# Useless lenses you fell in love with



## axtstern (May 21, 2017)

Today I banned the lens I loved the most from my gear bag into the vitrine in which I keep this lenses which I'm proud to own but somehow never use.

Do you guys have also such a waiting room for the lens heaven candidate?

The lens I abandoned today is the Sigma 50-100 1.8

I admire Sigma for their boldness to bring out such a lens, I love its build, smooth zooming, bokeh and feel but I have not used this lens on more than 5 occasions while I had planed to bring it on at least 30
So why abandon the fastest tele zoom on the planet which is sharp and can replace at least three of my primes?

There are 3 main reasons:
1 The weight
2 The reach it offers... somehow always not wide enough or to short
3 What it does to other lenses.
4 The lack of OS holds you bound to always using the lens wide open. (I bought it for that purpose but...)

This lens is heavy, long and wide. Usually I carry it in a backpack or in a shoulderbag.
Lying the lens flat is not an option in the shoulder bag, it is usually mounted in the middle of the bag pointing downwards with the Sigma 18-35 1.8 and the CANON 300 4.0L or the 70-300 L flanking it left and right. 
Problem 1 the weight is always present when you have these 3 lenses on a shoulder bag.
So more and more often I substitute it with a different lens. If I keep it with me Problem 2 kicks in as well and I start changing lenses multiple times per occasion. I had not recognized that this triggers Problem 3.
The lens has a beautyfull tripod mount which is not removable but way more slim than the Canon versions. But.. it has a killer of a thumbscrew with sharp carvings. Today I wanted to clean the lens, wondered why this knob is so dirty and discovered a multilayer partial coating of the full lens color variety Canon, Tamron and Sigma has to offer. It must have touched and scratched the paint of almost any other lens I joined it in my bag.

So do you guys have a similar situation of wanting to use a lens but never rally doing so?


----------



## Ozarker (May 22, 2017)

Yup. My Tamron 15-30 falls exactly into that category. I won't ban it though.


----------



## pwp (May 22, 2017)

Interesting topic. For me the 135 f/2 and 50 f/1.2 and 24 f/1.4 II come immediately to mind. These were lenses I really wanted to love, and I've been influenced by photographers worldwide count these lenses as firm favourites. As a photographer who places a high value on precision framing in often fast moving dynamic situations, I just don't get the appeal of primes, but can't stop sampling one every now and then. 

The 135 and 50mm lenses may have kept their place in the kit if they had been IS lenses. But even so, the 135 just felt limiting, I could barely ever see the point of using it ahead of the 70-200 f/2.8isII. Same with the 50. With astounding high iso performance available on recent FF bodies, the f/1.2 speed advantage was diminished, and again the lost flexibility always had me reaching for the incomparable 24-70 f/2.8II. The 24 f/1.4 II was pretty sweet on occasions, but I suspect it wasn't a great copy. All three have since been sold.

Contemporary, top tier Canon L zooms are just plain fantastic. The zoom advantage just isn't something I'm willing to give away.

-pw


----------



## Pookie (May 22, 2017)

200mm f/2 ... I wouldn't call it useless but in reality there are far more useful lenses to use and carry. Wife bought it for me so will never be sold... I use it at least a couple times a year out of guilt.


----------



## axtstern (May 22, 2017)

Very interesting. I own the 135mm L and the Tamron 15-30mm 2.8 as well.
Owning the 135 is a direct consequence of reading to much Posts on this Forum.
When People called it the Lord of the rings, or one of the sharpest lenses Canon ever build I got tempted to buy a used one. The fact that ist bigger sister the 200 2.8 L has already a resting place in my abandoned Vitrine should have been a warning but at that time the high ISO capabilities of my Camera was not so good so 2.0 was very tempting.

Now adays the lens always looses against more versataile lenses, but it has found one niche which it fits perfect, it is my KungFu/Circus lens. I love to attend Circus and Martial Arts Shows wehen traveling with my Family through asia. The midprice tickets I usually buy to sit among the locals means somehow always a distance to the Action for which the 135mm was made for. Suboptimal light and the Need to be not slower than 1/250 second make this lens my choice no one. (Probably until Sigma dangles the 135 OS in front of me)

Now the Tamron, you are absolutely right... that is a strange object of love. My full frame standard lenses were ages old. I used to use the 17-40 2.8L and the 24-70 2.8L. Both lenses went to the Vitrine and will probably gon on the BAY this summer. I replaced them with the Tamron 15-30mm 2.8 and the Tamron 24-70 2.8

Now if you are an engineer you have to love how the 15-30mm is designed using the same priciple as in the old Canon 24-70 2.8 that the petal of the sunshade is fixed but the front elements extend when goig wide etc...
The 2.8 together with stabilisation is marvelous. The weight the steel and glass generate shout 'I'm an expert tool jearning for expert Hands".... But then there is my crappy Little 80d and the crappy Little Canon 10-18 STM. Of course they can't do what the mighty 5d IV with the Tamron can do, but somehow the 10-18 is always with me and the Tamron only sees once every few month the sun.


----------



## Maximilian (May 22, 2017)

Hi axtstern! 

Interesting topic, interesting question. But really difficult to answer for me.

I have several lenses I'm "in love" with, but I see non of them being useless or used rarely. 
So I try the other way around. Which lenses are "useless"?
I have a 17-40L and a 70-300DO that I use rarely.

For the 17-40L I'd say that I yet have to fall in love with UWA photography and the 24 mm of my 24-105L are mostly wide enough. But every once in a while it is really useful or I force myself to take just this one lens with me to get better use of it.

For the 70-300DO I fell in love with compact size and the focal range it offers with that. But I didn't fall in love with its optical performance. I bought it because of some very good test results I've read, but it seems that those weren't relating to higher MP cameras (>15 MP). 
I missed the time to sell it for a good price and for what I can get now I prefer to keep it.

So no real nominee for your question in my lineup.


----------



## sanj (May 22, 2017)

600mm. So useless. Use it once a year or so.


----------



## gregorywood (May 22, 2017)

I have had a mostly stable lens collection for over a year now. I find they all have a purpose, depending on the subject matter, location and lighting. The lenses that get the most use are the 24-105mm f/4 and the 70-200mm f/2.8 II. The lens I use least, in spite of how long I searched for a good copy, is the Canon 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye. It's a fun lens, but I just don't find myself finding ways to use it. I haven't traveled much recently and I hang on to it in the hope of using it in some interesting place where it lends itself to some interesting applications.


----------



## chrysoberyl (May 22, 2017)

Every Sigma lens I have owned, when used in AF mode. Even the 35mm Art let's me down consistently. I do like them when focused manually, though.

I wish Sigma would just give up on AF, simplify their constructions and lower their prices.

I loved my Canon 100L macro until I got a Milvus 100mm Makro. I haven't touched the Canon since I got the Milvus.


----------



## bhf3737 (May 22, 2017)

Three for me:
1. 16-35 F/2.8L II does not see the light of day after getting 16-35 F/4L and 11-24 F/4L. It was my go to lens for landscape and its color rendering was very good.
2. MP-E 65 F/2.8 macro. It is a lovable lens for extreme macro photography but very difficult to use it to its potentials. When doing casual macro indoor and outdoor the EF 100mm L macro and some extension tubes always win.
3. The Canon Extender EF 2X III. Wanted to use it with 100-400L II or 70-200L II for longer reach. No matter what lens it is connects to, the image sharpness has always been disappointing. To be honest, I have not used it with 500-600mm great whites but with everything else it was a failure.


----------



## [email protected] (May 22, 2017)

A theme I'm seeing: great lenses that are too big in practice to bring along as much as we'd hoped. Here is an exception...

I am in love with my Tamron 85 VC. I have no complaints whatsoever about it. It is much smaller and lighter than the other great 85s that just came out, but within spitting distance of image quality. So it's not the size keeping me from using it. 

The problem is that I have the Sigma 50 Art and the Sigma 135 Art. Those two lenses make me tear up sometimes when I'm checking images. I seldom leave without them. When I'm taking another lens along - something longer or wider, I really don't feel like filling the gap with the 85 in the bag. I'd rather choose the 50 or 135, depending on the kind of shooting. 

I'll typically take the Tamron 35 VC, Sigma 50 and 135 in the bag, and have the 100-400 II on the camera. The alternate setup is to take the Tamron 15-30 along with the 50 and 85 if I suspect I'll need a shorter lineup. 

I find that the Tamron 35 and the 15-30 are two that I interchange frequently; and the Tamron 85 and sigma 135 are swapped with some frequency. The problem is that the 135 is made with magic unicorn dust, and I don't like taking it off the camera, so this very fine Tamron lens gets more and more lonely. 

Won't sell it.


----------



## LordofTackle (May 22, 2017)

sanj said:


> 600mm. So useless. Use it once a year or so.



I'd like to have your problem 

For me it's the 50mm 1.4. I bought it when I started with FF and everyone said that 50mm is THE focal lenght, also strangely, it got pretty good critiques here. First copy was DOA (AF motor), second I kept. I rarely use it, mostly on some family parties. Over the time I just found that I am more a 85mm person 

The 100L 2.8 macro. It's a fantastic lens but I just don't have much time to do macro so it mostly sits on the shelf.

-Sebastian


----------



## Jopa (May 23, 2017)

Zeiss Otus 85 and 135 APO. Because MF and no IS! Good lenses though.


----------



## slclick (May 23, 2017)

200 2.8 L. True there is a lot of redundancy out there with this one but when I used it as the sole lens in my bag and gave it quality shoot time, it always amazed me.


----------



## c.d.embrey (May 23, 2017)

GAS can be a real financial drag. Especially the use-once-a-year Big White 

I own a EF-S 10-22mm and an EF 85mm f/1.8 for use with my xxD cameras, and a 50mm f/1.8, plus using the already mentioned EF 85mm f/1.8 for my Elan7n film camera. If I buy the upcoming EOS 6D2, I'll continue to use the same lenses I use with my Full Frame Film camera.

This doesn't stop me from using 300mm f/2.8. 400 f/2.8 or 400mm DO when I need them. My local rental house has them  They also have 5D3 cameras and TS-E 90mm T&S lenses when I need them 

Having rental insurance is a lot less expensive than owning seldom used lenses.


----------



## Zeidora (May 23, 2017)

I think I only have one, a 126 format fold-out film camera with fix lens. Never used it. But just like the look of it. Sits on a crapy tiny tripod in a book case. 
For everything else, if it does not sing, it's gone. Sold an OM system, a Leica M3 system, all Contax gear (except for F-Distagon 16 mm); briefly owned a Nikon F3HP with a 3 lenses, I think. Have not sold a lens for the Canon dSLR yet. But having owned a bunch of stuff previously, I know what I like and what not. So I did not buy the Otus 28 (had that on OM and Contax, hardly ever used it), and neither the Otus 135 (had that on OM).


----------



## axtstern (May 23, 2017)

This becomes a trip down Memory lane.

Especialy reading abot the teleconverters. I only own the older Version of the 1.4 and 2.0 after remembering about them I wondered where they have gone. Found them in the box of the old 400 2.8 L Mark 1. With that old lens neither the 1.4 or the 2.0 did to much damage.

One more entry in the loved but abandoned list:
Sigma 120-300 2.8 Mark1

In the Age when IS/OS was not the rule but the exception I used this lens a lot but then suddenly stopped. Now in hindsight I recognize the demise of this lens was that the last of my children grew out of the stroller age and without the babystroller as a lens caddy my desire to cary that lens arround disapeared. Once again it was weight that killed the beast.


----------



## StudentOfLight (May 23, 2017)

If a lens can produce images that you love then it it is not useless. Even if it's only a handful of images they do exist and therefore the lens is not useless. I recently dusted off my 8-15mm fisheye lens and brought it back into active duty and I couldn't be more happy:



Microverse by Omesh Singh, on Flickr




Drum by Omesh Singh, on Flickr


----------



## LordofTackle (May 23, 2017)

Cool pictures Omesh, I really like the one with the tires 

My 100L is far from useless and I really like the pictures it produces, but 360 days a year it sits on the shelf..

-Sebastian


----------



## bholliman (May 23, 2017)

All of my lenses get regular use, probably the one that gets neglected the most is the little 50 1.8 STM. Its a nice little lens, but I know its not as good optically as my L lenses, so I tend to leave it at home unless I'm wanting to go small and light with my 5DsR (which is less often these days since I normally use my M5 in that situation).



LordofTackle said:


> My 100L is far from useless and I really like the pictures it produces, but 360 days a year it sits on the shelf..
> -Sebastian


I had the same issue and eventually sold it. Its a terrific lens, I just don't shoot macro much and have the 70-200 f/2.8 II that covers the same focal length/aperture.


----------



## axtstern (May 23, 2017)

You are right, even a rarely used lens is not useless as Long as it takes beautyful Pictures. 
But especialy with expensive lenses it is tough if the lens has somehow all that you want to love in a tool and somehow still falls short of what you hoped for.


----------



## Ozarker (May 26, 2017)

Pookie said:


> 200mm f/2 ... I wouldn't call it useless but in reality there are far more useful lenses to use and carry. Wife bought it for me so will never be sold... I use it at least a couple times a year out of guilt.



Hahaha!


----------



## arthurbikemad (May 26, 2017)

I love the 200/2 but it's a ball ache of a lens at times, saying that don't think I've ever taken a shot with it I don't like, even crap shots look GREAT! 11-24/4 had to have it, looks great, takes great shots, just never get to use it, sold my 14/2.8 for it, kind of miss the 14mm, mainly coz the 11-24 is just SOOOO BiG!


----------



## Eldar (May 26, 2017)

I don´t have any useless lenses, but I have some wonderful lenses I don´t use enough. 

The 17mm f4L TS-E rarely gets a place in my bag. So every time I would have liked to have it, it's on a shelf back home. So eventually I sold it to a friend.

The 11-24mm f4L is also a wonderful lens, but it is big and heavy and I don´t have any filters for it. Very often I tend to bring the 16-35mm f2.8L III instead. I will not sell it though.

The 300mm f2.8L IS II er a fantastic lens. However, I do not use it much. The 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS II and the 200-400 f4L IS 1.4x provides so much flexibility and they complement the 600mm f4L IS II, with extenders very well. But I will not sell it.


----------



## Mr Bean (May 27, 2017)

The Zeiss 15mm I have, for the amount I paid, is lucky to be used once a month. But, when you need that UWA lens effect, it makes up for lack of use


----------



## leadin2 (May 27, 2017)

I'm a zoom lens guy. Any fixed focal lens that I buy (50s, 135) will usually sit on the bench, eventually sold, except for 100mm L which I always use for product shots.

These days, I am trying to use only fixed focal lens for a change. My legs will be the zoom.


----------



## jolyonralph (May 27, 2017)

Well, I have always wanted a tilt-shift lens but couldn't justify the price.

So I sort of made my own (well, a tilt-lens to be accurate)

An example of a photo taken with it:







Full details of how I built it here:

http://www.everyothershot.com/home-made-tilt-shift-lens-put-test/


----------



## Zeidora (May 27, 2017)

Mr Bean said:


> The Zeiss 15mm I have, for the amount I paid, is lucky to be used once a month. But, when you need that UWA lens effect, it makes up for lack of use



Marvelous lens, indeed! The only way I would get rid of mine if I'd upgrade to the version with removable hood. Such a hard thing to justify, though. But then again, this is not about rational decision making ;-)


----------



## alvarow (May 31, 2017)

I love my vintage Super Multi Coated Takumar 50mm 1.4. Once in a while I take it out and produce some magical images, and I love it, but for the most part it sits unused for periods of time.

But I do love it


----------



## aceflibble (Jul 6, 2017)

First for me is definitely the Fujifilm 18mm. It's the weakest, optically, of all of Fuji's 'XF' prime lenses. Even the kit zoom at 18mm is sharper and less distorted. It has the joint-worst AF along with the other two launch primes. It's not even the smallest and lightest; the 27mm is a proper pancake and manages to be sharper to boot. But an 18mm on an APS-C (1.52x) is my perfect wide field of view for casual shooting and the size is small enough to be easily portable without also feeling too flimsy.
Most Fuji users ditched the 18mm prime a few years ago, but for me it lives on an older Fuji body and that's my go-to point-and-shoot. I could put on any other lens and get sharper pictures, less fringing, less distortion, faster and smoother AF. You name it. But the 18mm lives on the old body because it feels right.

Second, Canon's 100mm f/2. It doesn't give you the compression of the 135mm or any of the 70-200s. It's more limited in framing than any of the 85mms. (Or, again, a 70-200.) It's an older design with a bit too much plastic. But, like the Fuji 18mm, the Canon 100mm f/2 just fits my eye perfectly. Stick it on a 35mm 1D body and the image in the viewfinder is exactly what my eye sees, to the point where I can keep both eyes open and I don't experience any double-vision at all. The AF is that hair faster than the 100mm f/2.8L Macro. It's sharp where it counts. It has no distortion or aberration on a 35mm body and only minor fringing on an APS-C body.
Every time I pick it up, I know there's a better lens to use. I could pick up the 135 and get better compression and a sharper image. I could pick up the 85mm and capture a wider variety of shots without needing to change lenses again. I could use a 70-200 and blow everything out of the water. I could use the 100mm L macro and have less flaring. 
But that basic, cheap, 100mm f/2 is just too lovely. It's _pointless_, but lovely.

Third, the Mitakon 35mm and 50mm f/0.95s. Totally pointless lenses. Optically a bit weak. Awkward aperture ring placement. Heavy, _dense_ lenses for their size. There are better 50mms (the 35mm is for Fuji, where it's a 53mm equivalent) for every system. The f/0.95 isn't even really that fast because it's actually t/1.3-1.4. But the focus rings are _beautiful_ and using them makes me feel like I'm back using my dad's Canon A-1 and 50mm. (Which I did dust off and retry a few years ago and found that is nowhere near as nice as I remember it being; the Mitakons _are_ as nice as I remember the A-1/FD being.) 
Totally, totally useless lens. A Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM or Fuji 35mm f/1.4 would beat them if you want objective quality. If I really need a great 50mm for a job, I use the Sigma 50mm Art, or for a couple of specialist roles, a modified Samyang 50mm. I've had the 50mm f/1.2L and f/1.4 a few times each and those are (kind of, bar a few flaws) better lenses than the Mitakons, too. But the Mitakons are the ones I like using most so they stay in the bag.

Fourth and last, Mamiya 110mm f/2 for the 6x7 system. In fact that whole system is useless since a 6x7 digital sensor doesn't exist and 6x7 film is unwanted. I've adapted it with a 6x4.5 digital back but that too still leaves it useless as I have a much more capable Phase system anyway. _But_, I keep the Mamiya maintained in good condition just so I have a way to use the 110mm lens, which equates to roughly 60mm f/1.1 in 35mm sensor terms with the 6x4.5 back. (It's 55mm f/1 with the original 6x7 format.) Optically the best lens I've used since I first learnt the basics of photography with my father's large format rig ~25 years ago. No distortion, no fringing, and the best resolving power edge-to-edge of anything I've ever been able to test under reasonably comparable conditions. I get more detail out of the Mamiya 110mm and a 50mp Phase back (at reasonable ISOs, of course) than out of the Sigma 50mm Art and 5DS R.
The whole system is redundant, slow and out dated, a pain to set up and use, and irrelevant. But that one lens keeps it alive for me and if there's a fire here and I have time to pick up one camera and one camera only, it's going to be the Mamiya with the 110mm attached.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 6, 2017)

Lenses don't 'give you compression'.


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Jul 6, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Lenses don't 'give you compression'.


But we all know what he means don't we? It is academic whether it is the lens that is creating the compression effect or the distance you are from the subject when you take the picture. The point is that the image will look more compressed if a long telephoto lens is used rather than a lens with a shorter focal length.


----------



## bereninga (Jul 6, 2017)

It's hard to call a lens useless, but I love my barely used 40mm f/2.8 STM. It's so compact and delivers great image quality. I also purchased it for < $100 refurbished, so the value was really amazing. But having a 35mm f/2 IS USM keeps the 40 at home.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 6, 2017)

Ian_of_glos said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Lenses don't 'give you compression'.
> ...



No I don't think we do know what he means. How does a 100 not "_give you the compression of the... ...70-200s"_?



aceflibble said:


> Second, Canon's 100mm f/2. It doesn't give you the compression of the 135mm or any of the 70-200s.



That makes even less sense! Any 100mm lens, or zoom spanning 100mm will give you exact;y the same perspective. It won't 'compress' anything, but it will give you a perspective.

The problem with these oft repeated inaccuracies is they confuse people with less understanding or education. My calling for accuracy in terminology is not me being pedantic, it is an effort to prevent confusion in others. 

Lenses do not create 'compression', use an 18-200mm zoom and stand in the same place and take a shot at both ends of the zoom range then crop the 18mm image to the same framing as the 200mm image and the 'compression' is the same. Because I was taught perspective rather than compression that is an obvious fact to me, people taught about lens compression often struggle to get their heads around the concept of perspective because of that falsehood. 

Am I wrong to point that out?


----------



## aceflibble (Jul 8, 2017)

Yes, because you assumed I meant to say perspective and erroneously said compression, when I _meant_ to say compression; assumption is the mother of all ****-ups. The two do mean different things, and I meant what I said. 

First off, the part about the 100 not giving the same compression as the 70-200 is simply a failing in reading comprehension on your part; the—I assumed obvious—implication being that the zoom can be used at 200mm, creating a very different look in both compression and perspective than the 100mm is stuck at. Hence, the 100 can't give you the compression of the 70-200. The 70-200 can give you the compression of the 100, but not vice-versa.

Second, perspective and compression may sometimes be erroneously used to mean the same thing, but they are not, and I use each with purpose. Perspective is fully-ranging, while compression is only used to describe a difference in information density. I generally won't mention perspective because I—again, perhaps too-optimistically—assume people are familiar with the perspective of any given focal length at any given distance and it varies too much from use to use to be worth talking about. Compression, however, is the same for any given focal length no matter where you're shooting from and can not be replicated by cropping other focal lengths. (Well, except for mirror lenses and microscopes, but that should be a given.) The density of information—the compression— passed to the sensor is different, even if the view of the subjects—the perspective—is the same. Just as the contrast and colour can be different. (Though of course that's more subject to a specific model basis.)

You're talking about and to someone who got Fuji's UK marketing to delay advertising by a week to fix their misuse of "strobe" and who has ranted in the face of Scott Gilbertson (then CEO) about Fender's horrific confusion of 'tremolo' and 'vibrato', so no, I'm well acquainted with and against the folly of abusing terminology, but I'm also equally against presumptive accusations.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 8, 2017)

aceflibble said:


> Yes, because you assumed I meant to say perspective and erroneously said compression, when I _meant_ to say compression; assumption is the mother of all ****-ups. The two do mean different things, and I meant what I said.
> 
> First off, the part about the 100 not giving the same compression as the 70-200 is simply a failing in reading comprehension on your part; the—I assumed obvious—implication being that the zoom can be used at 200mm, creating a very different look in both compression and perspective than the 100mm is stuck at. Hence, the 100 can't give you the compression of the 70-200. The 70-200 can give you the compression of the 100, but not vice-versa.
> 
> ...



No, you clearly don't know what you are talking about.

Also, what in the hell does "density of information" mean?


----------



## dak723 (Jul 8, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Ian_of_glos said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Yes, because the terminology you were taught is far more confusing and probably incorrect. The perspective changes between the viewer and the subject when the viewer moves left, right, up or down. Compression implies that the viewer seems closer to the subject, which is what zooming - or cropping - does.

Pretty simple to understand. You seem to be confusing the terms perspective and field of view. Narrowing the field of view does nothing to change the perspective, it changes the apparent distance between camera and subject, in other words, the compression.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 8, 2017)

dak723 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Ian_of_glos said:
> ...



No.

Perspective is the spatial relationship between you and all the things in the image. Compression is a bullsh!t term that implies a longer lens will give you a different perspective from the same place than a shorter one, which is not true.

See the red highlighted line above, acefibble is not using the term as you understand it, he is directly stating compression is a function of focal length and can not be replicated, that is not what you or I am saying, we are saying 'compression' is perspective and is the same regardless of focal length, it changes when you move, not when you change lens.

For illustrative examples look at this post, http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19483.msg366490#msg366490


----------

