What is the coolest lens you've used?

[yockenwaithe]

<p>By coolest I mean more of "the most interesting effects/the most 'fun to use" though by no means do you have to follow that, if your favorite lens is something plain Jane but extremely reliable by all means post it!</p>

<p>For me it has to be the lens on my HiMatic AF2 [not actually mine anymore but I digress]. It had some coating issues so if you angled it correctly you could get some cool and funky effects with the way light interacted with it</p>

[tom_mann1]

A 2" aperture, very low f-number, germanium lens (for the mid-IR) cooled to near absolute zero to minimize its thermal

emission in a scientific experiment (radiometer).

 

(Sorry - couldn't resist, LOL).

 

Tom M

 

PS - As I recall, it also cost more than almost any conventional lens.

[georg_s1]

<p>Most fun to use right now are my two wooden pinhole-cameras (3 pinholes each, for rise in horizontal and vertical image orientation) in 4x5.</p>

<p>The PC 85/2.8D (Nikon) is a very versatile lens, a lot of fun to use. Many of my personal favs were shot with it.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I have done and still do a fair amount of "quasi-architectural" work (archaeological sites, historic buildings, etc,), so <em>my</em> coolest lenses are still</p>

<ol>

<li>the one that got me into Nikon back in 1971--The PC-Nikkor 35mm f/2.8 (also got me into full-frame Canon EOS many years later)</li>

<li>and my latest "toy", my "precious", my Canon TS-E 17mm f/4.</li>

</ol><div></div>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>I used ones, my friends NIKON Nikkor 13mm f/5.6 AI.</p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>Whichever lens I have just used to capture my most recent "All time favorite" photo.</p>

[bgussin]

Kenko 180* (technically a lens filter as it mounts on an existing lens)

A 500mm parabolic mirror lens (constant f8...can't remember the brand)

A Vivitar Series 1 70-210 constant aperture zoom with macro. You'd have to refocus after zooming in or

out, but it worked well for portraits as the zoom had the same wide aperture as the close up.

 

And that reminds me. Based on what I read about the Vivitar Qdos telephoto lens with built-in anaglyph

filter, I made one using a Yashica Electro35 and its F-1.7 lens which I disassembled, placing inside of it a

half red-half cyan filter I made from a pair of red/blue cardboard glasses, and then reassembling it. It

worked!...as long as you enjoy all your photos taken with a wide open aperture, blurry backgrounds, and

your subject close to the camera.

[JDMvW]

<p>Well, the Qdos.... ( http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00YNMx ) for examples with the "real thing" and Robert's home-made sweetie. It is fun, and with it and Robert's copy, it is 'better' than conventional anaglyphic (aka, analglyphic) in that the image can be viewed as a soft focus example without the red-green glasses.</p><div></div>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>It's a toss-up between two LTM lenses: a Canon 135/3.5 and a Leica Summar.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>A 45mm f2.8 Tessar on a humble Contaflex 1 - great B&W rendition; Yashinon 21 mm f3.5 ML lens - fantastic; my first 50mm f2 Summicron c1980, a smoothy, and the 12mm f5.6 V-C lens for its interesting but difficult to master viewpoint. The 80mm f2.8 Nikkor on my Plaubel Makina 670, another camera regrettably sold. </p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

In large formats: a 47mm Schneider Super Angulon XL and a Nikon 300 f/8 M-Nikkor.

 

In medium format SLR a 30mm Fisheye Distagon and a humble 80mm Planar T* for a Hasselblad.

 

For 24x36mm SLR cameras (digital and film) the Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L USM.

[rossb]

<p>I shoot mostly with a Nikon 50mm f1.8 D lens. I use it on my F100 and my FM2n. It works good and it is very nice at f1.8. I have had it for a while but I think it was $130.00 brand new. I also have a 28mm f2.8 D lens which has a more solid build to it but I do not care for wide angle so I hardly use it. It's in the bag however since it's small and all. I had some Nikon zooms but I tired of carrying the bricks around and sold them off. Glad to be rid of them. </p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>Cool is relative of course, but for plain mechanical whiz-bang-gee-whizness, it might be the Nikkor 85/2.8 PC Micro. This is is a tilt and shift macro 85 mm. lens, which is very cool and nicely made. I use JDM von Weinberg's favorite, the 35/2.8, as the normal lens on my DX camera. Preset aperture and no metering, but it's sharp and so wonderfully well made it is a pleasure to use. Aside from the obvious perspective correction of shifting and focal plane correction of tilting, shift lenses also make it possible to shoot into a reflective surface without seeing your reflection, or to shoot with the sun behind you without seeing your shadow, and produce rectilinear panoramas with ease.</p>

<p> </p>

[User_6502147]

<p>Aside from Cook lens 25-250mm zoom F2.5, the Panavision 14mm was probably the most memorable....both cine lenses, tho. The 14mm had this huge front glass (rectangular)...I'd guess 3X of a normal WA lens....and there was absolutely no visual distortion. Impeccable!!!</p>

<p>Les</p>

[colin carron]

<p>In terms of how many people stopped to watch me my LF Schneider 270mm Tele-Xenar probably attracted most attention though my old Sigma 12-24 drew a few looks too.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>For fun and play, Lensbaby Spark. A slightly more serious lens with more 'character' (quirks) than most can stand: Nikon AiS 35mm f/1.4 (at wide apertures).</p>

[georg_s1]

<p>Agree to 100 percent with Wouter - the old manual focus Nikkor 35/1.4 can be a ton of fun. It's rendering of the highlights (wide open, close focus) is really something. The old MF-Nikkor 24/2 is very, very special in it's rendering too (again: close focus, full aperture).</p>

[jim_service]

<p>At a trade show long ago (80's?), I saw a single lens element made of diamond. It was about 1/2" in diameter.<br>

Probably very easy to clean, as you don't have to worry about scratching it.<br>

It was to go on a probe to Venus.<br>

BTW, I understand that due to its refractive index, diamond doesn't make a very good photographic lens.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Haven't been close to one, but it would be intersting to be able to shoot with the 1980's ELCAN (Leitz Canada) 90mm f1.0 lens. Coal bins at midnight?</p>

[Brad_]

<p>No cool lens comes to mind. Mine just seem to do their intended job.</p>

<p>If the question were about cool/interesting people I've engaged and talked to photographing on the streets in San Francisco, along with things I've learned as a result over the years, I could probably go on for days.</p>

[Brian]

<p>Mine would be the Reflex Rokkor 250mm f5.6 - excellent in-focus image quality but with those weird donuts in the bokeh. A very in-demand lens nowadays so I sold it for a lot more than I paid for it. I regret slightly (as with all those I part with) but it was really a very specialised tool.</p>

[dave_s]

<p>50/1.5 Canon rangefinder lens, a Sonnar copy made for a brief period in the 1950s. Makes people look good, works great on mirrorless.</p>

[Glenn McCreery]

In high school I acquired a Bell and Howell 36" f:8 aerial camera lens from a local surplus store in about 1960. I wanted to

use it for astrophotography with my Canon 1VS2 rangefinder, which required quite a lot of work. I recall that I used an old

enlarger bellows and focusing rail attached to an aluminum tube mounted to the lens. The hard part was then to build a

mirror box for the rangefinder camera, which after mounting to the bellows and calibrating the mirror mechanism, was

used for focusing. I also needed to build an Equatorial mount to support the whole thing. It made a good physics class

project and I made a few good photos of the moon and some terrestrial objects, but I never had the necessary clock drive

for long exposure astrophotography.

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I've had fun with the Canon 50mm f/0.95 on the Canon 7 rangefinder from about 1965. Never mind that my best shots were taken with the lens stopped down. . . .</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[yockenwaithe]

<p>I was gone all weekend and I come back and see all these lenses I've never seen or heard of, tis some pretty neat [and expensive!] stuff you guys have used</p>

<p>And Lannie, 0.95!? That's a really wide aperture! I'd imagine the DoF isn't that great?</p>