In my continuing research into cameras and lenses, I ran across this topic at another forum, and thought it might be interesting to see what y'all have to say.

Specific lenses have been discussed here before, or comparisons between two lenses, or questions about what lenses to buy, but this refers just to what you are using or have used.

So, regardless of camera brand, what is your favorite lens and why?

On another sidenote, feel free to mention your least favorite lens that you have used.

For instance, I have read in other forums suggestions to bypass the standard kit 18-55mm lens in favor of some other lens because they did not like the results.

(...forgive me if this is somewhat redundant, since I haven't been here all that long.)

Maria

i love my Sigma 105mm EX DG Macro, although it isnt permanently attached to my camera in my bag (my 17-85 IS USM (the "bypass" to the 18-55) is my "permanent" lens) it is always in my bag ready to be changed, and i wouldnt go out without it.

Reasons: love the world of macro, it takes a crisp clear shot, it gets 1:1 magnification and i havent had any problems with it (so far) in terms of quality.

On a side note - the Canon 18-55 isnt that bad, especially for how much it is worth!

Optically Canon 50mm f1.4 and 100mm f2.8 macro tie, both very sharp with good contrast.

Then it’s a toss up between the canon 17-40 f4 L and the 24-105 f4 L both optically on a par with each other,(not quite as sharp as the primes) different uses. Very sharp on a 1.6 crop DSLR with good contrast.

In that range the Canon 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 USM II , optically close on the heels of the 17-40 f4 L and the 24-105 f4 L, not quite, but about £400 less.

On a par optically with the 17-40 f4 L and the 24-105 f4 L is the Canon  100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS, of course it has limited uses.

Interesting.  I have read of several who choose the 50mm prime lens as their favorite lens or the 100mm macro as their favorite.

To clarify a little better, of all your lenses, which --one-- lens is your favorite, if you had to pick a favorite of the three or four that you own?

Depends on the situation bit like asking which is your favourite love in your life!!  but if it has L in the name I  L ove it !!

To clarify a little better, of all your lenses, which --one-- lens is your favorite, if you had to pick a favorite of the three or four that you own?

The 50mm prime without hesitation, it is the most versatile and all round prime lens, yes it has limitations, L or no L it out performs just about any lens, (of course the 50mm f1.2 or f1.0 would be a perfect world choice but at a much greater cost) even the humble 50mm f1.8 is a very good lens and very good value for money.

Prime lenses by their very nature are optically superior to their zoom counterparts.

Limitations (cons)

Not much good for wildlife (unless you have a cloaking device lol) and no good for wide angle, you also loose perspective. Its not a zoom so you have to do the leg work instead of zooming in/out. (Also a pro as it helps you learn composition the old fashioned way)

What it is good for (pros)

Excellent optical quality, excellent in low light, can be used as a macro with the addition of extension tubes 1:1 can be achieved with the right combination.

Minimal distortion, extremely sharp, especially from f5.6-f11, very light and compact.

Canon/Nikon/Sigma, doesn’t matter they are all on a par optically and performance wise.

A good proportion of what I shoot can be achieved with a 50mm prime.

I think that answers your question from my point of view. I suspect that few will disagree with what I have said, except the exclusive wildlife/wide angle shooters.

Cool!

I wasn't seeing it necessarily as a matter of comparison, or of disagreeing or agreeing.  It's just cool to see what everyone's personal favorite is.

Danny, why am I not at all surprised at that answer. :)

This is a tough one!  The lens I use the most is actually not my favorite...but is more versatile for everyday carry.  That everyday lens is a mid-priced Sigma, 18-130mm zoom on my D70.  A better lens and with VR is the 18-200 Nikon lens I got with the D200.  Neither is lower than f/3.5 but both suit my purpose overall for zoom.

My favorite? A Sigma 50mm prime macro, f/2.8.  Second place is a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 which gives close to a 50mm crop in either the D70 or D200.  I love the 30mm because of the crop view ; despite its shorter focal length, aberations are not a problem overall and less than in either of the zooms at similar focal length.

My least favorite is the Nikon lens that came with the D70 kit.  Can't even remember what focal length range it has.  I haven't  used it enough to really say if it is a good lens or not! That is simply because I had zooms to do more.

A last choice and quite nice is Sigma 100-300mm zoom, f/3.5. This filled a place Nikon could not fill and certainly not at a close price.  Sure, not as fast a light gatherer as some higher priced lenses but 3.5 serves my purpose. This one is 3.5 across the range, sharp as tack and internal focus.  I like this one very much.  However, I don't often opt to everyday carry of that full frame lens due to weight and size.   My bunnie in the city pics were shot with the Sigma.

Sorry, hard to pick a real favorite..so much depends on the days shooting.  Again, my most used lens is the Sigma 18-130 used on the D70, my everyday carry cam.   The "favorite" macro Sigma comes in second in use and is always with me in the bag.  The macro also does a good job as a prime lens with its approximate 75mm crop for people shots, etc.

My budget does not allow the high priced primes from Nikon. That is simple enough. Not to say I don't want one!

Enough confusion...now I am confused about these lenses. LOL      TomDart.

Wow - gotta pick just ONE?!

I'd probably say my Nikon 24-120 VR is my most trusted and used lens in the bag for my general imaging needs (I have a Sigma 17-70 that is used often, but not nearly as much).

For my Macro needs, it's a tough choice between the Sigma 105 DG and the Sigma 180 (for the more shallow DOF look I like to get)... Probably the 105...

My 60mm Micro, 20mm, and 80-400 IS almost never come out of the bag these days - and I haven't had much time to play with the LensBaby 2.0 so it's up in the air, but kinda neat.
-Lew

My favorite lens would be a telephoto zoom lens with macro capabilities (up to 105mm would be just fine). Would be great for outdoor, macro and portrait photography... But I don't have one because it costs too much ;o))

The fixed 7.1-35.6 mm (1:2.4-3.5) wide zoom on my Oly C8080 is known to be a pretty nice piece of glass, and I've been quite happy with it.

...thank you, gentlemen, for adding your favorites to the list. : )

Hmmm.....tough one. I can´t possibly pick a favorite, but i will say this:

I loooooooooooooooove my Sigma 10-20mm wideange for the distortion i get when shooting landscapes.

I loooooooooooooooove my Tamron 90mm macro for the amazing sharpness it produces.

And i haven´t tried out my new Nikkor 18-200 VR lens all that much...but i love it nevertheless because i waited for 6 months to get that sucker and now when it´s finally here all these silly emotions came stiring up. :tt2:

Andreas, I know you waited and waaaaaaaainted and waiteeeeeeeeeed for that lens.  Believe me, this is a nice one!  Love mine!

Then again...what I actually use most of the time is the D70 whucgh us the evertday carry cam, not my D200.  That super lens is on the D200.  I would like sometimes a faster lens but the dollars or euros are not here for that huge jump!    Then again, at my age, how would more speed help? I like to take things slowly and get the best form each opportunity.  

LENSES IN GENERAL:   any comments anyone?  Lots of folks use thrid party lenses. Price is part of it, the big part.  But, very often I have found these lenses do a wonderful job...enough for me on my budget and in most cases no different in final shot than perhaps from a pricier "brand name".  Not to open a debate here...just to say, for those who cannot afford to spend the huge bucks on the camera brand lens..other brands are out there and with careful selection will do a credible job for you.  Maybe the Olys need that brand?

Take care all.  Have fun in the land to the north, Andreas.          TomDart.

Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina were the highest rated when I was working behind the counter.
A friend and I used to shoot weddings together - he used his Tamron zoom and I had my Sigma - dunno how much camera shake he had compared to me but his shots were always a bit softer. About the same contrast, just softer.

If you are able to use Zeiss, Schneider, Angenieux, or Leica lenses, DO IT!! These are the highe-end and luxury brands (but they have the price tags to match).

For web applications (and general low-res finished products) you'll NEVER see the difference. Use what you like and can reasonably afford (don't go for the cheapest lenses you can simply because they will save you money - you get what you paid for).

Once you start using it for printing purposes (sometimes I'm shooting a single image for a 2-page spread, so this is a big deal for me), I stick with Sigma, or OEM lenses (or I just break out the medium and large format cameras).

Hope that helps-
-Lew ;-)

Howdy

May favorite is my Canon EF 100mm Macro lens beacuse it takes just awsome macro stuff and i also use if for telephoto style portrature of my kids and cats (whilst standing back away from them)!! Cheers Lou

It was a hypothetical question, if you have to have one lens only what would it be, in reality if course few of us have to make that choice and have lenses that are favorites for different reasons.

There are lots of good third party lenses, of the three popular brands Sigma, Tameron and Tokina, I have only uses Sigma and Tameron, of those two sigma are for me the clear winners, I have always found the Tameron softer like for like to the point that I returned one  twice, and in the end gave up and got a refund, personally I would never get another.

The cheapest lenses are never likely to yield great results, but most of the mid range lenses are very good.

I don’t  agree that if you are only doing web images that lesser quality lenses are sufficient, even at that size poor optics are noticeable.

If you are shooting portraits you really need the eyes to be sharp or they just don’t work, that is exactly where the primes really show their worth.

Dunno - when starting out with a 6MP pro camera sensor (not a P&S camera - an SLR), I haven't seen a difference in image quality (after a basic color/density correction) between a high-end lens and a more inexpensive lens.

I'm NOT talking about a $50 generic brand lens - but something of the $200 variety compared to $900 variety is not going to give you significant enough results to differentiate between them when the image's long side is scaled down to 1024 or smaller.

Any chromatic abborations disappear enough to be ignored, and even slightly softer images look sharper when scaled down (it's an optical illusion based on the fact that there isn't enough distance/pixels to define the sharpnes of edges - or lack thereof). A good (inexpensive) lens shade will take care of most of your bouncing light needs (which you should be using for expensive lenses as well, regardless of price) giving you richer color and contrast.

While you shouldn't reach for the cheapest lens on the shelf, if all you're going to do is web imaging then don't worry about trying to afford the most expensive ones on the shelf.

"I'm NOT talking about a $50 generic brand lens - but something of the $200 variety compared to $900 variety is not going to give you significant enough results to differentiate between them when the image's long side is scaled down to 1024 or smaller."

Yes I would tend to agree with that in most cases, I have the canon 28-105mm approx £200 and the 24-105mm f4L £700 and there is not a huge defference.

I also used a Tameron 28-300mm price not known and the results were poor even at web size.

Its not always about price, the canon 50m f1.8 is excellent for £70 as are most of the low end 50mm lenses, its the cheapie zooms that tend to suffer most

Twoo - vewy twoo.

Yeah, not a fan of Tamrons myself - but sadly, they made Bronica cameras which were pretty good! Dunno why the quality slipped when it cam to 35mm equipment.

I don't have all that much experience,or that many lenses to really say...I only have 2 'used' Sigmas that I really don't care for and 2 new Canons,a 16-35mm wide angle and a 60mm macro,and so far I'm loving the 60mm one sooooo much more, even when I'm not using it for it's macro capabilities.

Does that answer your question?

I dont know about the 60mm macro as it is an EFs lens so I have no interest in it, as it is usless for FF or film bodies

The 16-35mm hoever is an L lens and has excllent optics

More recent Sigma lenses have very good optics, especially the DX range like any lens make the more ££/$$ the better the optic generally. (with a few exceptions)

"...as it is an EFs lens so I have no interest in it, as it is usless for FF..."

At the risk of sounding ignorant,what does that mean?  Sorry.All this stuff is really new to me... :(

Different cameras, different favorite lenses for me.

When I shot Olympus OM system lenses, I had a great 50mm f1.4 that I thought was just the best lens around, until I got my 90 mm f2.4, which was crystal clear and just perfect for almost every application. It wasn't as fast ast the 50mm, but it was just better for almost every application.

When I shot my Nikon FE (until I got hit by a bull and the front of my camera got yanked off like a sardine can -- I'll save that story for another time), I had a 50 mm f1.2 lens that would just knock your socks off.

Now I have a digital Olympus, with the 14-54mm zoom and, whereas it's not particularly fast, I (a) don't much care, because the digital is just easier in low-light situations anyway and (b) it is such high quality and low disortion, even on extremely wide angle, that it is the absolute, hands-down LEAST trouble of any lens I've ever used. It is my favorite, without a doubt, of all the lenses I've owned.

As far as crystal clear, though, a lens that I was in awe of was my friend's Leica lens, which was 38 mm on his 3c. I, to this day, have never seen its equal in terms of razor sharpness. I didn't own that lens, though, and it's not likely I'll be getting a Leica any time soon.

Fun walk down memory lane. :)

Sorry, the s of the ES(s) stands for short back focus, which means that the back lens element protrudes further back into the camera body, it is specifically designed for the smaller sensor of crop sensor DSLR’S, on a FF (full Frame or film) body the mirror is bigger and would hit the lens back element, for this reason the EFs lenses have an extra white mounting index mark and are made in such a way that they will not mount on  a FF body camera.

Oh.Okay.Thanks for explaining,Simon. :^)

Gee, I only got one ebot and there's over half a dozen responses here!  It's interesting to see the variety of lenses that everyone loves here.  Andreas, glad you finally got the lens you waited so long for.  I stayed up till 3 a.m. trying to bid on five different cameras on ebay.  Gee, I didn't realize what "hungry" and "bloodthirsty" critters they have bidding there!  I lost every bid in the last 2-3 minutes!  I was so bleeping tired of watching auctions, and here I am doing it again tonight!  But I won one bid (Yeay!!) and I think I might be able to get this other bid.  Now I just hope I get the merchandise.  There' s lots of good ideas here.   Wish I could say, I'll take one of everything that you mentioned up above. :)) 

Good luck with your bid tonight.! :^)