those lenses for the 20D and 30D cameras?

We had several photographers victimized throught identifying their load of lenses and gear, but on other camera websites, not here! From this and the fact that we have a bunch of us removing new memebership for 2-6 spammers and other miscreants, every day, I want to make this infertile terrritory for crooks!

Putting in your list of equipment is so helpful when people are looking for advice, but it's best in your profile under say "Interests" or another heading, so it does not appear on a post.

People who are actually members can search, send PM's and access your profile, (but not visitors or banned evil do-ers, miscreants or merchants)!!

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

I have just purchased a 50mm 1.2 so I am excited to test it out!

That with the 24-105 and the 70-200 make a great wedding combo as one can also do low light environmental mood shots too, as when the dancing get's hot!

Asher

 

[Tim Armes]

Gear mania

What are your favorite lenses?

Hi Jan,

You'll notice that this topic had generated a lot of response. When it comes to gear photographers fall into three camps:

1) Those that love photography for the image. The technical aspects of which lens is best isn't relevant - a fantasic image with a rubbish lens will always be better than a mediocre image with a great lens. It's the eye of the photographer that's important. Many of those in this group (but by no means all) are creative but not technically inclined - in the end their photography will be limited by their own lack of knowledge because despite everything photography does have a technical learning curve that must be overcome if we are to excel.

2) Those that are more technically oriented and love gear and gagets in general, often at the expense of the image. Having a huge collection of gear is important to these photographers because they are passionate the tecnicalities of photography. Taking photos is often an afterthought! Without these people photography would never have arrived where it has today, and there are many photographers who unashamedly put themself in this category. Where would we be without Doug Kerr's incredible insight?

3) Finally there are those who are lucky enough to have a technical understanding of the tools of their trade and a creative eye for the art of photography. They will be passionate about the gear that they use, but without the image as the end goal photography for them would hold no interest. I believe that in today's times most top photographers are forcably in this category.

Forums typically attract the technically minded, and most photograph forums are heavily overloaded with gear freaks and terrible photos. OPF is has tried hard to break that mould and offer a forum that's oriented towards the image itself. Despite this, it's interesting to see that as soon as the opportunity is offered to discuss gear everyone jumps on the band wagon!

I'm sort of frustrated because it seems like canon produces these great cameras but falls short in the lens dept.

That's a little unfair. I personally think that Canon have the most impressive range of lenses available, catering admirably for both the amateur and professional alike. I chose Canon because of their range of lenses, not because of their bodies.

I'm not a pro that can afford a lot of f1.2 lenses but I'm willing to save for one if it's worth it while I trudge along w my 28-105 f3.5 & 70-300is f4.5, both of which leave something to be desired. Of the two I favor the 28-105 because of its size + at 8mgpxl, I can crop for cu(s) or ecu(s) if I can't get my camera into the right position.

Although not obvious to the beginner, the difference between consumer lenses and pro lenses is substantial. I still have an old 70-300 in the cupboard - I tried it again the other day because I needed a telephoto, and put it straightback again - it really was terrible (I believe the lastest model is far more respectable). The reality of the situation is that good lenses are a pleasure to use, and they deliver the results. I can understand your deception - I'll just have to wait until I can afford a decent telephoto.

My philosphy now is wait till I can afford what I want. Personally I would rather have a few very good, well chosen lenses than a massive collection of medicre ones. There's no reason however to target only the L's - there are many superb lenses in Canon's lineup that offer excellent optics for much less money than the L equivalents (the 50mm 1.4, the 85mm 1.8, etc).

My advice is to stay away from the cheap consumer zooms. Most of Canon's primes are excellent - L or otherwise, and are similary priced to the cheaper zooms. I also agree with others here that primes help develop photographuc skills.

The L zooms are in the top of their class - if that's where your needs lie then they are probable worth saving for. There are also a few non-L zooms that are optically as good, if not better, than the L's (the 17-55mm 2.8 EF-S comes to mind).

My personal need is for wide open apertures, for that reason I prefer primes, since zooms only go down to 2.8. Nevertheless, I shan't be buying any 1.2's until I win the lottery!

Tim

 

[Roger Lambert]

Good Lovin'

I love all my lenses. Why anyone would keep a lens they weren't crazy about is.... well, beyond me.

My workhorse is my 24-70L. This is a wonderful lens, capable of very sharp shots if I use it carefully. It has become quite a different lens altogether on my 5D, as compared to my 20D. I'm not sure which camera I like it best on!

I surely enjoy the 24mm on the 5D, but I do miss the extra reach the 70mm gave me on the 20D.

Ah well - I can always torment myself with the 24-105, which seems a great lens.

I recently purchased a 135L. Wow! What a fortuitous complication of focal length, DOF control, and optical quality. Photos with this lens have an undeniable smoothness and lovely character. I love the ability to turn backgrounds into whipped cream. Every photograph looks like it should be in the New York Times Sunday magazine.

I also have a Sigma 12-24. I love this lens as well - sharp, accurate, good color and contrast. And great fun to have such a wide angle lens.

Additionally, I own a Canon 50/1.4 and an 85/1.8. I like both of them very much for what they can do in low-light situations. I look forward to using the 85 for indoor sports. Both seem a bargain.

 

[Joel Slack]

Lots of good points have been raised here. It also raises the ubiquitous "What are you going to use it for?" question that never fails to appear, and for good reason. Ken and Asher have really cut to the heart of why we take pictures in the first place.

If I had to choose, considering that I shoot with the Mk2N, the 100-400 is my "favorite" lens, but that may well not be the case if I had a different camera. The reach and speed and versatility it offers makes it my "go to" lens in a wider spectrum of instances than, say, the 24-105 (which is also great), with the obvious exception being landscape shots.

 

[Joel Slack]

21mm, 18, 28 Distagon 2.8, the most wonderful lenses to use for wide angle on Canon DSLR's. The 18mm I use on the 1DII but not on the 5D since it is said to hit the mirror.

Asher

I will own the 21mm 2.8 Distagon one day. Oh yes, it will be mine. The comparison photos I've seen comparing the edges to Canon's zooms (fair comparison? probably not) are stunning. The option of this lens on a Ds2 is what might ultimately quell my thoughts of moving up to MF. (though the Contax 645 is still very compelling)

 

[Asher Kelman]

I never thought I's say this, but if I get a MF camera with a digital back, I might have to sell my wonderful lenses. I'm not there yet. At present I really depend on the Distagons for wide angle work.

I'd love to be able to say one of these and on each of thopse lenses and that back. like everyone else, it's a big thing to own an expensive lens, but then it becomes a resource for future purchases should one's needs change.

I have to look closely at the 5D pics taken with the Distagons to see if that is sufficient or whether I really need something better. I don't really think my work is limited by lenses! When it comes to printing then one knows.

Asher

 

[Joel Slack]

I will resist the vulture impulse, and simply say that I hope you never have to part with the Distagons, but understand that funding future endeavors must outweigh sentimental concerns (for the wise man). Not that you are necessary sentimental about them, but I think I would be.