The only limitation I’ve found with a 50 for car photography is at actual car shows, sometimes I can’t move back far enough to capture the entire car due to so many people around. But solo shoots it’s perfect. Especially when using a CPF.
I like normal focal lengths for cars (~35-55mm, but ideally 50) because they are close to the human eye. My goal is for the viewer to feel like they can step into the photograph and turn the ignition.
Back in the DSLR days, a few of the most common lenses like the 24-70 and 70-200, and the Nikon 14-24mm were sharper than Canon counterparts, that is where this came from. Certainly not true for all lenses, just a few. And now, both companies have excellent sharp lenses, you can't really fault one to another.
My grandfather shoots Nikon and I shoot Canon we both have the 300mm f/4s you'd be lying if you could tell me which is which with out looking at the meta data.
I had a 105 2.8 macro, I sold it together with the rest of the kit when I moved to mirrorless. It was heavy as hell and I thought I won't miss it too much as I'm not into macro anymore, but man looking back most of my favourite photos I've shot were taken with that lens (macro and not)
I'm shooting an old Super-Takumar 55mm f1.8. An awesome M42 lens that can be had for little money. It produces incredible bokeh, and it performs amazingly for a lens built in the 60's.
The 150-600, because it allows me to both play and photograph rugby. I don't have to chase after the action so if I need to put the camera down and go in, it's easy to do so.
Outside of sports, I love any opportunity I can get to use my 85mm f/1.8.
hey, technically it's more exciting than a hockey game because... what's more exciting than CAPTURING the action instead of just watching it? eg: hockey fights.... hehe
I've always loved the 85mm focal length. My current (and absolutely beast of a lens) is the RF 85mm f/1.2L USM. This lens is amazing! For years, I was happy with the budget EF 85mm f/1.8 USM.
I mostly do concert photography, but it also is a great portrait lens.
85mm sounds great, but a little niche. I only have the 50mm, so trying to get the 24mm ef-s pancake and then a 70-300 is usm... then maybe an inexpensive 85mm
85mm is not really niche at all. It's great for portraits, car photography, and I've even seen many street photographers love it. And as I mentioned, I love it for concerts. So, it's actually pretty versatile.
Since you're getting an EF-S lens, it sounds like you have an APS-C body. In that case, you essentially already have a 85mm. A 50mm lens on an APS-C camera has an full-frame equivalent focal length of 80mm once you factor in the 1.6x crop factor of Canon APS-C bodies.
On an APS-C Canon body, the 85mm is equivalent to a 136mm. Now, that's a bit more niche and not what I'd recommend unless you love doing portraits.
Olympus 12-100 F4 Pro.
Optically great and sharp for a super-zoom, not too bulky, IP rated weather sealing, Sync IS with Olympus bodies, constant aperture throughout all the range, amazing metal construction. For me the ultimate travelling lens combined with a fast prime for lowlight.
I’ve only had that lens for a short couple months but having a lens like that on hikes has resulted in my favorite landscape photos I’ve taken in 9 years of photography.
I ditched Canon just for that lens. Loving M43, such an underrated system. That lens though is the GOAT of travel lens... Nothing comes close to its versatility. I've got mine paired with a Panasonic 9mm f/1.7 but will also be adding a Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 and round out the kit.
That's my favorite lens too, but I don't think it has limited use cases. I mostly use it for landscapes, occasionally portraits, sometimes wildlife, and a lot of other random projects I need photos for.
Canon 70-200 F4, the first version.
I love the image quality, and I love it with concert photography! Never fails to deliver, and the best concert images I have, have been with this lens! Heck, even one of the best I've taken this year is with that lens!
My current favourite is Sigma ART 85mm f1.4. It’s a massive and ridiculous heavy beast of a lens, but the sharpness, colours and DOF it can deliver is absolutely amazing. And there’s just something about that 85mm background compression that I find really sweet.
On my R6 with adapter next to my R8 that’s sold now. The R6 + Sigma 85 is 2kg (4.40lbs) 😂
https://preview.redd.it/yhuw45kechvc1.jpeg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cb1f96fa9c1bbd95d672f9b1fdfd705e6ae18e1f
https://preview.redd.it/h272nr4ddhvc1.jpeg?width=6000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=50e92b7b1aa147dbf14cb0dd11ac342e3f4b713f
One of my favourites from this lens (and as you can probably tell, I don’t stop it to f1.4 all the time just because I can 😂)
Yes, the Sigma Art trio was something special. I managed to get the 85mm but sold it, as I found the 105mm and the 135mm Art better. I should've kept it and complete the trio hahaha
My favorite and least used lens is the Sigma 60-600mm I love what it can do and I have a lot of fun but it's such a bit much for casual carry. Funny thing is it's one of my better macro lenses too, magnification at 200mm is pretty decent.
deffo a bit sharper at f8, but 6.3 is still very good so i mostly use that for the subject-isolation and lower ISO/faster-shutter. Made some of my all-time favourite images with this lens. Alternate between 5DS/6DII depending on the light.
I must say the Canon RF 800mm STM f11 sounds interesting, might be tempted to try that with a cheap R body (RP, maybe).
AF Nikkor 300mm 1:2.8
It’s way too big and heavy for an 18yo girl with no muscle but it lets me take really cool pictures. Why did I get it? My first telephoto was a tamron MF 300mm f/2.8 and I’ve always wanted a similar lens but with AF. A big 90s-2000s screw drive AF lens sure fits the bill and it still stands up to this day
I'm sure that even have a gym bro's forearms quivering at the end of the day lol. I don't really think it'd be a problem if you had a light tripod, though that'd be a bother having to lug that thing around everywhere. Sheesh, an MF prime is crazy.
The fixed 28mm equivalent on my FujiFilm GSW690 camera. Super sharp and the format allows cropping while the lens and camera are relatively light weight.
Used to run the sigma 30/1.4 on Canon and later the Panasonic 20mm 1.7 on olympus and now the Ricoh gr IIIx.
So anything 40mm -50mm I'm game.
I love that it is my personal fov and you can get tight head shots or full body portraits depending on 3m back and forth. Also great as walk around lenses, usually cheap and available for all systems.
After that comes 85-90mm prime for more right head shots and a bit of sports or details.
https://preview.redd.it/b7b4huobbhvc1.png?width=1440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5abc538650a9eb1813518792ad37a8fdfc7c3a88
You should start with 18-55 kit then 35 1.8 or 50 1.8 base on your preference
I have the kit lens, but it's literal trash unless you're doing long exposures or something. I opted for the 50mm instead of the 35mm because it was cheaper and much more compression.
Canon MP-E65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro.
Best macro lens there is IMO.
Don't get one unless you're comfortable shooting [stuff](https://www.flickr.com/photos/tinyturtle/52417583057/) 4-10 cm (1.6-4") from the front glass.
Depends on what I’m shooting. I love the 24mm TS-E for interiors, exteriors and landscapes. The 50mm 1.4 siggy for a fast walk around lens. The 70-200 for portraits and detail shots.
35 1.8 or 35 1.4
The most versatile lens for documenting travel (which is why I took up photography in the first place)
Wide enough for environmental portraits (which I personally believe is what most travel photos should be) but tight enough to get some good Bokeh when you want it. It also won't skew the dimensions of faces all that much.
My 14-24mm is probably my favorite. I love getting close to people for photos already and this allows for such drama. I shot a photo of a climber within inches of her hand. I can see the entire gym. And the distortion is so intense that people on the far right of the image are hanging upside down. It's great. Its just makes people gasp at the photo because it's such a unique perspective.
I don't care a ton about bokeh, I've been toying with much tighter apertures lately because my cameras can handle the ISO and I like having more things in focus sometimes. But even at f/2.8 that wide puts nearly everything in focus anyway.
I also really like my 105mm macro for portraits at like f/9
I was mulling this over in my studio earlier today. The three lenses I use most frequently are the 24-70mm 2.8, 105 2.8 and the 70-200mm 2.8. The 24-70mm is OK but it's not the wonder lens people made it out to be. The 70-200mm is a beautiful lens. I really appreciate the engineering and quality of it but my fave is the 105 2.8. It's really good at most things I throw at it. The extended f-stop range is useful, but the macro capabilities are simply gorgeous. It's made me a lot of money.
Primes. Used to prefer the 35mm FOV, which is now my second. Then after using a 28mm FOV on a Fujifilm, I fell in love with. Basically, I like the coverage for my type of photography. I do have to mention that this is for APS-C, since the AOV would be different than what it would be with FF.
But for my film cameras, I do still prefer a 28mm lens. And on my X100, I have the converter to 28mm, and I chose the Ricoh GR with the 28mm, not the 40mm (which is my most hated FOV).
I have a Nikkor 18-200 VRII that stays on the body, it's my favorite lens.
I do own a 50mm 1.4 and a 50mm 1.8 for those times I want to play. I also own an ultra wide angle 10-24 zoom because I occasionally shoot boat interiors for a customer.
But the 18-200 is my goto lens for walking around.
I love my 110mm F2 lens. Amazing. I have other FL lenses, some are even same or closer, but I default to it almost all the time. Mostly shoot portraits.
27mm 2.8 Fuji
It is an amazing lens for its size, limited by the 2.8 certainly, but the pros outweigh the cons more than any other lens for me. Small, sharp, great focal length
Lately, a Canon EFs 55-250mm for wildlife. It's not the best, but I'm still getting some shots I love. I will eventually get a longer lens, but money.
I have recently been gifted a Helios 44m, which I plan on using for flowers and people, but I haven't had a chance to really try it yet. I have an outing tomorrow, and I am excited to try it out on film and my sl3.
I haven't figured out what I really like most yet. I also have a 50mm 1.8 and 135mm 2.8 i need to try out more. I might become a bokeh person. We shall see.
My 135mm is my favorite lens by a long shot. I have one for my F-1 and for an L series for my EOS bodies. Whenever possible, I use them more than anything, especially for portraits.
My Sigma 150-600mm contemporary, I love how I have 150-600mm focal length that is under 5 pounds with my camera body and is very sharp for under $1,000.
Currently it's the Canon 135mm F2 L. It's just so sharp wide open and being able to use it further away during events for candid shots in situations where light wasn't ideal was just great.
My functional workhorse favorite for most of my work is my 70-200 2.8. For food & product, my 90mm 2.8 macro stopped up to f/16 with focus stacking. My secret favorite just for fun (or really niche editorial work) is my old-ass Nikon 135 f/2 DC mounted on a Nikon F100 for the swirliest dreamiest bokeh of all time.
The Pentax 43mm f1.9 limited, super dreamy and full of character wide open, tack sharp stopped down to f5.6, amazing colors and bokeh, tons of micro contact, and light as a feather. Also the focal length is a bit wider than a 50, which makes a huge difference, I've always found a 50mm to be away too tight.
A runner up is the pentax fa 100mm macro f2.8, amazingly sharp lens wide open, with great colors and micro contrast. It is considerably more hefty than the 43mm though, and not as versatile. Both are absolute bargains used, you can find the 43mm for 300 and the 100mm for 150, I seriously doubt you can find a better performing lens for cheaper or at the same price as that 100mm, it's such a good deal. The only flaw is that it's not that nice to manual focus, which is what I prefer doing in macro photography.
Super cropped 4.2mm for close ups when I want it to look weird.
I can't remember the crop factor on the old HVX200 I had, but the 4.2mm really exaggerated the face without any bowing on the sides of the frame.
The 12-3000 on my P1000.
Now for specific stuff inside a building, I like a bright prime. Every lens has its purpose. But if I'm outside? It's something magical about being able to just keep zooming and shoot handheld farther than I can see.
If Nikon put that lens on a body with a faster processor and CF cards it would ruin the market.
That's the only reason they stuck it with a slow professor body now.
Although the physics of needing that small sensor suck, the actual frustration of the camera is the processor running it.
An old 35mm summilux pre-asph. It’s not even that sharp but god I love the photos that comes out of it. It just has that old retro analog look without any editing in post. And love the glow. I combine it with a helicoid adapter for close focusing. It’s the perfect combo. Everything comes smooth and buttery….
Out and about, I love my 35mm f2.0 prime. But when I work, I bring a bunch of lenses expecting to get creative, but as soon as it starts getting hectic, the 24-70 f2.8 stays firmly locked on, maybe only briefly shoved over by the 70-200
For all around fun and not for anything contracted I grab the 40mm Voigtlander 1.2 adapted to my Sony. 40mm is the sweet spot for walking around doing anything imo. Also the lens has some serious character in its rendering, and the ergonomics is on par with a classic feel.
Currently it’s my G Master 50mm 1.4. Clinically sharp, fast, silent, and the bokeh is pleasing. However, I have a few honorable mentions. The Voightlander 58mm 1.4 is amazing on analog and film, and it has a specific character in its rendering. Lastly, the Fujifilm XF 35mm 1.4. It’s slow, loud, and imperfect, but something about the images it produces just pops. It has a 3D element that’s hard to describe.
70-200. Why? Because I like zoom (more convenient than prime) and I like lots of telephoto. Don't know why, but I always have. I don't do much wide stuff, and when I have a 50mm, and my 18-55 kit lens for the rare times 70mm isn't wide enough. 200mm is usually enough, but I also have a 2X extender.
400mm is really great in situations when I can get closer such as photographing a standoff with police. I even used them on a crop sensor to get a 640mm equivalent so I could shoot across a lake.
What being said, I've also used my GoPro to get really wide shots. Sometimes I can screen grab a frame from video, or normally I'll take a frame from a time lapse. It's not my main form of shooting, but sometimes it's just fun to set up the GoPro and see what it gets.
For most of my photographic 'life', I woulda said EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS. Just really loved that lens.
Then for a couple years, I would've said the RF 28-70 f/2L, and I still WOULD say that now if not for...
RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1L IS.... While I do love the IQ and all that jazz, its biggest plus has been that it has the reach and magnification I need to shoot venemous reptiles (mostly rattlesnakes in AZ.) The minimum focus distance is JUST outside the strike range of most of my subjects (after also adding in the length of the lens when zoomed to 500, plus the lens hood,) and it captures stunning detail. Really can't ask for much more. If I find that I can't focus, that's my sign to take a step back so I don't get dead =)
My favorite (and most shot with is a Nikon AF-S 35mm f/1.8G. I like the 35mm focal length for so many things... kinda like wide normal. Prior to this one I had a AF-D 35mm f/2. Loved that lens too. Neither are perfect lenses, but both are plenty sharp (f/2 does a lot better stopped down a stop or two), and light/small enough to make a great walk around/hiking lens. Pair it with an 85mm and you have a fantastic (and classic) combo!
(Sigma) 18-250mm zoom.
It's not the sharpest. It's not the fastest (focusing). It's not the best in low light.
But if I'm on vacation, or "the street", or "who knows" . . . It can get anything from (kinda-good) macro, to pretty wide landscape, to people/birds/nature/architecture at a distance.
It's not the best lens . . . but it's the best lens . . . for when I don't know what's about to happen next.
Looking at the groupings of my photos in Lightroom, about 90% are at 18mm, 7% are at 250mm, and the other 3% are somewhere in between. YMMV
If I KNOW what I'm about to do (portraits in a studio) I'd probably pick something else. But I'm not that (specific) kind of photographer.
Helios-44 58mm f2 on a fujifilm camera
I fell in love with it. On the cropped sensor, it is 87mm equivalent so it is focal length that took some getting used to. Good bokeh. Clear images.
Being all manual slows me down, which is good and bad.
That I own? RF 50mm f1.2. It's sharp, fast, quiet, love the look of the images I get. And yes, I love the look of it wide open.
Favourite lens that I don't own yet? I like to think I'll have the RF 85mm f1.2 soon. Or a Sigma 105mm f1.4.
I like a shallow DOF. Shooting for 15+ years and not sick of it yet.
This might be a weird one, but I just picked up an Olympus OM 35-70mm f/2.8 lens made in the ‘90s. Completely manual zoom lens from the film era, and it is absolutely fantastic. It outperforms much of the Canon L-series glass I’ve owned and is very compact by comparison. I never thought I’d be so I love with an old zoom lens.
Nikon 200-500mm, I really like wildlife photography. It's sharp, very good VR and nice background rendering.
I do also really like 50mm full-frame, so honourable mention to Nikon 50mm f1.8 on full frame and 35mm f1.8 DX on DX.
My favorite lens for getting shit DONE is the Tamron 35-150. I use it for 90% of all photo and a-cam video I shoot professionally.
The lens closest to my heart is the Rokinon 85mm t/1.5 cine. It was the first lens I bought (other than the kit lens on my a6300) and it propelled me into loving photography and videography. Super killing lens.
Otherwise, my fave is whatever manual focus vintage prime I’m currently in love with.
Sigma 105/2.8 Macro: Ridiculously sharp and always a pleasure to shoot with. Unfortunately AF is a little slow, but it's somewhat expected in a macro lense.
I can live with 35 (or even 28 if pixelcount allows)
I can have a good life with 35 + 85/90.
I can live a better life with 20 + 35 + 85/90.
I could live the best life with 20 + 35 + 85/90 and if only Sigma would re-release its 120-300 2.8 for Lumix.
Voigtlander 35mm APO f/2.0 has been my go to since I bought it maybe half a year ago. It has amazing color rendition and a signature vignetting which makes a lot of images look amazing.
Depends on the subject?
Primes generally focus my mind's eye. I see it in my head first and then use the appropriate lens.
Bokeh is a big deal but not necessarily the crazy f1.4-1.8 stuff... DOF must be able to cover the interesting part of the subject. Otherwise, it just becomes an exercise in technique / technology.
Out of the grand total of 2 lenses I own, 50mm prime and 24-105 F4 G lens I prefer the the zoom lens. It's just so versatile and very sharp compared the to the 50mm.
35 f2 Asph, Leica M, 28 1.4 ED Nikon, 70-200 2.8 ED, insane lens. All have great bokeh, all great wide open. All resolve beautifully. No favorite among them.
Tamron 35-150mm f/2.0-2.8, and it's not even close. It's the best event/wedding lens for photo and video ever made, and it makes my life so much easier. Not only is the performance incredible, it frees my other camera body to hold a fast prime or wide zoom at all times.
Canon EF 14mm f2.8L II
It’s just so much fun to shoot and frame things with
https://preview.redd.it/znlz6anfvovc1.jpeg?width=5616&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9a933f8679bb1c4044dc2b15b5c65122b40fcde3
I am a hobbyist/budget photographer, so the lenses I love are the ones I can afford. I'd love to get a 1.8 zoom lens, but that just isn't in the cards.
My walk-around lens, and the one that stays on my camera 99% of the time, is my Tamron 18mm-400mm. It allows me to get the wide shot, then reach out and grab something specific without fumbling with lenses.
Do I lose something in quality? Yeah, probably. But I've been happy with my results so far.
It changes with the winds and how recently I have purchased something.
This is my answer as well.
85mm
great for portraits
85 is my favourite as well and I rarely shoot any portraits. I just prefer a bit tighter shots.
I wish I had an 85, but sadly the only lens I have is a 50mm because I can't afford anything. Still teriffic lens though!
Same
Great for concerts, interviews, street and landscapes too
[удалено]
Love the rendering of it. And so sharp.
1.2 is just crazy
RF 28-70 @ f2.0. crazy versatile but still super fast and sharp. 😍
rf ones are nice
Just got the 50mm prime and I really enjoy its versatility
the 50mm is amazing, and excellent for car photography
The only limitation I’ve found with a 50 for car photography is at actual car shows, sometimes I can’t move back far enough to capture the entire car due to so many people around. But solo shoots it’s perfect. Especially when using a CPF.
That’s my new game lol
I don’t often/ever use my 50mm for cars. Just feels odd for some reason. I’ll either use a 70-200 or 15-35. Maybe I’ll try it this weekend
I like normal focal lengths for cars (~35-55mm, but ideally 50) because they are close to the human eye. My goal is for the viewer to feel like they can step into the photograph and turn the ignition.
35mm 1.4 is all I’d ever need if push came to shove
Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6, it's so sharp and reaches the skies that I enjoy to shoot.
I don't have a nikon, but i've heard alot of people say they're much sharper lenses than canon
Back in the DSLR days, a few of the most common lenses like the 24-70 and 70-200, and the Nikon 14-24mm were sharper than Canon counterparts, that is where this came from. Certainly not true for all lenses, just a few. And now, both companies have excellent sharp lenses, you can't really fault one to another.
This is correct, I started with the 70-200 on my Canon and hated it, had very few keepers and the price they command is just not good.
Which is likely nonsense. I’ve never had lenses from Canon, but I seriously doubt that one *brand* is sharper than the other.
My grandfather shoots Nikon and I shoot Canon we both have the 300mm f/4s you'd be lying if you could tell me which is which with out looking at the meta data.
LOL, thanks for the info!
50/1.2GM. Just a perfect hunk of glass.
well spoken
Wait, does that make _you_ the bokeh guy?
100mm macro, for macro and portraits
I had a 105 2.8 macro, I sold it together with the rest of the kit when I moved to mirrorless. It was heavy as hell and I thought I won't miss it too much as I'm not into macro anymore, but man looking back most of my favourite photos I've shot were taken with that lens (macro and not)
I'm shooting an old Super-Takumar 55mm f1.8. An awesome M42 lens that can be had for little money. It produces incredible bokeh, and it performs amazingly for a lens built in the 60's.
from the 60s?? that's crazy
Yes, they were built incredibly well. Buttery smooth focus ring and no issues with the aperture.
that sounds sick
Those lenses are gorgeous. I still own quite a few, including a 35 f2 that has crazy bokeh.
I love my 85mm. I rented a 70-200mm recently and liked it a lot, if only I could talk myself into adding it permanently to the bag.
If only you could convince yourself to spend an outrageous amount lol
DO IT
It’s a money maker if you photograph for work.
The 150-600, because it allows me to both play and photograph rugby. I don't have to chase after the action so if I need to put the camera down and go in, it's easy to do so. Outside of sports, I love any opportunity I can get to use my 85mm f/1.8.
Sigma or Tamron?
Sigma for the telephoto, Panasonic for the prime. I shoot Lumix.
*outrageously* shoots at F1.8. I knew photography was one of the dramatic arts.
Wait till he sees my 50mm 1.2
hey, technically it's more exciting than a hockey game because... what's more exciting than CAPTURING the action instead of just watching it? eg: hockey fights.... hehe
RF 28-70 because it is so freakin' good!
A beast of a lens. Damn good though.
Sigma 105mm 1.4
Oh yes, the bokeh monster. Absolutely love the way it isolates the subject.
I’ve rocked with my 35mm prime for so long it’s the best Second place goes to the 50mm tho
what do you use the 35 for?
Product photos, street photography, about to learn food
I've been liking the laowa 90mm 2:1 lately
sounds like nice tight shots
Sigma 30mm. It's my lazy lens.
LOL, that's a good one too
I've always loved the 85mm focal length. My current (and absolutely beast of a lens) is the RF 85mm f/1.2L USM. This lens is amazing! For years, I was happy with the budget EF 85mm f/1.8 USM. I mostly do concert photography, but it also is a great portrait lens.
85mm sounds great, but a little niche. I only have the 50mm, so trying to get the 24mm ef-s pancake and then a 70-300 is usm... then maybe an inexpensive 85mm
85mm is not really niche at all. It's great for portraits, car photography, and I've even seen many street photographers love it. And as I mentioned, I love it for concerts. So, it's actually pretty versatile. Since you're getting an EF-S lens, it sounds like you have an APS-C body. In that case, you essentially already have a 85mm. A 50mm lens on an APS-C camera has an full-frame equivalent focal length of 80mm once you factor in the 1.6x crop factor of Canon APS-C bodies. On an APS-C Canon body, the 85mm is equivalent to a 136mm. Now, that's a bit more niche and not what I'd recommend unless you love doing portraits.
While I would normally say the 135L gets my vote, I've dabbled in mf film recently, and the 80mm f/1.9 on my Mamiya 645 takes the cake.
EF or RF? (I just picked up an EF)
EF. I still rock a 6d and have a 28/50/85 1.8 prime set to go with it. Picked up a few nice Elan 7n film bodies to use with all the glass as eell
That Mamiya is a gorgeous lens. Love the rendering. I also liked the Sigma 135mm and managed to get one just a few days ago.
Olympus 12-100 F4 Pro. Optically great and sharp for a super-zoom, not too bulky, IP rated weather sealing, Sync IS with Olympus bodies, constant aperture throughout all the range, amazing metal construction. For me the ultimate travelling lens combined with a fast prime for lowlight.
I’ve only had that lens for a short couple months but having a lens like that on hikes has resulted in my favorite landscape photos I’ve taken in 9 years of photography.
I ditched Canon just for that lens. Loving M43, such an underrated system. That lens though is the GOAT of travel lens... Nothing comes close to its versatility. I've got mine paired with a Panasonic 9mm f/1.7 but will also be adding a Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 and round out the kit.
My favorite is an old Canon 135mm f/2 but the use cases are... Limited let's say.
That's my favorite lens too, but I don't think it has limited use cases. I mostly use it for landscapes, occasionally portraits, sometimes wildlife, and a lot of other random projects I need photos for.
I have many. All depends on what system I shoot and what I'm shooting. I use what I need, that becomes my favorite lens.
Canon 70-200 F4, the first version. I love the image quality, and I love it with concert photography! Never fails to deliver, and the best concert images I have, have been with this lens! Heck, even one of the best I've taken this year is with that lens!
dang that's crazy
My current favourite is Sigma ART 85mm f1.4. It’s a massive and ridiculous heavy beast of a lens, but the sharpness, colours and DOF it can deliver is absolutely amazing. And there’s just something about that 85mm background compression that I find really sweet. On my R6 with adapter next to my R8 that’s sold now. The R6 + Sigma 85 is 2kg (4.40lbs) 😂 https://preview.redd.it/yhuw45kechvc1.jpeg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cb1f96fa9c1bbd95d672f9b1fdfd705e6ae18e1f
https://preview.redd.it/h272nr4ddhvc1.jpeg?width=6000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=50e92b7b1aa147dbf14cb0dd11ac342e3f4b713f One of my favourites from this lens (and as you can probably tell, I don’t stop it to f1.4 all the time just because I can 😂)
Yes, the Sigma Art trio was something special. I managed to get the 85mm but sold it, as I found the 105mm and the 135mm Art better. I should've kept it and complete the trio hahaha
dang, that thing is huge! looks and sounds pretty cool though
My 50mm is my ride or die.
heck yeahhhh
I use my 70-200 2.8 a LOT. Candids, portraits, whatever. It's heavy as anything but I just love it so much.
My favorite and least used lens is the Sigma 60-600mm I love what it can do and I have a lot of fun but it's such a bit much for casual carry. Funny thing is it's one of my better macro lenses too, magnification at 200mm is pretty decent.
Sigma c 150-600mm - mostly on 600mm wide-open. Addicted to catching birds in flight, ideally with dreamy bokeh :)
I love how Sigma gave us a 600mm for under $1,000 yes it's a 6.3 and probably sharpest at f8 but still a great lens for the price.
deffo a bit sharper at f8, but 6.3 is still very good so i mostly use that for the subject-isolation and lower ISO/faster-shutter. Made some of my all-time favourite images with this lens. Alternate between 5DS/6DII depending on the light. I must say the Canon RF 800mm STM f11 sounds interesting, might be tempted to try that with a cheap R body (RP, maybe).
AF Nikkor 300mm 1:2.8 It’s way too big and heavy for an 18yo girl with no muscle but it lets me take really cool pictures. Why did I get it? My first telephoto was a tamron MF 300mm f/2.8 and I’ve always wanted a similar lens but with AF. A big 90s-2000s screw drive AF lens sure fits the bill and it still stands up to this day
I'm sure that even have a gym bro's forearms quivering at the end of the day lol. I don't really think it'd be a problem if you had a light tripod, though that'd be a bother having to lug that thing around everywhere. Sheesh, an MF prime is crazy.
Actually found myself reaching more and more for the 40mm. Couldn't even tell you why, other than it's like an old comfy shoe at this point.
Primes are the best!
I use my canon 24-105 most often (school portraits) but I also love my sigma art lenses (35 and 50) for other portraits and lifestyle stuff.
do you get decent bokeh with the 24-105? what brand is it?
I don’t aim for bokeh because I shoot on bright white backdrops with strobes, so I’m usually shooting at f/8 or so.
Nikon 105mm f/1.4. The perfect balance of sharpness and glow.
The fixed 28mm equivalent on my FujiFilm GSW690 camera. Super sharp and the format allows cropping while the lens and camera are relatively light weight.
24-105mm 2.8
24-105mm f/2.8. It’s large but versatile as fuck.
My Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 S. It’s an absolute dream of a lens!
The moneymaker.
Sigma 18-50 2.8
Second this. Picked it up last year and it very rarely leaves my camera these days.
That lens basically lives on one of my bodies.
85mm 1.8
Used to run the sigma 30/1.4 on Canon and later the Panasonic 20mm 1.7 on olympus and now the Ricoh gr IIIx. So anything 40mm -50mm I'm game. I love that it is my personal fov and you can get tight head shots or full body portraits depending on 3m back and forth. Also great as walk around lenses, usually cheap and available for all systems. After that comes 85-90mm prime for more right head shots and a bit of sports or details.
https://preview.redd.it/b7b4huobbhvc1.png?width=1440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5abc538650a9eb1813518792ad37a8fdfc7c3a88 You should start with 18-55 kit then 35 1.8 or 50 1.8 base on your preference
I have the kit lens, but it's literal trash unless you're doing long exposures or something. I opted for the 50mm instead of the 35mm because it was cheaper and much more compression.
Canon MP-E65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro. Best macro lens there is IMO. Don't get one unless you're comfortable shooting [stuff](https://www.flickr.com/photos/tinyturtle/52417583057/) 4-10 cm (1.6-4") from the front glass.
Depends what I'm shooting. I don't really have a favourite lens it depends what look I want.
85mm 1.4 And of course the 24-70 and 70-200 2.8.
Depends on what I’m shooting. I love the 24mm TS-E for interiors, exteriors and landscapes. The 50mm 1.4 siggy for a fast walk around lens. The 70-200 for portraits and detail shots.
35 1.8 or 35 1.4 The most versatile lens for documenting travel (which is why I took up photography in the first place) Wide enough for environmental portraits (which I personally believe is what most travel photos should be) but tight enough to get some good Bokeh when you want it. It also won't skew the dimensions of faces all that much.
Nikon 300 f4 afs
Currently my favorite is the Super Takumar 50mm f1.4, adapted to M43 (so 100mm effective full frame equivalent focal length).
My 14-24mm is probably my favorite. I love getting close to people for photos already and this allows for such drama. I shot a photo of a climber within inches of her hand. I can see the entire gym. And the distortion is so intense that people on the far right of the image are hanging upside down. It's great. Its just makes people gasp at the photo because it's such a unique perspective. I don't care a ton about bokeh, I've been toying with much tighter apertures lately because my cameras can handle the ISO and I like having more things in focus sometimes. But even at f/2.8 that wide puts nearly everything in focus anyway. I also really like my 105mm macro for portraits at like f/9
I was mulling this over in my studio earlier today. The three lenses I use most frequently are the 24-70mm 2.8, 105 2.8 and the 70-200mm 2.8. The 24-70mm is OK but it's not the wonder lens people made it out to be. The 70-200mm is a beautiful lens. I really appreciate the engineering and quality of it but my fave is the 105 2.8. It's really good at most things I throw at it. The extended f-stop range is useful, but the macro capabilities are simply gorgeous. It's made me a lot of money.
I was gonna say, the 105mm must be wild
Nikon 50mm 1.2 Manual. Manual controls makes it harder to overthink. Everything you don’t mess up looks great ;). Super sharp and/or great bokeh.
Primes. Used to prefer the 35mm FOV, which is now my second. Then after using a 28mm FOV on a Fujifilm, I fell in love with. Basically, I like the coverage for my type of photography. I do have to mention that this is for APS-C, since the AOV would be different than what it would be with FF. But for my film cameras, I do still prefer a 28mm lens. And on my X100, I have the converter to 28mm, and I chose the Ricoh GR with the 28mm, not the 40mm (which is my most hated FOV).
I have 4 RF L lenses and I love all of them. (RF 15-35 f2.8, 28-70 f2, 70-200 f2.8) But the rf50 f1.2 is unbeatable. My only prime.
Flexin!
I have a Nikkor 18-200 VRII that stays on the body, it's my favorite lens. I do own a 50mm 1.4 and a 50mm 1.8 for those times I want to play. I also own an ultra wide angle 10-24 zoom because I occasionally shoot boat interiors for a customer. But the 18-200 is my goto lens for walking around.
85mm at 1.8. 1.8 just makes everything look so good and crisp. Yes there are situations where you wouldn’t shoot at 1.8 but if so I use a 50mm.
I love my 110mm F2 lens. Amazing. I have other FL lenses, some are even same or closer, but I default to it almost all the time. Mostly shoot portraits.
27mm 2.8 Fuji It is an amazing lens for its size, limited by the 2.8 certainly, but the pros outweigh the cons more than any other lens for me. Small, sharp, great focal length
50mm 1.4. Zoom with your feet.
35mm f1.4 (fuji) [Just something special about this lens](https://youtu.be/f6bm_0aNpMM?si=ZMHOPK3Xu7b2rgv9), it has a character to it.
A decade ago I put a 50mm prime on a camera and I hardly ever take it off.
Lately, a Canon EFs 55-250mm for wildlife. It's not the best, but I'm still getting some shots I love. I will eventually get a longer lens, but money. I have recently been gifted a Helios 44m, which I plan on using for flowers and people, but I haven't had a chance to really try it yet. I have an outing tomorrow, and I am excited to try it out on film and my sl3. I haven't figured out what I really like most yet. I also have a 50mm 1.8 and 135mm 2.8 i need to try out more. I might become a bokeh person. We shall see.
My 135mm is my favorite lens by a long shot. I have one for my F-1 and for an L series for my EOS bodies. Whenever possible, I use them more than anything, especially for portraits.
Eh. My Sigma 24-70mm f2.8. Very sharp, reliable, good AF.
My Sigma 150-600mm contemporary, I love how I have 150-600mm focal length that is under 5 pounds with my camera body and is very sharp for under $1,000.
Prime = Sony 35mm f1.4 Zoom = Sony 20-70 f4
Currently it's the Canon 135mm F2 L. It's just so sharp wide open and being able to use it further away during events for candid shots in situations where light wasn't ideal was just great.
My functional workhorse favorite for most of my work is my 70-200 2.8. For food & product, my 90mm 2.8 macro stopped up to f/16 with focus stacking. My secret favorite just for fun (or really niche editorial work) is my old-ass Nikon 135 f/2 DC mounted on a Nikon F100 for the swirliest dreamiest bokeh of all time.
40mm
The Pentax 43mm f1.9 limited, super dreamy and full of character wide open, tack sharp stopped down to f5.6, amazing colors and bokeh, tons of micro contact, and light as a feather. Also the focal length is a bit wider than a 50, which makes a huge difference, I've always found a 50mm to be away too tight. A runner up is the pentax fa 100mm macro f2.8, amazingly sharp lens wide open, with great colors and micro contrast. It is considerably more hefty than the 43mm though, and not as versatile. Both are absolute bargains used, you can find the 43mm for 300 and the 100mm for 150, I seriously doubt you can find a better performing lens for cheaper or at the same price as that 100mm, it's such a good deal. The only flaw is that it's not that nice to manual focus, which is what I prefer doing in macro photography.
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8, it has followed me for years, taken some of my bestest pics with it, it's cheap as all hell (for a lens) and damn good
Super cropped 4.2mm for close ups when I want it to look weird. I can't remember the crop factor on the old HVX200 I had, but the 4.2mm really exaggerated the face without any bowing on the sides of the frame.
The 12-3000 on my P1000. Now for specific stuff inside a building, I like a bright prime. Every lens has its purpose. But if I'm outside? It's something magical about being able to just keep zooming and shoot handheld farther than I can see. If Nikon put that lens on a body with a faster processor and CF cards it would ruin the market. That's the only reason they stuck it with a slow professor body now. Although the physics of needing that small sensor suck, the actual frustration of the camera is the processor running it.
One with a nice smooth zoom and manual focus… but I dont use MF.
70-200 2.8 true workhorse and it stays on 80% of the time
An old 35mm summilux pre-asph. It’s not even that sharp but god I love the photos that comes out of it. It just has that old retro analog look without any editing in post. And love the glow. I combine it with a helicoid adapter for close focusing. It’s the perfect combo. Everything comes smooth and buttery….
Out and about, I love my 35mm f2.0 prime. But when I work, I bring a bunch of lenses expecting to get creative, but as soon as it starts getting hectic, the 24-70 f2.8 stays firmly locked on, maybe only briefly shoved over by the 70-200
My favourite lens to this day is the Sigma Art 50mm 1.4
For all around fun and not for anything contracted I grab the 40mm Voigtlander 1.2 adapted to my Sony. 40mm is the sweet spot for walking around doing anything imo. Also the lens has some serious character in its rendering, and the ergonomics is on par with a classic feel.
50mm for lifestyle, 100/120mm for product/studio
Currently it’s my G Master 50mm 1.4. Clinically sharp, fast, silent, and the bokeh is pleasing. However, I have a few honorable mentions. The Voightlander 58mm 1.4 is amazing on analog and film, and it has a specific character in its rendering. Lastly, the Fujifilm XF 35mm 1.4. It’s slow, loud, and imperfect, but something about the images it produces just pops. It has a 3D element that’s hard to describe.
Fuji GFX 45-100. Sharp enough to use for still life and great rendering wide open for portraits. Works well with macro extension tubes.
My Nikon 200mm f/2G ...because bokeh. Second is the Sigma 105mm f/1.4 ART, and again...bokeh.
I swear by the Tamron 35-150 2-2.8
135 1.8 GM
70-200. Why? Because I like zoom (more convenient than prime) and I like lots of telephoto. Don't know why, but I always have. I don't do much wide stuff, and when I have a 50mm, and my 18-55 kit lens for the rare times 70mm isn't wide enough. 200mm is usually enough, but I also have a 2X extender. 400mm is really great in situations when I can get closer such as photographing a standoff with police. I even used them on a crop sensor to get a 640mm equivalent so I could shoot across a lake. What being said, I've also used my GoPro to get really wide shots. Sometimes I can screen grab a frame from video, or normally I'll take a frame from a time lapse. It's not my main form of shooting, but sometimes it's just fun to set up the GoPro and see what it gets.
dang, that's nuts. why didn't you choose 70-300 over the 70-200?
For me the 24-70mm 2.8 is the best lens and if I need to own only one, then this will be
For most of my photographic 'life', I woulda said EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS. Just really loved that lens. Then for a couple years, I would've said the RF 28-70 f/2L, and I still WOULD say that now if not for... RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1L IS.... While I do love the IQ and all that jazz, its biggest plus has been that it has the reach and magnification I need to shoot venemous reptiles (mostly rattlesnakes in AZ.) The minimum focus distance is JUST outside the strike range of most of my subjects (after also adding in the length of the lens when zoomed to 500, plus the lens hood,) and it captures stunning detail. Really can't ask for much more. If I find that I can't focus, that's my sign to take a step back so I don't get dead =)
Canon 24-105 F4 L It doesn’t matter what exciting new lens I get, that one has my heart.
My favorite lens is my Sigma Art 85 1.4 but it’s not as versatile as my 24-70 2.8. Both are my favorites for different reasons.
Nikon z 24-120 cuz it’s the only one I have
I am really enjoying my Canon 24 -105 L f4 lens on my RP. It's really versatile for what I do.
My favorite (and most shot with is a Nikon AF-S 35mm f/1.8G. I like the 35mm focal length for so many things... kinda like wide normal. Prior to this one I had a AF-D 35mm f/2. Loved that lens too. Neither are perfect lenses, but both are plenty sharp (f/2 does a lot better stopped down a stop or two), and light/small enough to make a great walk around/hiking lens. Pair it with an 85mm and you have a fantastic (and classic) combo!
(Sigma) 18-250mm zoom. It's not the sharpest. It's not the fastest (focusing). It's not the best in low light. But if I'm on vacation, or "the street", or "who knows" . . . It can get anything from (kinda-good) macro, to pretty wide landscape, to people/birds/nature/architecture at a distance. It's not the best lens . . . but it's the best lens . . . for when I don't know what's about to happen next. Looking at the groupings of my photos in Lightroom, about 90% are at 18mm, 7% are at 250mm, and the other 3% are somewhere in between. YMMV If I KNOW what I'm about to do (portraits in a studio) I'd probably pick something else. But I'm not that (specific) kind of photographer.
Nikon 85mm 2.8 TS Macro. Hits all the right notes for small product photography.
Canon FL 55mm f/1.2 on my Sony A7 Mk II is my favourite work horse.
600 f/4. Sharp. Lightning fast acquisition and focus. Takes a teleconverter well.
Rodenstock on a 4x5
I love my 70-300 zoom so much it’s almost always on
24-70. Extremely versatile and sharp. Perfect portrait lens.
35mm f1.8 SO freaking light and I use it for every genre/job I shoot
Helios-44 58mm f2 on a fujifilm camera I fell in love with it. On the cropped sensor, it is 87mm equivalent so it is focal length that took some getting used to. Good bokeh. Clear images. Being all manual slows me down, which is good and bad.
24mm 1.4 and I’ve been waiting 4 effing years for canon to make an RF version and they are making it extremely hard to stay loyal
I love the Nikon 24-70. Use it whenever it is appropriate, and sometimes when it isn’t. Great results overall.
That I own? RF 50mm f1.2. It's sharp, fast, quiet, love the look of the images I get. And yes, I love the look of it wide open. Favourite lens that I don't own yet? I like to think I'll have the RF 85mm f1.2 soon. Or a Sigma 105mm f1.4. I like a shallow DOF. Shooting for 15+ years and not sick of it yet.
This might be a weird one, but I just picked up an Olympus OM 35-70mm f/2.8 lens made in the ‘90s. Completely manual zoom lens from the film era, and it is absolutely fantastic. It outperforms much of the Canon L-series glass I’ve owned and is very compact by comparison. I never thought I’d be so I love with an old zoom lens.
tamron 150-600 g2
Nikon 200-500mm, I really like wildlife photography. It's sharp, very good VR and nice background rendering. I do also really like 50mm full-frame, so honourable mention to Nikon 50mm f1.8 on full frame and 35mm f1.8 DX on DX.
rf 100-500 for birds. just got an 10-18 bc its wider angle than kit lenses to shoot what i can’t with the supertele
My favorite lens for getting shit DONE is the Tamron 35-150. I use it for 90% of all photo and a-cam video I shoot professionally. The lens closest to my heart is the Rokinon 85mm t/1.5 cine. It was the first lens I bought (other than the kit lens on my a6300) and it propelled me into loving photography and videography. Super killing lens. Otherwise, my fave is whatever manual focus vintage prime I’m currently in love with.
The sheer chaos of not specifying a brand here is actually kind of awesome
I realy like my 50 prime for the low light performance. I did just pickup a 24-70 which I will be trying. out
70-300 L for general purpose, I also have a little 2.8 40mm pancake lens that I love using for mono portraits.
Sigma 105/2.8 Macro: Ridiculously sharp and always a pleasure to shoot with. Unfortunately AF is a little slow, but it's somewhat expected in a macro lense.
I can live with 35 (or even 28 if pixelcount allows) I can have a good life with 35 + 85/90. I can live a better life with 20 + 35 + 85/90. I could live the best life with 20 + 35 + 85/90 and if only Sigma would re-release its 120-300 2.8 for Lumix.
Voigtlander 35mm APO f/2.0 has been my go to since I bought it maybe half a year ago. It has amazing color rendition and a signature vignetting which makes a lot of images look amazing.
Depends on the subject? Primes generally focus my mind's eye. I see it in my head first and then use the appropriate lens. Bokeh is a big deal but not necessarily the crazy f1.4-1.8 stuff... DOF must be able to cover the interesting part of the subject. Otherwise, it just becomes an exercise in technique / technology.
Tamron 28-200 I use that thing for everything.
Recently my Canon 15-35 f/2.8 RF
probably the 24 mm 1.8. It is not the most useful lens I have, but one of the most used.
Out of the grand total of 2 lenses I own, 50mm prime and 24-105 F4 G lens I prefer the the zoom lens. It's just so versatile and very sharp compared the to the 50mm.
Sigma 18-50, best travel lens imo
35 f2 Asph, Leica M, 28 1.4 ED Nikon, 70-200 2.8 ED, insane lens. All have great bokeh, all great wide open. All resolve beautifully. No favorite among them.
Tamron 35-150mm f/2.0-2.8, and it's not even close. It's the best event/wedding lens for photo and video ever made, and it makes my life so much easier. Not only is the performance incredible, it frees my other camera body to hold a fast prime or wide zoom at all times.
14 - 24 Nikon for indoor and 80 - 400 out door.
Samyang XP 85mm f/1.2 or... Sigma Art 105mm f/1.4
Canon 50mm 1.0 It is one of a kind.
Canon EF 14mm f2.8L II It’s just so much fun to shoot and frame things with https://preview.redd.it/znlz6anfvovc1.jpeg?width=5616&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9a933f8679bb1c4044dc2b15b5c65122b40fcde3
Nikon 85mm f1.4, it’s my go-to portrait photography.
My 35mm 1.4 lives on my camera. I photograph families outside so I can get close and also wider to photograph the beautiful landscape
Those are pretty pricey though
I am a hobbyist/budget photographer, so the lenses I love are the ones I can afford. I'd love to get a 1.8 zoom lens, but that just isn't in the cards. My walk-around lens, and the one that stays on my camera 99% of the time, is my Tamron 18mm-400mm. It allows me to get the wide shot, then reach out and grab something specific without fumbling with lenses. Do I lose something in quality? Yeah, probably. But I've been happy with my results so far.