I know there are a lot of you that have used at ton of lens and have been useing them for years, so I would like those of you qualify, pro's or if you happen to have a lot of lens or have used a lot of them, please put your top five primes, and top five zooms both L and non-L. Lets limit this to lens that fit canon's body's without adapters please.

Edit: if you could put your main interest or focus of photography, that would be fantastic!

Non-L Prime
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Non-L Zoom
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

L Prime.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

L Zoom.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

If you could give a short - long reason you feel that way, it would be great.

I am posting this for two reasons, to both see what everyone thinks are the best lenses, and so others can read this at a later time.

I hope everyone likes the idea of this post.


Since I am new to SLR's, and I have a short lens supply for now, I will not put down my thoughts.

Thanks

Edited by roger lund on Dec 30, 2006 at 08:27 PM GMT

Ok, I'll bite on a futile post :-). Since no one ever agrees. I don't do sports or wildlife, so here would be mine.

Non-L Prime
1. 85 1.8. Except for some color and contrast, great lens.
2. 50 1.4
3. 100 Macro
4. 35 2.0
5. 50 1.8 (just because I love the plastic wonder)

Non-L Zoom
1. 17-55 2.8 IS (Havne't used it, but many friends love it. Just can't use on Pro Bodies(
2. 28-135 IS - Wierd focal length when cropped, but was a great lens for me
3. 70-300 DO. Great compact travel, long distance lens
4.70-300 IS

L Prime.
1. 85 1.2
2. 35 1.4
3. 135 2.0
4. 50 1.2
5. 400 2.8

L Zoom
1. 70-200 2.8 IS
2. 24-70 ...I got a sharp copy. Use it for 90% of my work
3. 16-35
4. 24-105 - amazing lens if you don't need 2.8
5. 17-40...Chose to save money and get the f4, definately worth the price.

Now come the pointless disagreements :-).

Sorry but a totally pointless idea because everyones "top" choices are going to be totally dependant upon what they may shoot, their budgets, and how many other lenses they may used/owned.


If I for example have an intrest in sports photography, what good is it going to do me to see a list of someone who's a landscape shooter. His gear wont work for me needs and mine may not work for his needs.

If someone with a $15,000 budget list their choices, and I only have $1,500 to spend, what good will their choices to ? We've all got vastly different budgets for gear.

lastly, unless someone has owned/used every lens made ideally, how can I put much stock in what their limited viewpoints are ? If you've used three lens, your #1 could change vastly after you've used 10 lenses.

On top of all that, whats to say we each judge our collective lens in the same way ?

What do I use to judge whats #1 ? Value, image quality, number of shots I take with it ? Versatility ?

Is my 70-200 my #1 because its my most used and very versatile, or is the 200 1.8 #1 becaues its optically so good ?

Suppose I shoot more than one subject matter as well ? Whats "better" then ? My 400 2.8 which is awesome for sports, or my TS/E which I love for landscapes ? Both are #1 for what they do.


Sorry but while I can understand your newfound enthusiasim and excitiment about camera gear, you need to realize that the only best lenses are what works for your own given needs and not care about what others shoot.

Dont make purchase decsions based on ratings, but instead on what meets your needs. What fits YOUR budget, what focal range do YOU shoot, what type of light to YOU shoot in, and so forth.

CPSLOPHOTO wrote:
Ok, I'll bite on a futile post :-). Since no one ever agrees. I don't do sports or wildlife, so here would be mine.

L Prime.
1. 85 1.2
2. 35 1.4
3. 135 2.0
4. 50 1.2
5. 400 2.8

Now come the pointless disagreements :-).


Didnt want to let you down in regards to the disagreements so heres on for ya...... Since you dont do sports or wildlife, what do you use a 400 2.8 for ? Given its a $6500 lens, I would think that unless your really into sports, it would be hard to jusitfy as a good purchase choice, much less as a top 5 item.

cheers =)

Thanks for the replies, I believe this post will be helpful for a couple of reasons, it gives a base for research, and it gives a idea of what people are using and why.

If i didn't want peoples opinions, I wouldn't have asked.

I might politely add that this is exactly the point of the FM review section http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/. One - so people can compare lenses. Two - that it stays for long time.

Have you tried to look there? You can line up all lenses and look up all the ratings, prices, etc. Or is there anything that is not covered there

roger lund wrote:
Thanks for the replies, I believe this post will be helpful for a couple of reasons, it gives a base for research, and it gives a idea of what people are using and why.

If i didn't want peoples opinions, I wouldn't have asked.


What base for research does it provide you Roger ?

If I tell you my #1 L prime is a 400 2.8, how did that help you ? If your a sports photographer and you've got $6500 just burning a hole in your pocket then yeah, maybe it was good advice, go buy one, but are you either of those things ?

How does what anyone else is using affect me or my needs ? Should I say "hmmm, other people use different gear than me, I better sell my stuff ?"


If you want help with a specific need, then this forum is a great place for advice, but your poll or survey etc is totally useless.

its like saying your just going to go buy whatever the 5 highest ranked lens in the review section are.


What specific need do you have ? An example would be that you want to do low light street photography, and you've got a budget of $500, and you would prefer a compact prime under 21oz in weight.

Then we can help, then we know what your subject matter is, how much you can spend, what conditions you shoot under and so forth.

Go ask a portrait guy, a sports guy, a landscape guy and a wildlife guy whats a "good lens" and they will all give you a very different answer.

Brutus_B wrote:
roger lund wrote:
Thanks for the replies, I believe this post will be helpful for a couple of reasons, it gives a base for research, and it gives a idea of what people are using and why.

If i didn't want peoples opinions, I wouldn't have asked.


What base for research does it provide you Roger ?

If I tell you my #1 L prime is a 400 2.8, how did that help you ? If your a sports photographer and you've got $6500 just burning a hole in your pocket then yeah, maybe it was good advice, go buy one, but are you either of those things ?

How does what anyone else is using affect me or my needs ? Should I say "hmmm, other people use different gear than me, I better sell my stuff ?"


If you want help with a specific need, then this forum is a great place for advice, but your poll or survey etc is totally useless.

its like saying your just going to go buy whatever the 5 highest ranked lens in the review section are.


What specific need do you have ? An example would be that you want to do low light street photography, and you've got a budget of $500, and you would prefer a compact prime under 21oz in weight.

Then we can help, then we know what your subject matter is, how much you can spend, what conditions you shoot under and so forth.

Go ask a portrait guy, a sports guy, a landscape guy and a wildlife guy whats a "good lens" and they will all give you a very different answer.



I want to know what lens people are using for different types of photography, at this point I am mostly studying photography, and all aspects of it. I plan to search the forum for every lens someone puts down, read what everyone likes and dislikes about it. I hope to learn what a lens is good for and not good for, for me, I can't afford to go buy them all, but this lets me learn what I can about them. It will do what a book can't, and tell me peoples different opinions on different lens and their uses.

Different lenses are better suited to certain tasks, depending on the type of photogrpahy, or the style of the photogrpaher. Therefore they can't really be placed in "absolute order", without knowing what the subject and style of the photographer is. For example, if I'm shooting a wedding, the 24-70 is my best zoom. But if I'm shooting landscapes, the 24-105 is much better. So, the right idea is to understand what features are most useful for the type of photography at hand, and choose the right tool for the job.

gfiksel wrote:
I might politely add that this is exactly the point of the FM review section http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/. One - so people can compare lenses. Two - that it stays for long time.

Have you tried to look there? You can line up all lenses and look up all the ratings, prices, etc. Or is there anything that is not covered there


Yes, I have browsed through just about every page of every lens.

Call this the reverse approach.

If someone posts that they do wedding photograph, and post their favorite lens, I can then use that information to make a mental note of what some wedding photographers like the most, and then look at those lens and learn the strengths and weakness of each.

ChrisDM wrote:
Different lenses are better suited to certain tasks, depending on the type of photogrpahy, or the style of the photogrpaher. Therefore they can't really be placed in "absolute order", without knowing what the subject and style of the photographer is. For example, if I'm shooting a wedding, the 24-70 is my best zoom. But if I'm shooting landscapes, the 24-105 is much better. So, the right idea is to understand what features are most useful for the type of photography at hand, and choose the right tool for the job.


May I ask why you say that the slower zoom with a longer focal length would be better for landscapes? I would think you would want wider, unless your saying that because of the IS.

I can only list those I have or used.

Non-L Prime
1. 90mm Tilt-Shift
2. 50mm 2.5 Macro
3.
4.
5.

Non-L Zoom
1. (never used one)
2.
3.
4.
5.

L Prime.
1. 85mm L 1.2 II
2. 35mm L 1.4
3.
4.
5.

L Zoom.
1. 70-200 2.8 IS
2. 17-40 4.0 (sold)
3. 70-200 4.0 (sold)
4.
5.

My top 5
1. 90mm TS-E
2. 85mm 1.2L II
3. 70-200 2.8 IS
4. 35mm 1.4L
5. 50mm 2.5 Macro

Planning to get:
1. 300mm 4.0 IS (later maybe the 2.8 IS)
2. 130mm 2.0L
3. 100mm or 180mm Macro (or both)
4. 15mm Fisheye
5. 24mm TS-E
6. Maybe one more zoom 16-35 or 24-70

Happy New Year!

I'll bite too, without all of the rhetoric and disclaimers:

Non-L Prime
1.85mm. 1.8 (don't have it, but want it)
2.50mm. 1.8 (cheap, plastic, first lens, works ok)
3.
4.
5.

Non-L Zoom
1.No experience
2.
3.
4.
5.

L Prime.
1.135mm/f2; my favorite lens for image quality
2.400mm/f2.8; big and fun
3.
4.
5.

L Zoom.
1.70-200mm/f2.8 IS (had and liked the size/weight of the f4, but the f2.8 IS is more versatile)
2.70-200mm/f4 (small and light weight, excellent quality)
3.17-40mm/f4; not my favorite due to distortion and outside softness, but it fits the need when "wide" is needed.
4.100-400mm/f4; don't like push/pull zoom
5.

I have only commented on the lenses I have actually used, except for the 85mm.

Landscape, People and places, and roadkill.

http://www.photo.net/photos/John%20A.%20Stovall


Non-L Prime
Only the 85/1.8.

Non-L Zoom
None, why compromise quality?

L Prime.
1. 50/1.0L (lets you shoot where no other lens will)
2. 35/1.4L
3. 135/2.0L
4. 200/2.8L
5. 400/5.6L

L Zoom.
1. 16-35/2.8L
2. 24-70/2.8L
3. 70-200/2.8L IS (I've gone to just these three zooms for speed)

I like fast primes. Primes make me think about my subject, the light and my releationship to them. I'll be adding this year the 24/1.4L, 50/1.2L and 85/1.2L. I may keep a 70-200/4.0L as it is so light and and appears to be a bit sharper at 5.6-8.0 than the 2.8 IS.

Hmm, I started on the list but it's not possible to say which lenses I like most, I do a lot of varied photography and therefor it changes from day to day which lenses I'd put on the list.

I don't know what new info you hope to get, in the end people will have added all the usual suspects to your list - almost all of the Ls, the 50/1.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 macro etc...

I'm going to answer in a different format, but in the spirit (I hope) of your request:

Favorite versatile lens for wedding and social event coverage - 24-105/4L IS
Favorite for outdoor head shots - 85/1.2L[Mk2]
Favorite for crowded, dimly lit rooms at receptions - 24/1.4L
Favorite for candids from a distance - 70-200/2.8L IS
Newest lens that seems likely to become my favorite for romantic wedding shots - 50/1.2L
Lens that gets only limited use (because of its focal length) but never disappoints me with the results - 135/2.0L

johnastovall wrote:
Landscape, People and places, and roadkill.

http://www.photo.net/photos/John%20A.%20Stovall


Non-L Prime
Only the 85/1.8.

Non-L Zoom
None, why compromise quality?

L Prime.
1. 50/1.0L (lets you shoot where no other lens will)
2. 35/1.4L
3. 135/2.0L
4. 200/2.8L
5. 400/5.6L

L Zoom.
1. 16-35/2.8L
2. 24-70/2.8L
3. 70-200/2.8L IS (I've gone to just these three zooms for speed)

I like fast primes. Primes make me think about my subject, the light and my releationship to them. I'll be adding this year the 24/1.4L, 50/1.2L and 85/1.2L. I may keep a 70-200/4.0L as it is so light and and appears to be a bit sharper at 5.6-8.0 than the 2.8 IS.



You stated you like fast primes, I take it your replacing the 85 1.8 with the 85 1.2?

and why are you getting a 50 1.2 if you have a 50 1.0? because of lack of quality at smaller F stops? Is it because of the slower speed that you don't have a 100mm prime?

Thanks

januuski wrote:
I can only list those I have or used.

Non-L Prime
1. 90mm Tilt-Shift
2. 50mm 2.5 Macro
3.
4.
5.

Non-L Zoom
1. (never used one)
2.
3.
4.
5.

L Prime.
1. 85mm L 1.2 II
2. 35mm L 1.4
3.
4.
5.

L Zoom.
1. 70-200 2.8 IS
2. 17-40 4.0 (sold)
3. 70-200 4.0 (sold)
4.
5.

My top 5
1. 90mm TS-E
2. 85mm 1.2L II
3. 70-200 2.8 IS
4. 35mm 1.4L
5. 50mm 2.5 Macro

Planning to get:
1. 300mm 4.0 IS (later maybe the 2.8 IS)
2. 130mm 2.0L
3. 100mm or 180mm Macro (or both)
4. 15mm Fisheye
5. 24mm TS-E
6. Maybe one more zoom 16-35 or 24-70

Happy New Year!


What do you use the 90mm Tilt-Shift for? what are your likes and dislikes about it?
Do you use the 50mm Macro for non macro work or just Macro?

roger lund wrote:

I want to know what lens people are using for different types of photography, at this point I am mostly studying photography, and all aspects of it. I plan to search the forum for every lens someone puts down, read what everyone likes and dislikes about it. I hope to learn what a lens is good for and not good for, for me, I can't afford to go buy them all, but this lets me learn what I can about them. It will do what a book can't, and tell me peoples different opinions on different lens and their uses.


With all due respect, do you want to be a photographer or a gearhead Roger ?

Honestly, get out and shoot and stop reading reviews. Its the only way to learn what YOU need. Trust me, Ive been there, all this gear stuff is fun and exciting at first but its a waste of time. I'm sure we've all been there, staying up til 3am reading reviews on every possible site on the net, paying more attention to what the pro's on the sideline are using than we are watching the game, shooting brick walls, dollar bills and pouring over the results at 400% in PS. Its all meaningless in the end.

Theres no right or wrong way to use a lens. I've taken landscapes at 800mm, Ive shot sports with a 15mm fisheye. I've never had a lens thats "bad". Every lens I've owned has been good at something, even if its just a low price.

50mm f1.8 mkI metal mount, 50mm f1.8 mkI plastic mount, 50mm f1.8 mkII, 50mm f1.4 or 50mm f1.2. We could debate and discuss them to death, compare brick walls crops, argue that the results are a "bad copy", or user error in the test. Say that " I own one and mine are better than that" and its all meaningless. Why ? Because were sitting inside at a computer instead of actually out shooting.

What do you care more about ? What a bunch of strangers on an internet forum think about such and such, and the fact that for every view, theres a counter viewpoint thats the total opposite, or about actually taking a photo and learning how to use a 50mm lens ?


Have you stopped and asked yourself what you enjoy shooting ? What you think you may enjoy shooting ? What your goals are with your photography ? How much money you want to invest ? What elements in photographs appeal most you ?

If not, I would spend a lot more time with those issues and less with what other people are using. The gear is just a tool. A tool is useless without a job to use it for.

The gear *is* fun too though...

roger lund wrote:
johnastovall wrote:
Landscape, People and places, and roadkill.

http://www.photo.net/photos/John%20A.%20Stovall


Non-L Prime
Only the 85/1.8.

Non-L Zoom
None, why compromise quality?

L Prime.
1. 50/1.0L (lets you shoot where no other lens will)
2. 35/1.4L
3. 135/2.0L
4. 200/2.8L
5. 400/5.6L

L Zoom.
1. 16-35/2.8L
2. 24-70/2.8L
3. 70-200/2.8L IS (I've gone to just these three zooms for speed)

I like fast primes. Primes make me think about my subject, the light and my releationship to them. I'll be adding this year the 24/1.4L, 50/1.2L and 85/1.2L. I may keep a 70-200/4.0L as it is so light and and appears to be a bit sharper at 5.6-8.0 than the 2.8 IS.



You stated you like fast primes, I take it your replacing the 85 1.8 with the 85 1.2?

and why are you getting a 50 1.2 if you have a 50 1.0? because of lack of quality at smaller F stops? Is it because of the slower speed that you don't have a 100mm prime?

Thanks

If you looked at the three lenses I plan to add this year the 85/1.2L is one of them. I may still keep the 85/1.8 for AF speed in some cases.

I don't know are care about the f/1.0L's quality at smaller f stops since I never shoot it stopped down to more than 1.2-1.4. I would never replace it as there nothing else that fast. It's a lens which is all about light not sharp. I want the 50/1.2L for when I want a lighter 50 and not worry if it were to get dinged.

I don't see the 100 doing anything that the 85 or 135L doesn't do better. It's a bastard focal length and with the 135L don't understand why anyone would buy it.

Non-L Prime
1. 85 1.8
2. 50 1.4
3. 15mm 2.8 fisheye
4. 50mm 2.5 compact macro
5. (not a Canon, but Sigma 150mm 2.8 EX DG macro)

Non-L Zoom
1. Haven't really been impressed by the non-L zooms I've used.
2. Though I suspect if I'd used a 70-300 4-5.6 IS, I'd be impressed
3. Maybe the 70-300 DO IS too?
4.
5.

L Prime.
1. 200mm 1.8L
2. 400mm 2.8L IS
3. 135mm 2L
4. 400mm 2.8L II
5. 300mm 2.8L

L Zoom.
1. 24-70 2.8L
2. 17-40 4L
3. 70-200 4L
4. 16-35 2.8L
5. 70-200 2.8L

These are lenses I've owned, though there are plenty of other lenses I'd like and if I owned them would make the list. For example, I don't own the 85L or 35L or the 500 4L IS or 600 4L IS, but I'd like to, and they'd probably make the list (with a few extra positions, cause there'd be more than 5 favorites). I'm a lens whore...I'm sure I could think of a dozen other lenses I still want (and have reasons to need them)

Hi Roger,

Here's my list:

Non-L Prime
1. TS-E 90 F/2.8
Used for macro, product photography, landscape details, portraits, flowers, panormas, etc. Incredibly sharp and versatile lens, even though it requires manual focusing.
2. EF-S 60 F/2.8
As above, except the panoramas, just a bit shorter for a different perspective.

Now for some I still would like to add to this set:
3. EF 100 F/4 Macro
For obvious reasons
4. MP-E 65 F/2.8
Yes, another macro lens
5. TS-E 45 F/2.8
To complete the set for macro, product photography, etc.

Non-L Zoom
1. EF-S 10-22
I used to have a 20 mm F/4 in my analog years. This is light years ahead, in quality and versatility. Great for landscapes, for a different perspective, for group shots indoors and outdoors, and for architecture, both in- and outdoors.

Potential addition:
2. EF-S 17-55 F/2.8 IS
The ideal walk-around do-everything lens for a crop body. And that is it for the wishes department in the non-L zooms .

L Prime.
1. TS-E 24 F/3.5 L
Landscapes, architecture, panoramas, macro close-ups of flowers etc. Incredibly versatile lens.

I'd like to add a few more L-classics, whenever I manage to save enough funds :
2. EF 85 F/1.2 L
3. EF 24 F/1.4 L
4. EF 300 F/2.8 L
5. EF 500 F/4 L
And there are a few more. I reckon this would be the order in which to add them, for me anyway. Portraits, low light indoors, sports, and nature photography.

Of course, I wouldn't mind to have a go at the 35 F/1.4, the 135 F/2 and the 200 F/2.8 either. These are all in the range of focal lengths I use a lot .

L Zoom.
1. EF 70-200 F/4 L
This is the sharpest zoom I own, and it is incredibly useful to me for sports close-ups, landscape details, and (candid) portraits. No loss of quality with extender 1.4 X, as far as I can see. I may want to exchange this for the IS version, when I get half a chance, having discovered IS recently.
2. EF 17-40 F/4 L
Great lens for landscape work, walkaround standard zoom for a crop body, architecture, close-up portraits, candid indoor work as I have a steady hand and manage 1/20 s at 40 mm with this lens. Great allrounder, very sharp.
3. EF 24-105 F/4 L IS
This lens I got recently, because I liked the quality of the pictures taken with it by other people, and because to me it is the ideal portrait zoom on a crop camera (38-168 eq.), candid and posed, especially because it is aided by IS as well. It is also a great lens for landscape details, and architecture details.
4. EF 100-400 F/4.5-5.6 L IS
Great general nature photography, certain (outdoor) sports, and landscape lens, and great at candid portraits too. The IS allows me to shoot at 1/45s at 400 mm with a success rate of about 60%! You have to learn how to handle this lens, but having used push/pull zooms in the past, that wasn't a big issue, especially after discovering you should only use the friction ring as a lock, rather than try to set it for some non-existent optimal setting. Unlock it completely when using it, and just support it with one hand - works great for me. Wonderful lens!

Lenses still on the list:
5. EF 70-200 F/2.8 IS
I'd love to go to a concert with one of these...
5. EF 16-35 F/2.8
5. EF 24-70 F/2.8
Sorry, couldn't help myself... Knowing what I can do with the 10-22 and 17-40 indoors, I would really love to try out these last two as well .

You may have noticed there is quite an overlap in focal lengths here, and the reason is simple. I use different ranges for different approaches, so I tend to choose the range I take or bring along for a specific subject. Also, I like to have an overlap when it comes to zooms, as this means I have to change lenses less often. If I have two lenses with an overlap with me, one on the body, it means I don't have to grab another lens immediately. I find this especially useful when doing candid work, indoors without a flash, or outdoors. There is a bigger chance of getting the right picture, with the right focal length, i.e., perspective and framing, of a fleeting moment that way, at least IMO.

Anyway, this is my very long story of my preferred lenses and how I use them .

Kind regards, Wim

Brutus_B wrote:
Sorry but a totally pointless idea because everyones "top" choices are going to be totally dependant upon what they may shoot, their budgets, and how many other lenses they may used/owned.


If I for example have an intrest in sports photography, what good is it going to do me to see a list of someone who's a landscape shooter. His gear wont work for me needs and mine may not work for his needs.

If someone with a $15,000 budget list their choices, and I only have $1,500 to spend, what good will their choices to ? We've all got vastly different budgets for gear.

lastly, unless someone has owned/used every lens made ideally, how can I put much stock in what their limited viewpoints are ? If you've used three lens, your #1 could change vastly after you've used 10 lenses.

On top of all that, whats to say we each judge our collective lens in the same way ?

What do I use to judge whats #1 ? Value, image quality, number of shots I take with it ? Versatility ?

Is my 70-200 my #1 because its my most used and very versatile, or is the 200 1.8 #1 becaues its optically so good ?

Suppose I shoot more than one subject matter as well ? Whats "better" then ? My 400 2.8 which is awesome for sports, or my TS/E which I love for landscapes ? Both are #1 for what they do.


Sorry but while I can understand your newfound enthusiasim and excitiment about camera gear, you need to realize that the only best lenses are what works for your own given needs and not care about what others shoot.

Dont make purchase decsions based on ratings, but instead on what meets your needs. What fits YOUR budget, what focal range do YOU shoot, what type of light to YOU shoot in, and so forth.


100% agree. You can't compare apples with oranges. What is the best telelens? The Leica 15 mm Super-Elmarit or the EF 100-300 mm?

F

What do you use the 90mm Tilt-Shift for? what are your likes and dislikes about it?
Do you use the 50mm Macro for non macro work or just Macro?

I got the 90mm tilt-shift for product and food photography but I use it all the time for portraits and general shooting of my kids and family. It is fun to use however the manual focusing can be tricky. I use the Angle Finder all the time. It is very sharp and very special lens.

I love my 50mm Macro. I took thousands of shots with that lens and it was my favorite on my 10D. It is great for cameras with smaller sensor. Great colors, very sharp, nice bookeh, inexpensive, can be used as a macro or a portrait lens just the auto focusing is slow. I dont use it as much on my 5D because I like the 90mm ts-e better on the FF camera. Still a great lens and great value.

Edited by januuski on Dec 30, 2006 at 11:07 PM GMT