# Three Canon Lens Masters Pick Their Favourite Lenses



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 23, 2017)

```
<a href="https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3376563810/we-asked-3-canon-lens-masters-to-name-their-first-and-favorite-designs">DPReview</a> asked three Canon lens masters at the Utsunomiya lens factory to name their favourite lens designs (as well as their first). One of the responses may surprise you.</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Masato Okada: Deputy Chief Executive of Image Communication Products and Operation

</strong><em>Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L USM – “For me I’d have to say the 11-24mm F4L USM, because when launched, it allowed the widest angle possible on a full frame with no distortion.”</em></li>
<li><strong>Kenichi Izuki: Plant Manager</strong>

<em>Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM – “My favorite, which I truly remember because it was so hard to design, was the original Canon 70-200 F2.8 L USM non-IS.”</em></li>
<li><strong>Shingo Hayakawa: Deputy Chief Executive of Image Communication and Products Operations</strong>

<em>Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II – “… if I were to narrow it down, my choice would be a lens that came out in 2012: the Canon 24-70mm F2.8L II USM.”</em></li>
</ul>
<p>I’m not a lens engineer/designer, but I to have my favourite Canon lenses based on design, usability and performance. For me, my absolute favourite Canon lens is the EF 200mm f/2L IS USM.</p>
<p>What’s your favourite Canon lens?</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## keithcooper (Mar 23, 2017)

*TS-E17*

TS-E 17 f4L

Was speaking to someone at the Nikon stand at the Photography Show in Birmingham (UK) whilst I was there to do a series of talks about making big prints, and they asked why I picked Canon - pointed to the lens.

This from when Nikon forgot to send any invites to their talks...

An hour before the show opens is a great time to get round and check things out

Canon stand in the distance


----------



## gm_coates (Mar 23, 2017)

Bang for buck the EF 50mm f/1.4 is great fun.
Highly recommended


----------



## romanr74 (Mar 23, 2017)

I concur with Masato: The Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L (my copy being without IS though...)


----------



## josephandrews222 (Mar 23, 2017)

Favorite (not the best, the favorite) lens?

EOS M 11-22mm IS; hands down!

Second on my list: the 100-400mm II


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 23, 2017)

I am not able to reduce it to just one lens. If so I wouldn't have bought into a ILC system 
Give me two and I'd say 24-105L and 100-400L II with the same importance (on FF).


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 23, 2017)

romanr74 said:


> I concur with Masato: The Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L (my copy being without IS though...)



ha! woops


----------



## FTb-n (Mar 23, 2017)

EF 70-200 f2.8L USM IS Mark II.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 23, 2017)

The 11-24 is my most used lens for professional work, it has speeded up my shoot times considerably. Having said that the IQ possible from the TS-E17 really is unmatched and if time were not a factor would still be my primary tool. Both are lens design benchmarks without equal and anybody involved in their design should be rightly proud of their achievements.

However, for my personal use I am more than happy with a much more modest lens, the 35 f2 IS, if I didn't have to earn money with my photography and could only have one lens it would be the 35 f2 IS, to my mind the design is a perfect compromise and I am so pleased they went for f2 rather than matched the other small IS primes at 2.8.


----------



## Corydoras (Mar 23, 2017)

My absolute favourite Canon lens is the 70-200 IS Mark II. On 5Ds it is just an incredibly sharp and contrasty straight from f/2.8 and there are hardly any CAs in the images it produces. It´s hard to find anything to complain on that lens. Except that the corners are a touch softer than the center @ f/2.8 :


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 23, 2017)

For me, it's a tie between the 600mm f/4L IS II and the TS-E 17mm f/4L.


----------



## H. Jones (Mar 23, 2017)

That's a tough one, but I think it might be the 24-70 f/2.8L II. It's my most-used lens when working and it makes my favorite images. That said, I really would love to get my hands on a 35mm f/1.4L II, because I could really see myself enjoying that as well.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Mar 23, 2017)

For me currently it has to be the EF 35mm f/1.4L II. Close runners up of will be the 135L and the TS-E 24L II.

The next lens on my wishlist is the 300mm f/2.8L IS II. I've thought long and hard about getting a 200mm f/2 L IS, but I think the 300mm will suit my needs better.


----------



## wsmith96 (Mar 23, 2017)

My favorite and most used lens is the 70-200 2.8 Mk. II.


----------



## johnhenry (Mar 23, 2017)

As much as I use my 24-104 I, I find the lens I count on most to deliver is my 200mm f/1.8


----------



## takesome1 (Mar 23, 2017)

As my mom always said when asked, all of my children are my favorites.


----------



## Sabaki (Mar 23, 2017)

My favourite lens is the Canon 100mm f/2.8 IS L macro


----------



## Mancubus (Mar 23, 2017)

Canon Rumors said:


> <p>I’m not a lens engineer/designer, but I to have my favourite Canon lenses based on design, usability and performance. For me, my absolute favourite Canon lens is the EF 200mm f/2L IS USM.</p>
> <p>What’s your favourite Canon lens?</p>



Usability? The 200mm f/2 is:
- too long for a walk around
- too short for birding and most wildlife
- Weights a ton
- too big for most camera bags 

In fact, this is one of the least versatile lens I know of. A 35mm or a wide zoom is a usable lens, a fixed 200mm is not


----------



## epsiloneri (Mar 23, 2017)

Oh... I started to think about this and couldn't stop, so here's a list of lenses (for Canon) I've used, ranked according to how much I like them:
[list type=decimal]
[*]Canon EF 70-200/2.8L USM IS II
[*]Sigma 20/1.4 DG HSM A
[*]Canon EF 200/1.8L USM
[*]Canon EF 15/2.8 Fisheye
[*]Canon EF 100-400/4.0-5.6L II
[*]Canon EF 100/2.8L USM
[*]Canon EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5 USM
[*]Canon EF 24-70/2.8L II
[*]Canon EF 400/2.8L IS USM
[*]Canon EF 100/2.8 USM macro
[*]Canon EF 85/1.2L II USM
[*]Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8 USM IS
[*]Canon TS-E 17/4.0L
[*]Canon EF 135/2.0L
[*]Samyang XP 14/2.4
[*]Canon EF 85/1.8 USM
[*]Canon EF 24-105/4.0L USM IS
[*]Canon EF 70-200/2.8L USM IS
[*]Canon EF 300/2.8L USM
[*]Canon EF 100/2.0 USM
[*]Canon EF 300/4.0L IS
[*]Canon MP-E 65/2.8
[*]Canon TS-E 90/2.8
[*]Sigma 50/1.4 DG HSM A
[*]Sigma EX 50/1.4 HSM
[*]Sigma 35/1.4 DG HSM A
[*]Samyang 24/T1.5
[*]Sigma EX 50-500/4.0-6.3 APO HSM
[*]Canon EF 14/2.8L II
[*]Sigma EX 24/1.8 EX Macro
[*]Canon TS-E 45/2.8
[*]Canon EF 24/1.4L II
[/list]
...so yes, as for many others, the Canon EF 70-200/2.8L USM IS II is my favourite lens all categories.


----------



## epsiloneri (Mar 23, 2017)

Mancubus said:


> Usability? The 200mm f/2 is:
> - too long for a walk around
> - too short for birding and most wildlife
> - Weights a ton
> - too big for most camera bags


I agree, but the question was not about the most versatile or useful lens, or even the "best" lens, it was about your *favourite* lens, and that is a personal choice. The 200/2 certainly has the drawbacks you mention, but is also a wonderful portrait (and astro) lens.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 23, 2017)

I would have to say EFS 17-55 F2.8.

It is a good quality general purpose lens, and spends more time on my camera than any other.


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 23, 2017)

ef 35mm f/1.4 II

But if they ever get around to making a good 50mm, that might be even more favorite. :


----------



## toodamnice (Mar 23, 2017)

I love my new EF 16-35 f2.8*L* Mark III!



IMG_5788 1920x1080 by Christopher Kincaid, on Flickr


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 23, 2017)

Canon Rumors said:


> Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L USM – “For me I’d have to say the 11-24mm F4L USM, because when launched, it allowed the widest angle possible on a full frame with no distortion.”



No distortion at 11mm? Is this true? No stretching of the image on the edges? I'm full of wonder if that is true.

Can anyone else attest to this? I know distortion can be corrected in post, but is he talking about straight out of the camera?


----------



## PureClassA (Mar 23, 2017)

135L


----------



## AdmiralAction (Mar 23, 2017)

I recently traded in my 17-40 f/4 L for the new 16-35 f/2.8 L and it has absolutely blown my mind! 

Amazing what 7 years of advancement in tech can do. Love that lens! Works great as an everyday lens on my 7D Mk II.


----------



## edknuff (Mar 23, 2017)

24mm tse mark ll.


----------



## edknuff (Mar 23, 2017)

AdmiralAction said:


> I recently traded in my 17-40 f/4 L for the new 16-35 f/2.8 L and it has absolutely blown my mind!
> 
> Amazing what 7 years of advancement in tech can do. Love that lens! Works great as an everyday lens on my 7D Mk II.



Yeah. I need to replace my 16-35 mark ll.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 23, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L USM – “For me I’d have to say the 11-24mm F4L USM, because when launched, it allowed the widest angle possible on a full frame with no distortion.”
> ...



There is close to zero barrel, pincushion or mustache distortion. There is projection distortion because that is unavoidable in a rectilinear projection at those focal lengths.

Don't confuse stretched objects in corners and edges with 'distortion' as referred to in lens design.

Straight lines stay straight, circular objects get pushed into ovals, that is an unavoidable consequence of the projection and is not an error/optical failure.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 23, 2017)

AdmiralAction said:


> I recently traded in my 17-40 f/4 L for the new 16-35 f/2.8 L and it has absolutely blown my mind!
> 
> Amazing what 7 years of advancement in tech can do. Love that lens! Works great as an everyday lens on my 7D Mk II.



The 17-40 was launched in 2003. It's true replacement, which is a massive improvement in every respect, is the 16-35 f4 L IS from 2014, 11 years difference. The MkIII 16-35 f2.8 was 2016, or 13 years tech time.


----------



## SkynetTX (Mar 23, 2017)

Since most of the time I take macro photos and am on a budget it's the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 USM. Sometimes it's really hard to get close enough to the beetles and spiders to use 1:1 or larger magnification ratio but I usually managed to solve it.  If once it will be created my other favorite could be the EF-S 300mm f/5.6 IS USM Macro.


----------



## IglooEater (Mar 23, 2017)

Kenichi Izuki referred to the 70-200 2.8 nom-IS as "so hard to design.. Any thoughts on why that one would be particularity difficult to design? Perhaps later lenses were more computer assisted in the design process? Would it really be more difficult than the IS version? Obviously he's right- he's the master.

Here's another 70-200 2.8 IS II as being my favorite.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 23, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...



Projection Distortion. Thanks for clearing that up for me. I had no idea what to call that kind of distortion.

In that case, I am still happy with my Tamron 15-30.

Favorite lens? Probably my EF 24-70 f/2.8L II as an all around lens. I've got to be extra careful even taking it out of the pouch as just it's shadow will cut through flesh and bone. It is extremely sharp and renders very well.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 23, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



This is the difference in 'distortion' between your Tamron and the Canon at 15/16mm.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Distortion.aspx?Lens=977&Camera=453&FLIComp=0&LensComp=986&CameraComp=453&FLI=3


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 23, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Okay, now I am not happy. :'(


----------



## bgateb (Mar 23, 2017)

Canon Rumors said:


> <a href="https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3376563810/we-asked-3-canon-lens-masters-to-name-their-first-and-favorite-designs">DPReview</a> asked three Canon lens masters at the Utsunomiya lens factory to name their favourite lens designs (as well as their first). One of the responses may surprise you.</p>
> <ul>
> <li><strong>Masato Okada: Deputy Chief Executive of Image Communication Products and Operation
> 
> ...



The 'ol Trinity. gotta love it.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 23, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Okay, now I am not happy. :'(



Now you know why the Canon 11-24 is a masterpiece


----------



## vrpanorama (Mar 23, 2017)

Mine and without hesitation is the 8-15mm f4 L lens. This lens is the best fisheye lens achieving great vr results


----------



## Viper28 (Mar 23, 2017)

That I own the 300/2.8L
That I rent regularly the 200-400/4 1.4x just does everything I want, great design, fast focus and sharp


----------



## bod (Mar 23, 2017)

EF 24 TSE II - Native 24 mm focal length with excellent IQ plus all the flexibility of the Shift and Tilt functionality.

A close second would be the EF 35 L II - really impressed with the IQ from wide open and if I had to have only one focal length in the bag for walk around it would be 35 mm ( or at least it will be when Canon Australia Service give the 35L back to me after having it to date for 3 months to improve an AF issue! )


----------



## Larsskv (Mar 23, 2017)

My favorites are 85LII, 35LII and 16-35F4 L IS, in that order.


----------



## David - Sydney (Mar 23, 2017)

The 70-200 f2.8L USM IS Mark II is my favourite for sharpness and focus speed but I use the 16-35mm f4L the most (landscape/waves). 
14mm and 50mm f/1.4 are great when I have special needs for them. Hard to beat the focal range of the 24-105mm f4 for general walk-arounds.


----------



## NancyP (Mar 23, 2017)

Ridiculously, my favorite general purpose Canon lens is the pancake 40, largely because of its negligible weight. It goes everywhere. My favorite of favorites isn't Canon brand, it is a Voigtlander 1:1 macro 125mm f/2.5.


----------



## Zv (Mar 24, 2017)

My fave might just be the EF-M 11-22, I'm just so impressed by this lens and what it can do for it's size. I can bring it along almost anywhere. Just simply marvelous IMO!

Of course I also love my 16-35 f/4L IS but that's more of a workhorse everyday heavy duty kinda lens.


----------



## Click (Mar 24, 2017)

My favourite lens is the Canon 600mm f/4 L IS II


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Mar 24, 2017)

I am off out in the morning after shore birds and waders, two cameras but only one lens. The only one worth taking - my Canon 800 F5.6 L IS! I am lucky enough to have some very nice lenses but the 800 is what I go to 80% + of the time. Simply my most used and most appreciated lens.


----------



## candc (Mar 24, 2017)

400 doii. Its just such a pleasure to use and the iq and af are excellent.


----------



## Big_Ant_TV_Media (Mar 24, 2017)

my favorite lenses
used from ny old 7d2 too 5d3 and now 5d4 
70-200mm f2.8 is ii and my new 24-70f 2.8 ii "barely used since i had it less then a month"


----------



## The Supplanter (Mar 24, 2017)

NancyP said:


> Ridiculously, my favorite general purpose Canon lens is the pancake 40, largely because of its negligible weight. It goes everywhere. My favorite of favorites isn't Canon brand, it is a Voigtlander 1:1 macro 125mm f/2.5.



Yes! The 40mm 2.8 is my favorite as well.


----------



## ecqns (Mar 24, 2017)

24mm TSE-II
I use the 17mm just as much but prefer the more natural perspective of the 24mm.
Have to use the 11mm of the 11-24 only by necessity but would trade that in for a 14mm TS-E in a heartbeat.


----------



## Pixel (Mar 24, 2017)

No distortion on the 11-24? That's a laugh. It hardly ever comes out my bag because I hate the distortion on the edges and corners. If there's a person not directly centered in the frame...forget about it.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 24, 2017)

Pixel said:


> No distortion on the 11-24? That's a laugh. It hardly ever comes out my bag because I hate the distortion on the edges and corners. If there's a person not directly centered in the frame...forget about it.



Yet another poster who doesn't know the difference between lens distortions, barrel, pincushion etc, and projection distortion which is the unavoidable characteristic of projecting a scene whilst maintaining straight lines.

The 11-24 has remarkably little distortion aberrations, the fov necessitates extreme projection distortion but this is not an optical error, just the logical and unavoidable result of a rectilinear projection.


----------



## wopbv4 (Mar 24, 2017)

candc said:


> 400 doii. Its just such a pleasure to use and the iq and af are excellent.



+1. 400mm which can be used handheld for extended periods of time


----------



## Ryananthony (Mar 24, 2017)

40mm and 100L. I really enjoy the 100L for a walk around lens. When to long, the 40mm is almost always perfect for me.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 24, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Pixel said:
> 
> 
> > No distortion on the 11-24? That's a laugh. It hardly ever comes out my bag because I hate the distortion on the edges and corners. If there's a person not directly centered in the frame...forget about it.
> ...



While you are absolutely correct in identifying the phenomena as projection distortion, let's not forget the lens master said, "no distortion". While it may not be an optical error projection distortion is still distortion. I think this is unavoidable at this fov without a binocular lens

However, the barrel and pincushion distortion control is amazing to me. 

Just for the record: I knew what pincushion and barrel distortion were, and knew the difference. I'd just never heard the term "projection distortion" until you wisely schooled me. I thank you for that, but don't assume that just because we didn't know what that is that we don't know the difference between barrel / pincushion distortion on top of that.

Take your well earned sage points and move on without the insult.  If you didn't mean to insult then I'll add that your comment could have been worded differently.


----------



## Zeidora (Mar 24, 2017)

Zeiss Makroplanar 100/2.8 C/Y. Unfortunately very limited usability on a Canon dSLR because of working aperture, but with full functionality as on the Contax RTS III, the most versatile lens for natural history imaging with incredible IQ. Zeiss really muffed it with the new ZE Makroplanar 100/2.0 (including the Milvus version) being only 1:2 mag. Will never understand that blunder.


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 24, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, now I am not happy. :'(
> ...


@CanonFanBoy:
Considering the price difference, I'd say I'd still be happy with the tamy as it is a really good glass for a good price.
And be thankful to Canon that they give you the choice to get an even better piece of glass - but for more than three times the money.


----------



## Mr. Shakes (Mar 24, 2017)

My all time favorite is the original Magic Drainpipe, the EF 80-200 f/2.8 L, I got almost 30 years service, using it both on film cameras, and my transition to DSLR's.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 24, 2017)

Maximilian said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



Very true and cost is the reason I was able to step up from the 70D to the 5D Mark III. Considering how infrequently I use an UWA lens, I think I did the right thing.


----------



## lion rock (Mar 24, 2017)

I'm sure glad they like the lenses I own. I really should buy them a bottle of Japanese single malt whisky! But, they've taken all my money I used to purchase these great glasses that I can only offer them a virtual serving of cold sake 8) ;D ;D.
Anyhow, those are some of the best lenses made and I'm glad to be onboard.
-r


----------



## StudentOfLight (Mar 24, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Pixel said:
> 
> 
> > No distortion on the 11-24? That's a laugh. It hardly ever comes out my bag because I hate the distortion on the edges and corners. If there's a person not directly centered in the frame...forget about it.
> ...


I do not use the term "projection distortion". Instead I use the word keystone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_effect
In layman's terms keystone can be summarized as follows ... what's closer looks bigger.

Personally I only use distortion to describe when a lens does not conform to the intended projection. So if a lens marketed as rectilinear lens does not project straight lines in the scene as straight lines on the sensor then it has distortion. If a lens marketed as stereographic fisheye does not project circular geometry onto the sensor as intended by such a projection scheme then it has distortion.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Mar 24, 2017)

NancyP said:


> Ridiculously, my favorite general purpose Canon lens is the pancake 40, largely because of its negligible weight. It goes everywhere. My favorite of favorites isn't Canon brand, it is a Voigtlander 1:1 macro 125mm f/2.5.


Interesting. I'll have to look up this Voigtlander...


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 24, 2017)

My ultimate favourite lens is the EF 16-35mm f4L IS USM its so versatile and pin sharp, running it close in 2nd & 3rd place are the EF 100mm f2.8L IS USM Macro which excels as a macro and a pure 100mm, finally the EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM II which is definitely an improvement over the MK1 lens. 

Ive not had the EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM II long but it may edge out one of the above judging by my early results from it.


----------



## KimH (Mar 24, 2017)

My favorite is always the last one i bought 8)

Was 11-24 and now 100-400 II


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 24, 2017)

StudentOfLight said:


> I do not use the term "projection distortion". Instead I use the word keystone.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_effect
> In layman's terms keystone can be summarized as follows ... what's closer looks bigger.



Keystoning is a type of projection distortion. With keystoning, the plane of the subject is at a different angle than the plane of the sensor, and that angled projection is what causes the effect.


----------



## Lee Jay (Mar 24, 2017)

Canon Rumors said:


> <ul>
> <li><strong>Masato Okada: Deputy Chief Executive of Image Communication Products and Operation
> 
> </strong><em>Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L USM – “For me I’d have to say the 11-24mm F4L USM, because when launched, it allowed the widest angle possible on a full frame with no distortion.”</em></li>
> ...



I can't believe a lens-guy said that.

The only type of lens that doesn't produce distortion is an object-space telecentric. The 11-24 produces massive distortion simply because it's doing what most lenses do - smashing a spherical world onto a flat plane. The 11-24 uses rectilinear mapping which keeps straight lines straight but turns circles that aren't in the center of the frame into ovals. A fisheye keeps circles circular but makes straight lines that don't point at the center of the frame curved. There are a great many other types of mapping (and more than one type of fisheye).

Personally, I prefer the mapping of a fisheye to that of a rectilinear about 95% of the time on ultra wide angle shots. When shooting rectilinear, I try to avoid going wider than 14mm because the corner stretching gets too extreme. Regardless, I can re-map a fisheye to a rectilinear far easier than I can go the other way, which is why I mostly shoot wide angle with my 8-15/4L on crop. It's way, way wider than the 11-24 is on full-frame, and I have the flexibility use fisheye mapping, rectilinear mapping, or anywhere in between at the touch of a single slider in Lightroom. Yeah, when you go full rectilinear you lose a lot of resolving power in the corners, but like I said, that's rare for me, and especially rare at the wide end. At the long end, it's just as sharp in the corners at f/4 as the 10-18 is at 10-12mm and f/8.


----------



## Legalese78 (Mar 25, 2017)

Probably the 85mm 1.2, despite its several flaws. Close runner up is the 35mm 1.4 Mark II.


----------



## Pookie (Mar 25, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Pixel said:
> ...



Sounds like someone needs to take this poll...
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=32229.msg655079;boardseen#new

This is funny though CFB, in other words... DISTORTION. Doesn't matter how you dress it up, it's still distortion. Some people are more worried about semantics than they are about photography. Enjoy your Tammy, me personally I can't stand the 11-24 due to that "distortion" so it stays at home most of the time. I'll take the 16-35 f/4 over it any day of the week. 

My personal fav though is the 24-70 II with the 85L coming right afterwards...


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 25, 2017)

Hilarious, in some places they call it learning something, here you get vilified either because of the tone you deliver that knowledge in or because, well just because you have actual knowledge. 

You guys are comical. :


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 25, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Hilarious, in some places they call it learning something, here you get vilified either because of the tone you deliver that knowledge in or because, well just because you have actual knowledge.
> 
> You guys are comical. :



Personally, I didn't villify you at all. I think my post was highly complimentary except for the part about your tone.

One can't blame students for liking a teacher that delivers knowledge in a professional manner more than the one who belittles.

The comical part is you getting butt hurt while being an [email protected]!e at the same time.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 25, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Hilarious, in some places they call it learning something, here you get vilified either because of the tone you deliver that knowledge in or because, well just because you have actual knowledge.
> ...



I'm not butthurt and I don't give two shits if you think I am an asshole, or if you like me, you didn't pay me to teach you so you got more than your moneys worth. Why should I take the time and trouble to be a professional teacher when there was explicitly no quid pro quo in our relationship? 

Further, I didn't give you any kind of attitude you snowflake, you took offense because I pointed out to another person who made the same error as you a few posts later, I can understand not searching through lots of threads but to not read a few posts previous seems beyond comprehension. That this was then piled onto by a third poster who has demonstrated on many occasions to have virtually no technical knowledge yet boundless opinions led me to comment.

Again, I don't give a shit, wallow in your ignorance, chastise the few people who you can learn from here for free because that is the new normal, rail against knowledge because it wasn't delivered as you need it in the way you are most receptive.

How I get all this crap when I was accurately explaining the differences between what you believe you are seeing and the words a master lens designer and builder are saying I don't know. I do know who would have a more interesting lunch with that master.


----------



## slclick (Mar 25, 2017)

I'm just crushed none of them said the upcoming EF-S M.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 25, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



I didn't make an error. I asked whether or not anyone could attest that there is "no distortion" and asked about stretching on the edges, snowflake.

Now, "Waaaaaa! Waaaaaa! Waaaaa!

People try to be nice and complimentary and you cry when they point out your poor 'tude.

"Waaaaa!" Lol! You're a real peach.

I'd have the more interesting lunch with the lens master because he probably doesn't want to be around your meltdowns, Snowflake.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 25, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...


----------



## sanj (Mar 25, 2017)

I do not understand this topic. I have no favourite lens. It all depends upon the photo. I would rarely use a superb lens like 35mm 2 for wildlife and the 500 for landscape. 

Favourite for particular type of shot, and that would make sense. Favourite landscape, portrait, street etc. I hope I am making sense.


----------



## fentiger (Mar 25, 2017)

there will always be some form of distortion when trying to project a 3D world on to a 2D media.


----------



## epsiloneri (Mar 25, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> While you are absolutely correct in identifying the phenomena as projection distortion, let's not forget the lens master said, "no distortion". While it may not be an optical error projection distortion is still distortion.


You cannot have a lens without project distortion, so of course the lens master did not mean that. That would be silly, something a newbie could have said (they often do) but not a lens master. It is worth pointing out, because it is a common mistake; projection distortion is not a deficiency of a lens: it is a result of focal length and chosen projection. 

Regarding your Tamron 15-30, I would not be concerned at all. Since the projection distortion is so dominant for nearby off-centre objects, a small optical distortion is hardly noticeable. Unless you are shooting brick walls face-on. Grand panoramas (at large distances) could also be visibly affected, in particular if you like to stitch.


----------



## epsiloneri (Mar 25, 2017)

Lee Jay said:


> I can't believe a lens-guy said that. The only type of lens that doesn't produce distortion is an object-space telecentric.


You cannot have projection without distortion, you just have to choose what quantity you want to conserve. Straight lines? Angles? Magnification? Thus all lenses, even telecentric, show a distorted view of reality. Rather than "no distortion", he clearly, more accurately stated, meant "little deviation from a perfectly rectilinear projection". People are often not precise in what they say, but mostly there is no need to, the meaning is accurately conveyed anyway. It of course can become a problem if the meaning is completely distorted or ambiguous, something certain politicians have turned into an art form.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 25, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> snowflake









CanonFanBoy said:


> Snowflake.







The MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro is another of my favorite lenses.


----------



## josephandrews222 (Mar 25, 2017)

epsiloneri said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > I can't believe a lens-guy said that. The only type of lens that doesn't produce distortion is an object-space telecentric.
> ...



What a marvelous post; thank you for your precise wording.

What you've written applies to some of what is written on this board--context is often difficult to convey without being in the same room with someone...listening to them and seeing their faces as they extol the virtues of one lens and complain about another.

I'm reminded of my favorite criticism of those who favor strict interpretation of everything that is written...

When you drive up to a red, octagonal stop sign...the only word on the sign is 'STOP'; the sign does not say 'STOP...and then GO'! It only says...'STOP'.

If the strict constructionists had their way, millions and millions of cars around the world would be stopped at stop signs...waiting for their next instruction.

In other words, some things are implied in this world.

=====

I was reminded, earlier this morning, that my favorite lens (for the M platform) is the EOS M 11-22 IS--such a small package for a truly wonderful lens.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Mar 26, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > I do not use the term "projection distortion". Instead I use the word keystone.
> ...


Do you mind getting into some philosophy?

Would you agree that distortion is a misrepresentation of the true form of an object? If we can agree on that, then the question is what defines the true form of an object?


----------



## Zv (Mar 26, 2017)

sanj said:


> I do not understand this topic. I have no favourite lens. It all depends upon the photo. I would rarely use a superb lens like 35mm 2 for wildlife and the 500 for landscape.
> 
> Favourite for particular type of shot, and that would make sense. Favourite landscape, portrait, street etc. I hope I am making sense.



Makes sense. People can love more than one lens and of course it depends on the situation but if you had to ask yourself "which lens consistently put a smile on my face when I use it?" what would it be?


----------



## Zv (Mar 26, 2017)

OK. Been reading this thread and there's something I don't quite get. As a person who loves wide angle lenses I am all too familiar with the perspective distortion phenomenon, I mean that ones kinda obvious right? So my question is this - if you don't like this effect... why would you buy a lens which takes it to the extreme? 

How can you expect 11mm to look any kind of normal?? 

Maybe I'm way off here and there is something I'm missing with regards to such a wide angle lens and how it's used but isn't the whacky perspective part of the allure?

It's like buying a fisheye lens and complaining about the distortion.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 26, 2017)

Zv said:


> OK. Been reading this thread and there's something I don't quite get. As a person who loves wide angle lenses I am all too familiar with the perspective distortion phenomenon, I mean that ones kinda obvious right? So my question is this - if you don't like this effect... why would you buy a lens which takes it to the extreme?
> 
> How can you expect 11mm to look any kind of normal??
> 
> ...



Exactly. If you don't like wide field of view projection don't get a wide field of view lens, any one focal length from any manufacturer on any camera is going to be the same. But if you need that field of view then lenses with fewer aberrations are much more difficult and expensive to make.

Projection distortion, keystoning (which is a completely different thing) etc are not aberrations. Barrel, pincushion and mustache distortion are aberrations, as are chromatic and spherical aberrations, and many would argue that vignetteing is one too, something the 11-24 does in volumes. But it was obvious that the lens master was talking, very proudly, about specific optical aberrations of which the 11-24 has remarkably little.


----------



## bf (Mar 26, 2017)

My pick as a mirrorless shooter is EFM 11-22.
Looking through topic I was surprized that I'm not alone on this. Hope Canon would offer more of such gems in their EFM line.


----------



## scyrene (Mar 26, 2017)

Sabaki said:


> My favourite lens is the Canon 100mm f/2.8 IS L macro



I agree. Of all the Canon lenses I've used, the 100L Macro is the one that has consistently exceeded my expectations. Even now, after having it for a few years, the quality of the images produced by such a modest-looking lens delight me.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 26, 2017)

StudentOfLight said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > StudentOfLight said:
> ...



Not sure where you're going with this, but yes, I'd agree that distortion is a misrepresentation of the true form of an object. I don't think there's any question of how the true form is defined...it's defined objectively, literally by the object itself. The front of a 'typical' building is rectangular; if it looks trapezoidal, or 'bent', that's distortion. Or, to use an example that I've seen frequently over the past few months, while we were looking for a new house – recessed lighting is circular, so when it looks like an oval…that's distortion. 

Your lay summary, "What's closer looks bigger," is rather vague. It best applies to perspective distortion, it can also apply to keystoning (pointing a camera up at a tall building, the base is closer and thus looks larger). It doesn't really apply to projection distortion, though, since that is more about the position of an object in the FoV.


----------



## AJ (Mar 26, 2017)

I'll pick the 55-250/4-5.6 IS STM. When it comes to value for money, this lens can't be beat. 

For about 300 CAD you get a lens with a UD element, very effective IS, and a very nice AF motor. It's compact and light, perfect for hiking and traveling. It's tack sharp. Bokeh at 55 mm and 250 mm actually isn't too bad (although the same can't be said for intermediate focal lengths).

Every decade I used to purchase a consumer telephoto lens. They were all rubbish. Until the 55-250 mk1. I thought they wouldn't be able to improve on it (within its price class) but they did. Bravo Canon.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 26, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Or, to use an example that I've seen frequently over the past few months, while we were looking for a new house – recessed lighting is circular, so when it looks like an oval…that's distortion.



I would disagree with that premise. It only looks circular when view straight on, from any other angle it, accurately, appears oval. I don't believe this to be distortion as I understand the way we are using the word in this thread.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 26, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Or, to use an example that I've seen frequently over the past few months, while we were looking for a new house – recessed lighting is circular, so when it looks like an oval…that's distortion.
> ...



Sorry, but no. It *is* circular, that can be verified empirically with a ruler. If it _looks_ like something it isn't, that's distortion...by definition. If you take a picture of a 14x14' room, and it looks deeper than it is wide, that's distortion, too. 

Not all distortions are aberrations.


----------



## romanr74 (Mar 26, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Or, to use an example that I've seen frequently over the past few months, while we were looking for a new house – recessed lighting is circular, so when it looks like an oval…that's distortion.



_*If*_ the recessed lighting is circular...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 26, 2017)

romanr74 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Or, to use an example that I've seen frequently over the past few months, while we were looking for a new house – recessed lighting is circular, so when it looks like an oval…that's distortion.
> ...



Obviously. And when I referred to buildings earlier, that applied only _*if*_ the vertical edges of the building are straight and parallel. In the vast majority of cases, both are true. But thanks for the picayune pedantry.


----------



## romanr74 (Mar 26, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



You're welcome! ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 26, 2017)

...and here are some counter-examples:


----------



## romanr74 (Mar 26, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> ...and here are some counter-examples:



8)


----------



## bholliman (Mar 26, 2017)

Canon Rumors said:


> <p>What’s your favourite Canon lens?</p>



I like all my lenses, or I wouldn't own them. But, I'd have to say my 300mm f/2.8 II is my favorite. Razor sharp, even with extenders and it produces wonderful bokeh. Until I get a longer lens (I'm planning to add a 500mm f/4 II this summer or fall), I use it with extenders for all my wildlife and bird shots, it takes terrific portraits and I use it with extension tubes for flower and intimate nature shots as well.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 26, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Yes but it is circular, not spherical, it is not appearing distorted if not viewed from straight on. Perspective is not necessarily distorting.

I suppose the crux of it is if you consider a natural perspective 'distortion' or not. I agree that ultra wide angle lenses make spherical objects appear oval and that is 'distorted'. I can't agree that a natural perspective that is giving truthful three dimensional information is distorted, a circle from anything but directly on is accurately represented as oval.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 26, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> ...and here are some counter-examples:



This is clearly photographer error.... you picked the wrong building


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 26, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



If you stand on train tracks and view them going straight off into the distance, natural perspective means the tracks converge to a vanishing point. If that natural perspective is, in fact, 'truthful three dimensional information', train travel would be impossible as every train would derail. The way your eye (or a camera) perceives the world does not change the fundamental spatial relationships of the objects in the world. 

The playroom in our basement has recessed lighting. If you stand at one end of the rectangular room, the recessed lighting at the other end will look like an oval, as will the hula hoop on the floor. My 'natural perspective' doesn't alter the fact that those objects are circular. If I turn off the lights, it naturally appears that the hula hoop no longer exists...but trust me, I can still trip over it in the dark. 

Perspective – natural or not – is merely a representation of reality. To the extent that it fails to truthfully represent that reality, it is a distortion.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Mar 26, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


Apologies I mistook "projection" for "perspective" distortion. It's clearly past my bedtime. :-[


----------



## retroreflection (Mar 26, 2017)

Private: To join in the war of precision, a circular object viewed at an angle appears elliptical within the system of our eyes & brain. Only if we accept that system as a source of fundamental truth do the circles "become" anything other than circles.


----------



## Bennymiata (Mar 26, 2017)

My most used lens is my 24-105 L mk1, but my favourite lenses are my 100mm L macro, my Sigma 150mm macro and my new 28mm efm macro (with the light on the front).

If I'm taking portraits, the 100L is OK, but I love the look and feel of my Tamron 85 1.8 VC.


----------



## Lee Jay (Mar 27, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > OK. Been reading this thread and there's something I don't quite get. As a person who loves wide angle lenses I am all too familiar with the perspective distortion phenomenon, I mean that ones kinda obvious right? So my question is this - if you don't like this effect... why would you buy a lens which takes it to the extreme?
> ...



What you've just said is that a perfect fisheye lens has massive aberrations. That's self-contradictory.


----------



## barton springs (Mar 27, 2017)

Personal: 24 1.4
Business: 300 2.8


----------



## Larsskv (Mar 28, 2017)

barton springs said:


> Personal: 24 1.4
> Business: 300 2.8



The 24LII is a really nice lens. I love the pictures I get from mine.


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Mar 30, 2017)

50mm 1.0L. For someone who likes to take photos in the dark, how does it get any better? It's not perfect, but it's perfectly excessive.


----------



## camerone (Mar 30, 2017)

I've always lusted after the 11-24. Like literally IN MY DREAMS.

50mm 1.0 is another favorite just because of its craziness.

Reasonably speaking I've always loved my 24-105... always seems to be just long enough and just wide enough. Sharp and versatile, and small too!


----------



## arthurbikemad (Mar 30, 2017)

Oh tough question, I love them all, I'd say the 200/2 but sadly I don't get to use it that much, however it is awsome.

Of late I have grown to love the new 35/1.4ii.

And it never ceases to amaze me how good the 70-200/2.8ii is!

So many great lense just a shame you can only use one at a time haha


----------



## scyrene (Mar 30, 2017)

camerone said:


> I've always lusted after the 11-24. Like literally IN MY DREAMS.
> 
> 50mm 1.0 is another favorite just because of its craziness.
> 
> Reasonably speaking I've always loved my 24-105... always seems to be just long enough and just wide enough. Sharp and versatile, and small too!



The 24-105 is definitely a lens that is better in the flesh than its reputation suggests.


----------



## Nicolai.b (Apr 1, 2017)

Without any doubt the EF200-400, and the EF70-200mk2 right behind.


----------



## beforeEos Camaras (Apr 2, 2017)

my current favorite is the 16-35 4 is l lens its a great walk around lens.

for my tele needs its the 400 5.6l lens it fills my needs


----------



## Zv (Apr 2, 2017)

arthurbikemad said:


> Oh tough question, I love them all, I'd say the 200/2 but sadly I don't get to use it that much, however it is awsome.
> 
> Of late I have grown to love the new 35/1.4ii.
> 
> ...



Sounds like you could use a 2nd body!


----------



## Curmudgeon (Apr 2, 2017)

If the experts get to choose three lenses, I'm going to exercise the hacker's prerogative and choose the three lenses that produce results--of a different kind in some cases--that "put a smile on my face."

Is there anybody who owns the 100-400 L II who doesn't love it? Canon got this one so right. When the reviews on the 5D4 came in and I decided that it was time for this landscaper to upgrade from the 5D2, I also took the plunge and upgraded the one lens I had for sports action/wildlife from the 70-200 to the 100-400. My biggest frustration with the 70-200 as a general purpose sports/action/wildlife camera was running out of reach, and having to crop excessively to fill the frame. I gambled that the two-generation improvement in high-ISO sensor performance would satisfactorily compensate for the two-stop loss in speed. And I believe I got that one right. It's a little heavier and bulkier than the 70-200, but then that was never really much of a walk-around lens either, and the 100-400 L II turns my 5D4 into as much of a sports/wildlife camera as someone who is primarily a landscaper could hope for at the price. As a journalist retired from smaller papers where I sometimes had to double as my own photographer, I can guarantee you the sports shots I'm getting with the 5D4 and the 100-400 L II would have thrilled my editors five years ago.

Number two is my other new toy: the 24 TS-E II. And I like it for a lot of the same reasons. So sharp and so flexible. Bring more of a deep linear subject into perfect focus? No problem. Sharply limit focus as a compositional tool? No problem. And that large image circle is the simplest, best tool for accurately stitched panoramas. There's more. This thread has generated a lot of technical profundity about the true philosophical definition of distortion, but the 100-400 L II corrects the most psychologically obvious forms of distortion, like falling-over-backwards buildings. Best of all, Canon finally perfected the mechanics of the TS-E . You can use all of its optical parameters in any combination in any orientation without having to disassemble the lens they way you have to with my first-generation 45 TS-E. As a landscape photographer, I hung on with Canon through the long dark years of its sensor woes in the hope that the company that would finally produce a body that could do justice to this lens. The 5D4 is good enough.

This lens, somewhat more general-purpose than the 17 TS-E II, might well be the single best reason for preferring Canon over any other DSLR system. A number of other manufacturers can come close to matching the performance of Canon's primes and zooms (especially Nikon, although usually at a slightly higher price point). But no other manufacturer even attempts to build a tilt-shift series for 35mm-standard bodies.

I have the 100 L macro, and I share the enthusiasm of a number of people on this thread for the images it produces, not to mention that macro capability. And truth to tell, the lightness of it is actually nice in practical every-day use. I think my reservations about it are psychological: they just don't make a grade of engineering plastic that feels like a thousand bucks. As my last but by no means least choice, I choose the venerable 135. It doesn't have the red ring, and I'm not even sure if Canon classifies it as an L. But it was my first quality Canon prime, and there is something slightly magical about the images it produces. Shortly after I bought it (back in my 20D days), I handed it to a relative who was a devoted I'm not sure if they put a red ring on it and clearly identified the 135 II as an L, if they could Improve it enough to make me buy it. Maybe Canon isn't sure either. Maybe that's why it has to be near the top of Canon lenses q


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 2, 2017)

Curmudgeon said:


> As my last but by no means least choice, I choose the venerable 135. It doesn't have the red ring, nd I'm not even sure if Canon classifies it as an L. But it was my first quality Canon prime, and there is something slightly magical about the images it produces. Shortly after I bought it (back in my 20D days), I handed it to a relative who was a devoted I'm not sure if they put a red ring on it and clearly identified the 135 II as an L, if they could Improve it enough to make me buy it. Maybe Canon isn't sure either. Maybe that's why it has to be near the top of Canon lenses q



You're on dodgy ground posting here on CR that the 135 may not be classified as an "L" ! I think around here that would be regarded as heresy


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 2, 2017)

Sporgon said:


> Curmudgeon said:
> 
> 
> > As my last but by no means least choice, I choose the venerable 135. It doesn't have the red ring, nd I'm not even sure if Canon classifies it as an L. But it was my first quality Canon prime, and there is something slightly magical about the images it produces. Shortly after I bought it (back in my 20D days), I handed it to a relative who was a devoted I'm not sure if they put a red ring on it and clearly identified the 135 II as an L, if they could Improve it enough to make me buy it. Maybe Canon isn't sure either. Maybe that's why it has to be near the top of Canon lenses q
> ...



Maybe he means the venerable 135 SF...


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 2, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Curmudgeon said:
> ...



I recognise only the one, true EF 135 ! 

(You're not going to trick me into heresy Neuro ! ;D )


----------



## motorhead9999 (Apr 17, 2017)

I really like my nifty fifty 1.8. It's had a lot of bang for the buck out of all the lenses I've purchased.


----------



## LonelyBoy (May 7, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



That would mean there's no such thing as a distortion-free lens though, yes? I have four recessed lights in the living room I'm in right now. It is impossible for all of them to appear circular at once. This also means that there is no such thing as a distortion-free _view_. Is that really what you're meaning to say?

For another example, take size. My iPhone is the exact same size as my wife's. Mine is sitting closer to me. Would you expect a "perfect, distortion-free" lens to accurately represent the reality that both are the same size regardless of distance, or the reality that the closer one appears larger from my seat on the couch? Not leastwise because that's what I would expect when shooting, instead of some Lovecraftian nightmare where objects lose their relation to space.

Would be a cool effect for some shots though.


----------



## Cheekysascha (May 7, 2017)

Hmm i'm torn between the 24mm 1.4 ii and the 16-35 2.8 iii, both of those are my favourite lenses and i've got them almost always on my 5ds, the 24mm gives a unique looks to landscapes but the 16-35 is a fun lens to use as well with how wide it is which allows for much more fun compositions


----------



## Jopa (May 8, 2017)

70-200 2.8 II for portraits
35 1.4 II for everything else 

Theoretically if I get rid of all my gear and leave a 5d camera and those two lenses - I'll be fine.

Edit: wondering if it would be possible to create a poll? A favorite Canon lens of all time!


----------



## dslrdummy (May 8, 2017)

I have 3 decent lenses and the rest are less rated but I have had very satisfying images from all of them. If I nail the shot I am very happy with the lense and vice versa. (Of course, usually if I don't nail it, it's my fault. For example, I try to shoot at 1.8 with the 85mm while knowing full well that it isn't sharp wide open). Since I bought the 1dxii I've started doing some video and find that the 24-105 a very versatile lense for it bearing in mind I don't do 4k. To the point where I will probably cancel my plans to offload it, at least for now.


----------



## Sporgon (May 8, 2017)

I wouldn't have an overall favourite lens because it depends on what I'm shooting ! However I'm going to mention one here because it is a superb lens that seems to be overlooked by the majority of Canon users, probably due to it being "slower" and more expensive than the 1.8/85, and less exotic than the 2/135L. It's the 2/100. This lens spanks the 135L wide open (or at least it does in my case) and is remarkably useable wide open, unlike the 1.8/85. In fact it's so good at full aperture it works really well as a 160mm fov lens on crop, giving a dof similar to the 2.8/200 with equal IQ, which I think is quite unusual in equivalence between FF and crop.


----------

