What is your favorite lens?

<p>Veering off topic a bit, but in a related way, anybody have luck with a third party focusing screen for their modern DSLR? I love my old MF lenses, but the focusing screen of the DSLRs are not as accurate for focusing a MF lens, especially at the very wide apertures. This is what keeps me from using my older lenses more. Perhaps another thread on this would be useful.</p>

<p>No Dan, you're not going to get an argument from me, as a retired academic I should have been much more thoughtful with my choice of words. I wouldn't mind a dollar for every time I had to point that kind of sweeping generalisation out in student art history papers and higher degree proposals.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I keep hearing that many older lenses don't look good when tested, as you say, with larger sensors, but I haven't experienced that. I have found that my older Ais lenses are quite sharp on 24mp. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>right, well, i wasnt making that claim across the board. just repeating anecdotal info about hi-rez sensors outresolving some older lenses. it seems to be on a case by case basis, and particular to lens/body combinations, but as megapixel counts continue to grow, i think we'll see more legacy lenses' flaws be revealed. which is maybe an argument to keep an out of date nikon body around if you like those lenses. it's also been widely reported that some older DSLR-era lenses like 18-200, 70-200 I, suffer to various extents on either higher-MP or full-frame sensors. i did recently read an interview with the CEO of Sigma where he addressed the issue of higher-rez sensors. he basically said some lenses are indeed outresolved, and newer lenses are being designed with higher MP counts in mind, but that you should be safe with most macro lenses. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>my only intention was to illustrate that modest lenses can make nice photos, period.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>well, this gets into the adage that sharpness is overrated. what makes a nice photo IMO is framing, composition, and creative use of light. in other words, photographers make photos, not the other way around. that said, some of the preferred lenses also have a certain character or image signature which they impart on any shot, which goes beyond absolute sharpness.</p>

<p>Clive, admirable response. Civility on line is not dead. My fav is the 135 2.0 dc. Has short comings but I have learned to work around them and the results I get are stunning. More ooh and aahs than any other lens in my bag. Designed in 1994, it still does things I love to an image. 85 1.4 is right behind it. </p>

<p>Agreed - cheers to Clive for that response. What a striking juxtaposition to the usual attitude: "actually, I said this but meant that."</p>

<p>My favorite lens is the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. </p>

<p>Eric, my very point was what you just said: "<em>what makes a nice photo IMO is framing, composition, and creative use of light. in other words, photographers make photos, not the other way around.</em>" That's exactly what I tried to demonstrate in my examples. No more, no less. I couldn't have said it better. Sure, pro lenses have a variety of characteristics, but, these differences are not <em>required</em> to make good photos. Its the "<em>framing, composition, and creative use of light. in other words, photographers make photos, not the other way around.</em>" If you read my statements, I never implied that sharpness was an issue. I did mention that <em>my</em> older lenses seemed to be looking sharp even with 24 mp. I love the different characteristics of my older lenses, as I used them with film all through the 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's, so I am quite experienced in this phenomenon, but I do find focusing them with a DSLR a challenge. I'm wondering if a new focusing screen might solve the problem. Otherwise I might consider AF versions of a couple of my favorite focal lengths down the road. If I was a pro, it would justify the expense, but I am an amateur enthusiast, like many people here on pnet.</p>

<p>Most times I have the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 on my camera. I have the aching neck and shoulder to prove it:) <br />Before I bought it, I asked for advice here at Pnet and other links. I was warned that it was too big and heavy, but quality was excellent. Both were true. The 24-70 has been very good to me... but as I get older, it wears me out during a 1-3 hour shoot, especially if I have the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR slung over the other shoulder. Sometimes when carrying them both, I get severe pain in my lower left side, between the hips and ribs. Mentioned it to my doctor, but he did not have an answer.</p>

<p>John, I was a counselor in a pain clinic for many years, and I worked side by side with excellent physical therapists. When we first got our Border Collie, Lily, I would throw the tennis ball with one of those throwing sticks. She had a lot of energy and would chase the ball for almost an hour every day. After a while my shoulder began to give me pain. I asked one of our physical therapists how I should address my shoulder pain. I was expecting a list of exercises, stretches, using ice packs, that sort of thing. Instead, she looked at me and said: "stop throwing the tennis ball." I switched to throwing a frisbee, which uses completely different arm mechanics, and I never got the shoulder pain again.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>What’s your favorite lens? And why? Let me be more specific. I know most of us do a variety of types of photography, and we favor different lenses for different purposes. But, I’m talking about a lens you really enjoy using and appreciating the results you get from that lens, for whatever purpose. What is it about that lens that makes it your favorite?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't understand this affection to a particular lens. Lenses come and go, I've enjoyed trying out different lenses but never got passionate enough about one single item to stick to it forever. Each lens has its shortcomings and the joy is to use it to its strengths.<br /> <br />What often makes a lens a favorite is that it's small, light and affordable / expendable, and that it's reasonably fast and reasonably sharp. It doesn't need to excel in any particular domain, as long as it doesn't have obvious shortcomings. Good is good enough, the rest is what <em>you</em> make of it.<br /> <br /> Instead of thinking in terms of 'favorite lens' I rather remember 'favorite pictures'.<br /> To illustrate, below are just a few of my favorite pictures, each made with a different lens, from a puny 100 usd to a hefty 1000 usd lens. I couldn't tell one is ten times better or worse than the other. If there's a common factor to define these images, it's the use of <em>composition and light</em>, and perhaps some post-processing. <br /> <br /> In order: 20mm 35mm 50mm 85mm 135mm. <br /> <img src="http://i65.tinypic.com/20tm2o8.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://i66.tinypic.com/hrau13.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://i67.tinypic.com/29maees.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://i67.tinypic.com/2dkmlwn.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://i65.tinypic.com/11ql6gx.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>For land/cityscapes: 17-35 AF-S: for the sharpness, relatively small size, it's sharpness and the way it renders...<br>

<br />Otherwise -like many apparently- the 35 1.4 Ai-s: for the unique way it renders and the joy of manual focusing a beautifully made lens</p>

<p>Andy Powers, I do a lot of shots of flowers, and my favorite lens is my old 105mm 2.8 D. micro. really sharp with normally very crisp colors, but the lens that is taking over my favorite spot for walk-around shots is my Sigma 50mm 1.4 non Art.</p>

<p>Wedding Photographer:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't understand this affection to a particular lens. Lenses come and go, I've enjoyed trying out different lenses but never got passionate enough about one single item to stick to it forever. Each lens has its shortcomings and the joy is to use it to its strengths.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I totally get it. That's why I posted a series of photos too. Thanks for doing the same thing. Perhaps I should have asked people to post examples from the start! In a sense, my favorite lenses are the ones I have. I keep them because they meet my needs. Lenses that don't get sold. </p>

<p>From people's responses so far, there seem to be a cluster of "favorite" lenses, or the one's that get used, like the various f1.2 and f1.4 lenses for their bokeh character, wide zooms, for their sharpness and utility, especially the pro variety that are f2.8, some of the medium telephotos like the 105mm range for portraiture, and then some long lenses too.</p>

<p>John, I totally get it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> The 24-70 has been very good to me... but as I get older, it wears me out during a 1-3 hour shoot,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is why I have in recent months started to purchase more Tamron lenses. I first set out to buy them for the weight, but found the image quality to be a huge blessing. </p>

<p>Javier, are you recommending Tamron as a viable alternative to the Nikon equivalents as far as image quality?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Tamron as a viable alternative to the Nikon equivalents as far as image quality</p>

</blockquote>

<p>depends on the lens. the 17-50 for DX is excellent, at least the copy i had (screw-drive); the 28-75/2.8 is sharp, light, and compact; the 70-300 VC holds sharpness out to the long end. the 24-70 and 70-200 VC, which i havent tried, are well-regarded for IQ. But the 10-24 hasn't gotten great reviews, and some of the older Tamrons can be hit or miss. Tamron's recent offerings, the 35 and 45 f/1.8s, seem to eschew the mass-market strategy of their superzooms, and offer something truly useful -- fast aperture, compact size, and close-focus capabilities. They also look a whole lot like the Sigma ART lenses, but that's a different story. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Javier, are you recommending Tamron as a viable alternative to the Nikon equivalents as far as image quality?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Steve, No, not as far as image quality goes, but as far as weight goes. 98% of what I shoot is street photography and most street guys will tell you that you spend allot of time on your feet and legs. For me at the age of 50 I begin to feel it after about the 3rd mile of walking with my 28-75 F/2.8 Tamron. With the Nikon 24-70 F/2.8, I begin to feel it by about the 1.5 mile range. Before I blew out my knee 2 years ago, the Nikon lenses were no problem. The extra 2-3 lbs depending on lens was no big deal, but my knees simply can't take it any more. My average day walk is 5 miles, about 3-4 times a week. (I am retired now) A week ago I received the Tamron 17-50F/2.8 to use in place of my Nikon 17-35F/2.8. I can't begin to tell you how pleased I am with it. Personally in good light I see no difference in image quality even pixel peeping which I do not do, but for testing. There are two areas where the Nikon Lenses really shine and in my experience, will be tough to beat. 1) Low light wide open. The Nikons are superb. 2) Into the sun. They really handle lens flair really well. Other than those two areas, I see no difference. Both of the Tamron lenses I own, have the internal focus motor and do not have VR. VR lenses for me are not necessary as the slowest shutter speed I normally use is 250 VR adds weight to the lenses. Anyway, I am very happy with my 2 Tamrons. <br>

I also love Tokina Lenses, but they are heavy. I have the 12-24 F/4 for my DX bodies and the 17-35F/4 for my FX. The image quality is superb on those as well in perfect light. But again, my Nikon Lenses kill these.<br>

Before tearing up my knee, I shot with prime lenses 90% of the time. I love primes and no zoom can touch them as far as weight and image quality goes. Focus speed is fast and accurate, but my legs can't move as quickly as they used to, so I miss allot of shots, hence the short zooms. <br>

Those new sigma ART lenses are killer. I have two of them and those will give Nikon a run for the money as far as quality goes, but they are also heavy. <br>

<br>

I am sure someone will criticize me for offering up my opinion, but you did ask. <br>

Thanks Javier</p>

<p>Thanks for the info, Javier and Eric. Perhaps John H can lighten his load and reduce his back pain!</p>

<p>Just a note on carrying heavy gear. I am 65, in good health, I ride a mountain bike every day on dirt trails in a woods. This summer I purchased a Movo Photo MB700 Universal Single Camera Carrying Vest Holster System, which is inexpensive ($30 ) and gets favorable reviews even when compared to the much more expensive Cotton Carrier, which sells for $150.00. These carriers allow you to carry the camera and lens, even a telephoto, attached to a chest plate. The camera is attached by a post mounted in the tripod hole. The lens is pointed down and the camera and lens stay safely attached to your chest instead of swinging around. The vest goes over both shoulders and is attached in the back. I have been very pleased with this set up. You can grab the camera quickly when you need it too. There is even a safety strap that holds the camera in case you drop it. I see that some systems will allow you to carry two cameras as well.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There are two areas where the Nikon Lenses really shine and in my experience, will be tough to beat. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>i would definitely say the Tamrons are viable alternatives to Nikon in terms of IQ. The 28-75 is just a tad soft (but still useable) @2.8, but by f/4, it's just as sharp as the Nikon 24-70 AF-S and, as Javier reports, significantly lighter. The 17-50 Tamron i owned (non-VC, non-BiM) is perhaps the sharpest zoom i have ever used at 2.8.. it does have some distortion at 17mm, but so does every other zoom in its class. The Tamron standard zooms are also sharper IME than the Nikon 18-70, especially at wider apertures. Where the pro Nikkors really shine is in AF speed, which is practically instantaneous on the 24-70 and 70-200 II, and in build quality. When the Tamron 70-200 originally came out, it was lauded for IQ but dinged for AF speed. Several iterations later, it now has an ultrasonic motor so i would expect the latest version to be operationally-faster than previous versions. I havent had any AF speed issues with the Tamron 70-300 USD i own, although that is a consumer lens with a clunky focus ring which i dont really use for event shooting. But reviews have placed it as a bit better for IQ than the Nikon equivalent.<br>

<br>

One thing i feel is worth noting is that Nikon's lens philosophy has changed a bit over the past decade. They used to be built like tanks, with high-quality optics. Today, build quality is much lower in general, with a lot of plastic parts unless you go super high-end. Nikon can still make good lenses when it wants to--the new 24/1.8 G is reportedly excellent--but the 3rd-party manufacturers are no longer automatically also-rans, with Sigma ARTs being the obvious example.<br>

<br>

For carrying options, the best thing i ever did was get the camera off my neck, with a black rapid-type sling strap. Works great with 24-70 and 70-200. I mainly use a Domke shoulder bag + Herringbone hand strap when carrying primes, and a Kata backpack when packing the heavy zooms. I used to carry the zooms in a shoulder bag, but poor ergonomics and heavy weight led to back issues, so now i use better support. For active pursuits like biking or hiking, i'll downsize to a Fuji mirrorless system in a Vanguard messenger or Lowepro waistpack. </p>

<p>I have a hard time choosing, but my top 3 would be (in order of focal length): 35mm f/2.5 Series E, AI converted 55mm f/1.2, and 105mm f/1.8 AIS. Usually on an F3, but now often on my D610.</p>

<p><img src="https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/10850077_875346235831426_6371361541582719614_n.jpg?oh=fb20b62a59f2ba88aaaac51832df7c07&oe=571A27E2" alt="" width="850" height="567" /></p>

<p>thought I'd join in with a pic from the Lensbaby 50 double optic transforming a fairly ordinary scene into something quite exciting</p>

 

<p><img src="https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xta1/v/t1.0-9/11218897_990659877633394_5408449118881333653_n.jpg?oh=cab398bb0f51843efaff7707b2b805d6&oe=571AE681" alt="" width="850" height="567" /></p>

<p>And now the lensbaby edge 80</p>

<p>Levon, may I ask, how is focusing those manual lenses on the D610? Any problems?</p>

<p>Here's an example of stopping down a lens to f/4 from 2.0. Sharp, yet great bokeh and oof. That red light upper R of pier is perfectly round. </p><div></div>

Steve, to be honest, the 55 is the easiest, followed

very closely by the 105. The 35 has a rather short

focus throw in comparison, and was easily the

most difficult of the three to learn to "get right." It

did take some getting used to, as well as

calibration with the body. The focus assist

illuminator has been pretty good for all three with

all three. It helps that I had always used the ground

fresnel focusing screen on the F3, so wasn't used

to split prism. The F3's Finder seems much better

than the D610's.