What is your favorite lens?

[eric_arnold]

<p>my favorite lens for the past 3 years has been the sigma 35ART. it's exceptionally sharp, and has excellent rendering and microcontrast. at it's best it has a surreal, almost 3-d effect with really nice details. i shoot at open apertures with it a lot, and it delivers at f/2 where other 35s might be weaker. the AF speed has held up to demanding applications like flamenco dance, better than i would have expected. and while the bokeh isnt what i'd describe as fantastic, it's not bad for a 35.</p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p> I like the 18-105 for indoor natural light candids </p>

</blockquote>

<p>yikes. not to be snobby, but to me, a 5.6 max aperture and "indoor natural light" just dont go together too well. my preferred kit is a 35/1.4 for candids/env. portraits and an 85/1.4 for head and shoulders portraits. more power to ya if you're able to eke out acceptably-defocused backgrounds and subject isolation from your two variable-aperture zooms, but there's nothing quite like faster lenses for this effect. i'll sometimes use a 70-200 for portraits too, which adds some nice compression at longer focal lengths, especially for outdoor shots. i have the 18-70 too but i've never loved it, and it currently sits on a hardly-ever-used-anymore d90.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>My favorite lens for everyday shooting is the older Nikkor 28-70/f3.5-4.5D-AF. It provides a good focal length range, takes sharp pictures, focuses quickly and reliable, focuses quite close, and is compact and light weight.</p>

<p>Here it is on the Df:<br>

<img src="http://www.dlaab.com/photo//Df/Df_28_70.JPG" alt="" /></p>

[Javier Gutierre]

<blockquote>

<p>Here it is on the Df:</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wow, what a gorgeous looking set up. That Vintage look just wows me. </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I love my old manual focus 600mm f/4 Ai-s. I don't get it out very often, but, when I do, I get <a href="/photo/5227368&size=lg"><em>sparkling results</em></a>.</p>

<p>Day in and day out, my Nikkon 28-70mm f/2.8 gets a lot of use--and brings home some <a href="/photo/17878432&size=lg"><em>pretty good shots</em></a>. It does well with <a href="/photo/17525940"><em>night shots</em></a>, and as a second-hand lens that I got on eBay, I don't feel that I am risking too much by taking it out in some pretty rough neighborhoods after dark.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Mike D]

<p>I have several lenses that are my favorite but the one lens I end up using the most and getting the most keepers (technical) is the Sigma 17-70 C macro.</p>

[greg s]

<p>I do a lot of bird/wildlife photography. For sure mind blowing capability the new Nikon 200-500mm zoom tele seems like a miracle in the hands. All these years I've been horsing around with a tripod and now I can leave that cumbersome, heavy, potentially disastrous piece of gear behind ... and get much closer as well. :)</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>Eric, a lot of my shots are with window light. The kit zooms are just fine for this. Here's my favorite done with the D70 and the 18-70.</p><div></div>

[sjmurray]

<p>Outdoor evening light is fine for the 18-105</p><div></div>

[sjmurray]

<p>As mentioned, sometimes I do use a fast prime.</p><div></div>

[sjmurray]

<p>oops, heres smaller</p><div></div>

[sjmurray]

<p>Bounce flash off ceiling with the kit lens works well too!</p><div></div>

[sjmurray]

<p>Indoor lamp light iso 6400</p><div></div>

[sjmurray]

<p>One more example: D70 at 1600 iso</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>One more example: D80 at 1600 iso</p><div></div>

[sjmurray]

<p>Truth is, I have several fast primes in manual, so I know what they can do, but since going digital, I really like zooms, which work better for my style. If I thought I really needed a fast zoom like the Nikkor 24-70 f2.8 I might get one, but that's an expensive lens too for an amateur!</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>OK, fast primes do have some qualities you don't get with a kit lens. I just got down on the floor with my cat Lydia and used my 1980's 28mm AiS f2.8 with close range correction (CRC). You just can't do this type of shot with my kit lenses.</p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>steve, im not sure what you're trying to prove here, other than you are capable of taking decent photos. if your 18-70 and 18-105 zooms work for your shooting style, then continue to use them by all means. but your question was what's your favorite lens and why? i would much rather shoot available light photos with a fast lens over a slowish vari-aperture zoom. i have many zoom lenses too, including 2.8 zooms, but i like the separation, subject isolation and three-dimensionality of shooting at wide apertures. other folks prefer to have everything in focus and/or use flash. sometimes i do that too, like for group shots. i guess the old adage rings true here: the best lens is the one you have on your camera, but i could also say, don't ask the question if you don't like the answer.</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>I just wanted to show that very decent work can be done with modest lenses. I really enjoyed seeing which lenses were popular among photographers here. As the person starting this thread, I wanted folks who were just dropping in to not leave with the impression that only expensive lenses will do good work. I wasn't trying to imply that other people's preferences, such as yours, were wrong in any way. I personally can't justify spending $1000 on a lens, and many folks can't . I also just wanted to show off!</p>

[sarah_lange1]

70-200. It's the best for portraits.

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>I also just wanted to show off!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>well, at least you're honest. but its disingenuous to ask people what they're using, then try to make a case for what you're using as "better" by cluster-bombing your own pics. it's well-known that all the nikon kit lenses are optically decent and perform pretty well (especially stopped down), so it's no real revelation that it's possible to make good pictures with them. I do think its important to quantify what you get from spending more on a lens like the 70-200 or 105 VR and who can most benefit from such a lens. but if this is really about cost-benefit rather than sheer optical quality, why not ask, best lens under $1000 or best lens under $500? there are some good options out there which wont break the bank. for example, the tamron 28-75/2.8 is a real sleeper as long as you don't miss the wide end on DX. the tokina 12-4/4 is a proven ultrawide for under $400 used. and the 35ART, which multiple people recommended, is reasonably priced for what it does, although you can cheap it out with the $200 35/1.8G for DX, as long as you are ok with some LoCa and middling bokeh. although its been discontinued, the tokina 35/2.8 macro is the sharpest lens in its class and close-focuses like a champ. additionally, there are many legacy lenses, such as your 28/2.8 AIS, which can be had for little more than a song -- although some may be tested by 24mp sensors.</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>Eric, good points about alternative lenses. 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. BTW, I wasn't "making a case" for what I am using as being better at all, my only intention was to illustrate that modest lenses can make nice photos, period. </p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>In truth you get what you pay for and as this thread develops as it is a good topic I can't help but remember that I swapped my Leica (M8) and Olympus (E-3) gear to move into Nikon (D800), for 1 major reason, the usable ISO but I also miss the lenses that were available to me in those systems. </p>

<p>If this was the Leica forum people would be arguing to the death over certain versions of each lens and each claiming magic "drawing" ability for their choices, so far I've not seen a Nikon lens that comes remotely close to Leica, or Ziess for that matter but what's the point of having of having something if you can't use it where you need to. So Nikon for me gives the best compromise, good, efficient, fairly characterless lenses on very good bodies that serve me well in all circumstances - even if I have to tweak things in Lightroom and Photoshop more than I'd like. My best, but not favourite, Nikon lens is my 45 PC-E its also my most expensive.</p>

[markus_schwai]

<p>Right now the Helios 44-2 modified to Nikon and als always my 28mm f/2 AI-s. The first is fun. It has been modified by an Ukrainan guy to focus to infinity without an optical adapter.<br>

The 28mm just pure awesomeness for me. I use both on a D700.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<blockquote>

<p>I've not seen a Nikon lens that comes remotely close to Leica, or Ziess for that matter...<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Clive, this literally means that the very best Nikkor lens isn't "remotely close" to the worst Leica or Ziess lens. Having owned Contax/Zeiss and Leica M system, and of course Nikon, I am positive that is not the case. There are several superlative Nikons and more than a few Zeiss/Leica lenses that don't really make the grade.<br>

<br>

Not looking to have an argument, just standing up for the kid getting bullied about the school yard.</p>