What lenses do you use with your camera and why?

[iwearnosox]

For the photographers in the house. I've been drooling over the Canon 70-200 2.8L IS but G**damn is it expensive. Trying to justify it.

What lenses do you use and why?

 

[Staples]

The term "kit lens" refers to the one that comes with it. In Canon's case, the crappy 18-55 f3.5 lens.

I have a Rebel XT and I have three lenses.

Canon 35mm f/2.0 (great lens and I use it most the time)
Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8
Canon 70-200mm f/4.0L

I use the 35mm prime most the time because I am walking around shooting stuff at ground level. I can get as close or far away as needed. I use the 70-200 the least because everything has to be so far away to get it in the shot. I have only had it for a month or two but I actually wish I had gotten a cheaper long range zoom since I use it so few times. There are some people with this lens and use it all the time because they think it is the best they have however, it is a lot heavier, longer and more powerful that camera shake make this thing a real probelm sometimes.

(ok, the Canon kit lens is not horrible but it is a value line quality lens). Call me crazy though because I am tempted to buy it for a cheap wide angle lens. My wide angle shots will probably be inside in low light so they will look like crap anyway. The lens becomes less of an issue).

 

[NTB]

I've only got the 18-55 kit lens for my Rebel XT, and a cheapo 70-300 Tamron. I do plan on getting some better glass, but at the moment this is all I can afford.

Nate

 

[pontifex]

kit lens nikkor 18-55mm nikon dx - came with the camera - duh

nikon af nikkor 28-70 - my dad is letting me use it

tamron af ld 70-300 - my dad is letting me use it

will eventually buy my own lenses down the road once i actually know what i'm doing.

 

[m2kewl]

birding 'kit': 1d2, 70-200Lis, 300Lis, 500Lis

travel 'kit': 16-35, 24-70, 70-300

 

[iwearnosox]

Originally posted by: m2kewl
birding 'kit': 1d2, 70-200Lis, 300Lis, 500Lis

travel 'kit': 16-35, 24-70, 70-300

500Lis? Damn. I'd like to see your pics with that!

 

[Sketcher]

m2kewl's Birding "kit" costs more than... dayum...


Mine:
10D, RebelXT
50 1.8
17-40 f4.0L
17-85 f4-5.6EFS IS
28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS
70-200 f2.8L IS
1.4X II Extender
500D
550EX

1. 50 1.8 it's cheap and sharp as hell.
2. 17-40 4L it's relatively wide, "L" image quality and build at a good price.
3. 17-85 f4-5.6 EFS IS wanted a versatile IS lens for the wife.
4. 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS had a Tamron same range but wanted IS = Canon.
5. 70-200 f/2.8L IS I really liked the f/4L version I had but wanted lower light and better hand holding capability.
6. 1.4x II Extender it's a relatively inexpensive way to bump my 70-200.
7. 500D close up lens I likes to get close up to stuff but don't feel like plunking for a macro lens yet.
8. 550EX cuz a guy's gotta have portable sun from time to time.

 

[yhelothar]

I use the Pentax *ist DS
My most used lens is the Pentax-M SMC 50mm F/1.4(click for sample photos). The color, contrast, sharpness, bokeh, low light ability all are just absolutely stunning.
Second, I use the SMC Takumar 35mm F/2. Same story as above, more more wide angle. I have a Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 35mm F/2.4 also. But I found the Takumar to be sharper at the edges, and has much better flare control.
For wide angle, I like the Zenitar 16mm F/2.8 Fisheye(click for sample image). Build quality is lacking, but the sharpness, contrast, and color quality is amazing.
I used my Sigma 28-70mm F/2.8 EX a few times, but I'm planning on selling it now. While this lens is a good, sharp and fast zoom, but the color quality and contrast is definitely lacking.
For moderate telephoto, I use an SMC Takumar 135mm F/2.5. Amazing sharpness, even at wide angle on this lens. Contrast is a bit lacking compared to the other primes I use, but it's nothing a bit of photoshop can't fix.
I also have the Pentax SMC DA 18-55mm kit lens. It has great contrast and colors, but I find the lens to be too slow for my tastes after being used to fast primes.

A few more lenses I have:
SMC Takumar 300mm F/4 - Great sharpness, contrast, and detail. Lack apochromatic optics, so it's prone to CA at low apertures.
SMC Macro Takumar 50mm F/4 - It's pretty well acclaimed lens, but I find using extension tubes with the 50mm F/1.4 yields better results.

 

[JMWarren]

With my Nikon I've got a 80-200 2.8 AFS, 85mm, 50mm, 35mm, 24mm, 18-70 AFS

 

[montanafan]

With my Canon Digital Rebel:

Canon 18-55mm f/3.5 kit lens - not a great lens, but good for wide snapshots and not bad for some macro type stuff.

Canon 75-300mm f/3.5-4.0 lens - a good lens for outdoor sports. I use it for football, baseball, and softball games. I use it for indoor sports like basketball and volleyball in large venues with a flash. It's useful in a lot of other situations as well. It's a good lens and the AF is fast.

Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 lens - the one I keep on my camera most of the time. It's a good walk-around lens. I use it for indoor sports with a flash and for outdoor sports when I'm up close and the light is waning, but I don't want to use a flash. It's a good lens, but the AF could be a little faster.

Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens - good for indoor sports when you're really up close and don't want to use a flash. Does a good job, but the AF is slow as molasses. I'd really rather have the 85mm f/1.8. I hear the AF is much faster on it. I'm planning on getting one this summer.

 

[Mrvile]

I've got the 18-55 kit lens and a 100-300 f/4 Sigma right now, planning to get a macro going on (not sure if I just want some tubes or a full blown 150 f/2.8) and eventually a better walkaround/wideangle lens like a 24-70 or 17-40.

 

[bigi]

1. Sigma 12-24
- On full frame (5D) this lens provides so amazingly wide FOV, that it has got to be seen !!! Moreover, distortions are corrected extremly well and its built qualtiy is just awesome.

2. 70-200IS - this is just a classic. Many still claim that IS ain't needed for this focal range. BUT, once IS is used you will not look back. This L is very expensive ...

3. Tamron 28-75. What a gem. I did sell Canon L 24-70 after using it for over 1.5 years. The Tamron is so much lighter and smaller. For me it works equally well, if not better.

4. Canon 200 f/1.8 - I don't have to write about this one, I hope.

5. Canon 85L - same as #4

for more info see:

Fred Miranda Forums

 

[dowxp]

50 1.8 - pulled out for lowlight shots
24-105 f4 - walkaround
70-200 f4 nonIS - telephoto needs

pics in sig.

 

[tfinch2]

I use an Olympus DSLR and I have the ZD 35mm f/3.5 macro for well, macro. My walkaround lens is the ZD 40-150mm f/3.5-4.5. It is soon to be replaced with the ZD 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5. I'm not much of a wideangle shooter. If I need a landscape, I will shoot with the 35mm and pano them.

If I start to shoot weddings which I plan to do, I will soon purchase the ZD 35-100 f/2.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: NTB
I've only got the 18-55 kit lens for my Rebel XT, and a cheapo 70-300 Tamron. I do plan on getting some better glass, but at the moment this is all I can afford.

Nate

Get the 50 1.8. It's the cheapest lens pricewise and still a high quality lens. $70 or so. By far the best bargain in lenses for canons. I use it about 95% of the time now.

 

[MazerRackham]

Originally posted by: dowxp
50 1.8 - pulled out for lowlight shots
24-105 f4 - walkaround
70-200 f4 nonIS - telephoto needs

pics in sig.

Hey we have the same lenses...

I love the 24-104 f4 L IS, only take that off for my 50 f1.8.

I have a 70-200 f4 L and a 17-40 f4 L that are in great shape that I just don't use... anyone interested?

I always contemplate selling the 17-40 and the 70-200, but I have PERFECT copies of those and I just can't seem to bring myself to put them up for sale.

 

[iwearnosox]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: NTB
I've only got the 18-55 kit lens for my Rebel XT, and a cheapo 70-300 Tamron. I do plan on getting some better glass, but at the moment this is all I can afford.

Nate

Get the 50 1.8. It's the cheapest lens pricewise and still a high quality lens. $70 or so. By far the best bargain in lenses for canons. I use it about 95% of the time now.

I think you need to be careful on that one- the mark II is panned by many, apparently the older Mark I is the lens to go for. Sadly it's discontinued so i think eBay is the only route now.

 

[OREOSpeedwagon]

I use the stock lens because all I have is a Canon Powershot A520

 

[novon]

Canon Rebel XT
Tokina 12-24mm f4 w\ polarizer
Canon 50mm f1.8 II
Canon 70-200mm f4 w\ polarizer
Sigma 105mm f2.8 Macro

 

[ElFenix]

50/1.8 because you really don't need anything else

 

[imported_Mike]

I started with the Canon 28-135 IS and just picked up the 24-105 F4 IS.

 

[Doggiedog]

20D
50mm f/1.4 - I absolutely love this lens
17-85mm f/4.0-5.6 - The lens is "OK". It has a nice range but I wish the picture was sharper.

I am mulling over getting the 24-105 f/4.0L or waiting it out for something faster with IS in the same zoom range. The new 18-55 f/2.8 seems interesting but its an EF-S which I'd rather avoid.

 

[iwearnosox]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
50/1.8 because you really don't need anything else

If you've been drinking red bull and can fly around, I suppose.

 

[NTB]

Originally posted by: iwearnosox

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: NTB
I've only got the 18-55 kit lens for my Rebel XT, and a cheapo 70-300 Tamron. I do plan on getting some better glass, but at the moment this is all I can afford.

Nate

Get the 50 1.8. It's the cheapest lens pricewise and still a high quality lens. $70 or so. By far the best bargain in lenses for canons. I use it about 95% of the time now.

I think you need to be careful on that one- the mark II is panned by many, apparently the older Mark I is the lens to go for. Sadly it's discontinued so i think eBay is the only route now.

And sometimes I get the impression that the only reason people b!tch about the MKII is because the body is plastic, rather than the MKI's metal.

Everyone has commented that this is a great lens, but is it really all that useful on a less-than-fullframe camera?

Nate

 

[iwearnosox]

Originally posted by: Doggiedog
20D
50mm f/1.4 - I absolutely love this lens
17-85mm f/4.0-5.6 - The lens is "OK". It has a nice range but I wish the picture was sharper.

I am mulling over getting the 24-105 f/4.0L or waiting it out for something faster with IS in the same zoom range. The new 18-55 f/2.8 seems interesting but its an EF-S which I'd rather avoid.

Just curious, why avoid the ef-s?

I just bought the 17-40L, I wisah it was a 2.8 but other than that it's amazing.