What is your favorite lens?

<p>I ask partly out of curiosity, and partly so that as I learn, (hopefully) improve and develop my own style, I'll have a list built to help me should NAS strike. So I hope this isn't too silly a question (or been asked before - I did search but could have missed it).</p>

<p>What is your favorite lens, and why? Nikon/third party/DX/FX/fixed focal length/zoom/use - doesn't matter. Please do however include the "why." If you have more than one, perhaps one for DX and one for FX, list both.</p>

<p>I myself cannot start the answers; I've only got two lenses and as a beginner, I'm still figuring things out.</p>

<p>Renee</p>

<p>This week? <br /><br />Still having a great time with Sigma's new 35/1.4, used on an FX body. Results are just glorious, and sharp enough for any use to which that format lends itself. The lens is solid, responsive, and the output looks terrific. <br /><br />On DX, the time is usually split between Nikon's venerable 17-55/2.8 and the 70-200/2.8. Can get a lot done with those to workhorse lenses. </p>

<p>Like Matt I love the Sigma 35mm f/1.4. Probably one of the nicest lenses I have ever used. I am also a huge fan of the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 it is the one I use the most to pay the bills. Closely followed by my 135mm f/2.0 DC. For fun I run around with my 1959 vintage 58mm f/1.4 or my 55mm f/1.2.</p>

<p>I would say my 50mm F1.8G. Its not the most expensive of my lenses, obviously, and is not the sharpest or fastest, yet it is pretty sharp and pretty fast. But I really like the focal length on FX, second would be 28mm. I really like how light it is, I think it focuses really well and I can take it anywhere because of its size.</p>

<p>MB, I have that 55mm F1.2 also. Back in 2006 it was my main lense on my D200. I didn't own an AF lens for the first 8 months I owned that camera.</p>

<p>200 f/2 AF-S VR (I have a mk 1). Shoots in the dark from far enough away not to be intrusive (except in the "what the hell's that lens?" sense), very sharp, and it loses the background in lovely smooth bokeh without visible chromatic aberrations. It's just about small enough to hand-hold, too. The biggest problem I have is that it doesn't focus very close, so my 150mm OS Sigma macro is a back-up.<br />

<br />

Back on my D700, my 28-200 lump of silver plastic did very well for me, but the optics aren't quite up to a D800.</p>

<p>On my D700, right now maybe the 50/1.4AFS.<br /> Small and light enough to take it when I don`t know what to take... also because I have my mind suited to this lens.<br /> Very sharp at f5.6, soft looking at f1.4. Like the light construction, the hood is great, it balances perfectly on the camera.<br /> I like standard focal length lenses.</p>

<p>Another vote for Sigma 35/1.4. From Nikon camp I'm in love for 24/1.4 but I use with great joy my old Nikon 105/2.5 AI'd P (Sonnar design).</p>

<p>Nikkor AiS 35mm f/1.4. It will also be my favourite next week. Yes, I know most people feel that modern lenses are improved by a lot, are sharper, have less flaws and so on. And all that is true. But for me, I feel familiar with all the funny optical treats that the 35 f/1.4 has (Jekyll and Hyde: hazy and fuzzy at wide apertures, incredibly sharp at f/4 and f/5.6), and most of all I like the way the older lenses render (gentler, in my view). So, close behind in the line of favourites are all oldies: 105mm f/2.5 (epic lens), 20mm f/3.5 (small, flare-less and really quite sharp) and the 50mm f/1.2 (the somewhat less gifted but easier going little brother of the 35 f/1.4).<br>

All these mainly on FX, though the 35 f/1.4 on DX was also big fun. But the 35 f/1.8DX just makes too much sense to not use that instead; I really liked the 35 f/1.8DX though I did not own it very long - simple, small, sharp, light and cheap. Good stuff.<br>

<br>

Out of more modern lenses that can actually autofocus and such luxuries, I'd say it's the AF-S 300mm f/4. I don't use it a lot for the last few years, but it's a joy to use it, and it's capable of stunning results. It's a bit slowish to AF maybe, but well, my bankaccount and back won't cope with a 300 f/2.8, and this surely is the next best thing. On DX or FX.</p>

<p>My favorite is my 105mm f2.5 AI, wide open or at f4. LOVE it... but I have to manually guess exposure with it, so I don't use it a lot. But when I do, I just really enjoy it and love the images. I also love my 55mm f3.5 micro for similar reasons.</p>

<p>I also love working with my Tokina 11-16 because I LOVE an ultra-wide perspective.</p>

<p>I shoot virtually everything with my 18-70, though, on my D90. So, no, I rarely use my favorites.</p>

<p>Presently I'm liking my Voigtlander 28mm f2.8. Very sharp and very contrasty. It's a fx lens that I use on my d800 a lot. Small and a joy to focus.</p>

<p>My FAVORITE lens? Of all time? Any maker? Dang, that's hard to choose! I'm going with my Andrew Ross Petzval, made for quarter plate. It's a 5 inch focal length and an astonishing f2.8! The serial number of 1351 dates this lens to about 1845 (eighteen fortyfive,) i.e. just five years after the invention of photography! It was made in London. It still looks smashing mounted on my Chamonix 045n 4x5! The lens was designed around 1840 by Austrian mathmatics professor Josef Petzval--it's quite a story! It's estimated that about 80% of all photos taken between 1840 and 1890 were taken with a Petzval. They were still making them in the 1940s. Lomo has a project where they're making them again, this time in Nikon & Canon mount.</p>

<p>As for the "why" it's my favorite, well I just think it's SO COOL that I, a regular guy living out in South Dakota, can own and use a fantastic lens like this. Many photography museums don't even have something this early or in this good a shape. It's a very nice lens to use.<br>

Kent in SD</p><div></div>

<p>Currently my favorite is the new 80-400mm AFS lens. I am using it for everything (landscape, macro, some wildlife, portrait) - really!</p>

<p>35 f1.4; 45 f2.8P; 50 f1.2</p><div></div>

<p>Ofey--</p>

<p>By any chance, are you a resident of Toronto? :-)</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>For me Nikkor AF-S 300mm f4 is the normal lens :)</p>

I go along with Peter. The 105mm lens in all its forms, non-AI, AI, and AF is just a marvelous lens on both film and digital

Nikon SLRs. The newer 18-55mm is also very handy.

<p>In order; Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 OS, Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 (before the USB version), Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8.</p>

<p>Another vote for the Sigma 35mm f/1.4. I can't seem to remove that lens from my D3s when out for personal shooting. Second, my Sigma 150mm f/2.8 for portraits. Plan to get the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 someday too!</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/sigma150x-1.jpg" alt="" /><br>

Sigma 150mm f/2.8</p>

<p>Sorry, forgot about the <em>"Why?"</em> part . . .</p>

<p>1. Sigma 35mm f/1.4 [on an FX body]: It's beautiful--it looks, feels gorgeous. It shoots in the dark; it's razor-sharp; its focal length is "just right" for so many things, especially for people/environment shots, PJ-style shots, etc. Since getting the Sigma, I rarely mount my uber-expensive AF-S Nikkor 24mm f/1.4G anymore (but that's partly because I bought two more ultra-wide zooms).</p>

<p>2. Sigma 150mm f/2.8: I bought this specifically for portraits; it has the "perfect" amount of compression, and is far more balanced for handheld shooting, compared with the long, heavy AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G VR I, which I also own. It's ridiculously sharp--it may be the sharpest lens I own. Since getting the Sigma 150mm, I hardly ever shoot my pricey AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G.</p>

<p>3. Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8: Reportedly not quite as sharp as the Nikkor 300mm f/2.8, but still respectable. Boy, what a range--unique in the market. I played with one at a recent photo show, and just loved its compression and shallow-focus.</p>

<p>Favorite FX "work" lens: AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4.0G ED VR. Excellent all-around performance. Does everything I need for flash-fired event shooting.</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/24-120v-1.jpg" alt="" /><br /> AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4.0G ED VR</p>

<p>Renee said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>I ask partly out of curiosity, and partly so that as I learn, (hopefully) improve and develop my own style, I'll have a list built to help me should NAS strike.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I just read your profile, and since you own a DX body, I think recommending DX lenses, specifically, would be more helpful to you. If I were still a DX-only shooter, I would be <em>running</em> to buy the new Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 wide-angle zoom. It's literally the fastest zoom on the planet. Mount this baby on your D7000, and you would amp-up your available-light game considerably. Even shallow-focus shots are possible with a lens like this. A bit pricey ($799), but it's a unique lens with unique capabilities. Someday, add an 85mm f/1.8 for casual (or, formal) portraiture, and you'd be all set!</p>

<p>Thanks for the recommendations, Ralph! I do have a running "wish list" on Adorama and the 85mm is already on it, as is the 300 f/4. I'll add the Sigma that you mention as well. I'm still working on the basics and getting my tripod situated (so I can do verticals with my grip) so as a beginner, it's fruitless for me to purchase lenses right now - though I couldn't resist the 35mm. Don't worry, when I figure out what I want to do that I can't accomplish with what I have, I'll be here asking the question! I've enjoyed reading the responses; I thought I would only get two or three. It's just like owning horses: ask 100 horse owners a question and you'll get as many different answers/opinions. But it's all helpful to me - it helps me know what is out there and why people use it. For example, I've been reading about portraiture (I recently did some outdoor shots for the neighbor high-school senior) and I've learned that you use certain lenses for this because of their compression abilities. I didn't know this! </p>

<p>Kent - what a wonderful piece of history you have there. If only we could see the things that lens has seen!</p>

<p>I'd have to say my 1.8 trio, the 35/50/85 f/1.8 AFS lenses. on Dx. All are really sharp and very usable for portraiture from f/2. And the cost of the 3 is not bad. Just missing a good 24mm to round out the kit, but nothing decent at a decent price. If I wasn't looking at changing systems I'd seriously look at the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8.</p>

<p>It was my Sigma 10-20 (on my D7000), but I fallen in love with my Nikkor 10.5 f2.8. I do like the wide viewpoint. Both tend to push my imagination.</p>

<p>The Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR I. I've had two copies of this lens for years, and it's just amazing. Always sharp, always reliable.</p>