# Your top 10 ranked overall favorite EF lenses now that the final roster is available?



## Ruined (Apr 25, 2021)

So EF lens releases have dramatically slowed if not stopped. It appears we have may seen the final roster of EF lenses.

Assuming that is the case, what are your personal top 10 (or top 3, top 5, etc) EF lenses you've had experience with?

Here are mine for full frame, ranked in order with a brief explanation - note again this is overall favorites, meaning taking all aspects of the lens into account (not just image quality). I mostly shoot people and places.

1. *EF 50mm f/1.2L USM* - Probably a controversial choice, but the combination of normal focal length, relatively compact size/weight, fast AF, and amazing rendering put this at #1.
2. *EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM* - A versatile workhorse with stunning sharpness, rendering, accurate AF, its worth its weight in gold. My best pic of all time was taken with this.
3. *EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM* - Another flexible mainstay that provides sharp, wonderful looking photos in the most frequently used range.
4. *EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM* - For those that don't always want to use a tripod, perhaps the best overall landscape lens Canon offers.
5. *EF 35mm f/2 IS USM* - While not as fast as its L counterpart, it's almost as fast and much more compact, light, and discreet - my fav street photography lens
6. *EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM* - While this lens has perhaps the best rendering, the focal length is not as versatile as the 50mm f/1.2L, slow AF, and much more fragile
7. *EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM* - The relatively compact travel zoom with excellent rendering which can double as a wildlife or outdoor sports lens
8. *EF 135mm f/2L USM* - Sharp, fast, accurate AF, nice rendering and compression. But 135mm is long and without IS requires fast shutter speeds, combined limiting its use to studio/outdoors daytime or tripod often
9. *EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM* - Fisheyes have limited usefulness but can produce impressive results in select cases; this one offers special creative possibilities with its circular 8mm; but lower on the list due to limited opportunities to use productively
10. *EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM* - Perhaps another oddball to end the list, but this is a great long hike landscape lens due to its small size and light weight plus classic 24mm landscape focal length. When you don't want to carry around the nearly 3x heavier and 2x as long 16-35mm f/4L, this is a great alternative.

So what are your personal top EF lenses from the final roster?


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 25, 2021)

In no particular order.

*EF 300mm f2.8 IS:* Changed the game when it came out and as a naked lens still holds it's own.
*TS-E 17:* Groundbreaking design nobody has come close to emulating. Takes TC's shockingly well too.
*TS-E 50:* Unbelievable refined optic.
*EF 15mm fisheye:* Crazy good IQ and works very well defished, outdated but Canon never went back to an f2.8 fisheye so I kept it and love it.
*EF 50mm f1.4:* Generally hated, but it was the first EF prime I got and I've had mine going on 20 years without issue. Nails focus at f1.4 every single time and costs nothing, what's not to love.
*EF 100mm Macro L IS:* Decent optics with lots of functionality and wide range of uses.
*EF 11-24:* Another ground breaking optic from Canon skunk works, I love those guys and would love to buy them a saké.
*EF 70-200 f2.8 IS MkI:* So versatile and so much nicer for portraits than the sharper MkII
*EF 35mm f2 IS:* This lens practically lives on my camera for general shooting. I love the vignetting and subtle falloff at f2/2.2
*EF 24-70 f2.8 MkI:* I love this lens, again I prefer the MkI to the MkII, I love the hood design and general look to images I get out of it.

Honorable mentions because I don't own them but will at some point:

*EF 200-400 f4:* Nikon owned this lens type until Canon came to the game and showed how it should be done, they even added a built in TC! What did Nikon do in answer? Quit....
*TS-E24mm MkII:* Another killer lens out of the skunk works, so sharp, so versatile, so much functionality...

Honorable mention I sold for a 'better' lens but was utterly awesome:
*EF 16-35 f4 IS:* Canon at last came out with a new generation ultra wide with the image quality Canon never previously had in that focal length range, and while they have subsequently surpassed even that massive leap forwards not at the same price! The introduction price was crazy good too.


----------



## Ruined (Apr 25, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Honorable mention I sold for a 'better' lens but was utterly awesome:
> *EF 16-35 f4 IS:* Canon at last came out with a new generation ultra wide with the image quality Canon never previously had in that focal length range, and while they have subsequently surpassed even that massive leap forwards not at the same price! The introduction price was crazy good too.


I think I may give the EF 16-35 f/2.8L III a shot simply because I miss the sunstars of the EF 16-35 f/2.8L II; the EF 16-35 f/4L IS does not quite get there in definition. And then, use the EF 24mm f/2.8L IS for when I want a small , light, less expensive hiking lens with IS for when I don't want to bother with a tripod.


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 25, 2021)

I only vote for lenses I own(ed) and here not by IQ but by time in use and therefore importance to me:

EF100-400L IS II (with or without TCs)
EF24-105L IS (Mark I)
EF100L Macro IS USM
EF70-200mmL IS II USM
EF35 IS USM
EF50 STM (yes, I love that little gem for giving beginners the opotunity to dive into low DOF)
EF-S 24 STM (yes, I love that one, too. As travel lens on my 200D)
For the other 3 places I have no favorites.


----------



## Del Paso (Apr 25, 2021)

More or less in order...

EF 100-400 L II    my EDC lens
EF 24 TSE II used exclusively handheld, also for landscapes
EF 135/2 L sad it has been discontinued
EF 70-200 f4 L II my other EDC lens
EF 100 L macro used only for macro
EF 14/2,8 II nobody seems to like it, I love it !
EF 85/1,4 L competing with my Summilux 75/1,4, and often loosing...
EF 16-35 f4 L but only up to 28mm...
EF 24-70 f4 L preferred over the f 2,8, due to macro, my 3rd EDC
EF 35/2 IS an underrated great little lens
The other ones, I dare not mention, since no Canon lenses.
When I was young and beautiful, my EDC often was a 560mm plus 1,4 Apo Extender....

Edit: Number 11 would be that cute little EF 2,8/40


----------



## docsmith (Apr 25, 2021)

Hmmm..

EF 24-70 II...my most used lens. Amazing IQ, great rendering, fast AF. 
EF 85 f/1.4 IS...the 70-200 II, which I love, has sat in the bag so often since I picked this lens up. Sharp, great rendering, something special about the IQ.
EF 500 f/4 II...Amazingly sharp, amazingly fast, amazing rendering....let me say amazing a few more times. 
EF 70-200 f/2.8 II. I used to say, and still might, if I could only have two lenses, 24-70 II and the 70-200 II. Versatile, great IQ, great rendering and fast AF. 
EF 70-300 L. Picked it up on a whim, but amazing travel lens. Something to the IQ, and a joy to walk around with.
EF 16-35 f/4 IS. Beautiful images. 
Sigma EF 50 f/1.4. Sharp wide open, good AF, good rendering. I love the 50 mm focal length and until the RF came along, this was the best (IMO).
EF 100 mm L macro. Great images, from macro to portraits. 
EF 100-400 II. One of my most used lenses, but it is more of a very good tool for me. Min focus distance is great.
EFs 15-85. My first DSLR lens. Amazing focal range, great IQ, amazing travel lens. Still get excited when I see people using it.
Some honorable mentions:

Sigma 14 f/1.8. Great IQ, amazing nightscape lens, but so heavy.
Sigma 150-600S. Great focal length range, great IQ (underappreciated), but big and heavy
TSE 24 II. Great features, great IQ. I wish I used it more.
EF 50 f/1.4. Great little lens. Wish it was better at f/2 and wider. But at f/2.2+, wow. I do mean wow. Also needs better AF.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 25, 2021)

1. EF 135mm f/2L My favorite portrait lens in EF.
2. EF 35mm f/1.4L II Wonderful lens! Sharp and fast. Fantastic rendering.
3. EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II Great lens that was great for portraits too.
4. EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II Another great portrait lens.


----------



## Fischer (Apr 25, 2021)

The 5 I used the most:

1. 35mm f/1.4 L II - on a 5DS/R it could be your only general purpose lens
2. 300mm f/2.8 IS L II - most amazing glass ever, anywhere
3. 135mm f/2 L - lovely portraits
4. 100-400mm IS L II - so good it almost replaced my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L II
5. 200mm f/2 IS L II - amazing rendering, only held back by its singular use cases


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 25, 2021)

docsmith said:


> Hmmm..
> 
> EF 24-70 II...my most used lens. Amazing IQ, great rendering, fast AF.
> EF 85 f/1.4 IS...the 70-200 II, which I love, has sat in the bag so often since I picked this lens up. Sharp, great rendering, something special about the IQ.
> ...


So....basically all of them, eh Doc ?


----------



## SteveC (Apr 25, 2021)

I own less than ten, so you can look in my signature for the list. 

Few of mine are really noteworthy, the sort of gear that gearheads will bow down before (not that that truly makes a difference in the end).

It has been interesting to see which of mine get mentioned and which do not.


----------



## Ruined (Apr 27, 2021)

I see a lot of people praising 35L II. I find this focal length has a notable amount of perspective distortion for portraits, so when doing portraits I generally much prefer somewhere in 50mm-200mm range

For general landscape I'd rather use a 16-35 variant or if hiking the 24 IS

35mm I think is ideal for street photography though, but here I would rather have the 35mm f/2 IS since it is smaller, lighter, more covert, and doesn't scream "hey steal me I'm expensive" like the 35L does. And, at 35mm f/1.4 vs f/2 I don't think is a deal breaker given the other advantages of the 35 f/2 IS. What do people use 35L II for regularly that feel it works better than 35 f/2 IS?


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 27, 2021)

Ruined said:


> I see a lot of people praising 35L II. I find this focal length has a notable amount of perspective distortion for portraits, so when doing portraits I generally much prefer somewhere in 50mm-200mm range
> 
> For general landscape I'd rather use a 16-35 variant or if hiking the 24 IS
> 
> 35mm I think is ideal for street photography though, but here I would rather have the 35mm f/2 IS since it is smaller, lighter, more covert, and doesn't scream "hey steal me I'm expensive" like the 35L does. And, at 35mm f/1.4 vs f/2 I don't think is a deal breaker given the other advantages of the 35 f/2 IS. What do people use 35L II for regularly that feel it works better than 35 f/2 IS?


I wouldn't know a thing about the 35mm f/2. When I had the EF 35mm f/1.4L II I used it for portraits, Yes, there is distortion if the lens isn't used correctly, however, it was still valuable in certain situations. I can't remember his name right now, but there is a famous portrait photographer that uses wide angle lenses for portraits almost exclusively.


----------



## Ruined (Apr 28, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I wouldn't know a thing about the 35mm f/2. When I had the EF 35mm f/1.4L II I used it for portraits, Yes, there is distortion if the lens isn't used correctly, however, it was still valuable in certain situations. I can't remember his name right now, but there is a famous portrait photographer that uses wide angle lenses for portraits almost exclusively.


I am sure one can find a specialty use for any lens. Unless you are a pro that makes tons of cash with photography as your main gig, though, there are probably a lot of other lenses worth getting first, because a $2000 dust collector is the last thing you need. Perspective distortion is characteristic of the 35mm focal length - 50mm has some also but not as much, and most of it is gone by 85mm (though not entirely until ~135mm). On my list the only specialty lens I listed was the 8-15mm fisheye, and this is only because it can make photos no other lens can remotely approach.

If one used 35mm exclusively for portraits either they are going to be distorted or all of your portraits are going to have similar framing with one's attempts to compensate for the distortion.

The 35mm f/2 IS IMO plays more to the strengths of 35mm, namely capturing a city street environment where you aren't exclusively focusing on one person - where you want to capture a scene but don't want the "big" landscape distortion of 24mm, nor the more restricted perspective of 50mm. By being a small, light, discreet lens it works well as a walkaround in these city street type environments - and while its one stop slower than the 35mm f/1.4, the f/2 has image stabilization which can be useful for things like capturing motion in city streets. If one is concerned about bokeh, the 50mm f/1.2L destroys the 35mm f/1.4L II and is a much more flexible lens for portraits and in general.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 28, 2021)

Ruined said:


> I am sure one can find a specialty use for any lens. Unless you are a pro that makes tons of cash with photography as your main gig, though, there are probably a lot of other lenses worth getting first, because a $2000 dust collector is the last thing you need. Perspective distortion is characteristic of the 35mm focal length - 50mm has some also but not as much, and most of it is gone by 85mm (though not entirely until ~135mm). On my list the only specialty lens I listed was the 8-15mm fisheye, and this is only because it can make photos no other lens can remotely approach.
> 
> If one used 35mm exclusively for portraits either they are going to be distorted or all of your portraits are going to have similar framing with one's attempts to compensate for the distortion.
> 
> The 35mm f/2 IS IMO plays more to the strengths of 35mm, namely capturing a city street environment where you aren't exclusively focusing on one person - where you want to capture a scene but don't want the "big" landscape distortion of 24mm, nor the more restricted perspective of 50mm. By being a small, light, discreet lens it works well as a walkaround in these city street type environments - and while its one stop slower than the 35mm f/1.4, the f/2 has image stabilization which can be useful for things like capturing motion in city streets. If one is concerned about bokeh, the 50mm f/1.2L destroys the 35mm f/1.4L II and is a much more flexible lens for portraits and in general.


Ahhhh.... but you are forgetting the fact that the distortion can be used creatively. It can work *for* you.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 28, 2021)

35 L
35 L II
200 f2.0 L
TS 17 L
85 L II
135 L
300 f2.8 L IS
24-70 f2.8 L II
70-200 f2.8 L
16-35 f4 L IS


----------



## Fischer (Apr 29, 2021)

Ruined said:


> I am sure one can find a specialty use for any lens. Unless you are a pro that makes tons of cash with photography as your main gig, though, there are probably a lot of other lenses worth getting first, because a $2000 dust collector is the last thing you need. Perspective distortion is characteristic of the 35mm focal length - 50mm has some also but not as much, and most of it is gone by 85mm (though not entirely until ~135mm). On my list the only specialty lens I listed was the 8-15mm fisheye, and this is only because it can make photos no other lens can remotely approach.
> 
> If one used 35mm exclusively for portraits either they are going to be distorted or all of your portraits are going to have similar framing with one's attempts to compensate for the distortion.
> 
> The 35mm f/2 IS IMO plays more to the strengths of 35mm, namely capturing a city street environment where you aren't exclusively focusing on one person - where you want to capture a scene but don't want the "big" landscape distortion of 24mm, nor the more restricted perspective of 50mm. By being a small, light, discreet lens it works well as a walkaround in these city street type environments - and while its one stop slower than the 35mm f/1.4, the f/2 has image stabilization which can be useful for things like capturing motion in city streets. If one is concerned about bokeh, the 50mm f/1.2L destroys the 35mm f/1.4L II and is a much more flexible lens for portraits and in general.


The portraits that made me most money were all environmental portraits taken with the 35mm f/1.4. Its a perfect focal length for those shots. Distortion is something people on photograhic forums worry about - clients have other priorities. Its like my obsession with bokeh. It matters a lot to me. But I make no illusions about what the general public thinks. Almost all older portrait pictures (pre-1970's) were taken with a wide angle lens. Works great. In fact - apart from extremely wide angle lenses - all lenses can work for portrait imho. My next-most used portrait lens is the 300mm f/2.8. I'm sure you would consider that too "flat". So use something else and be happy with your choice.


----------



## Ruined (Apr 29, 2021)

Fischer said:


> The portraits that made me most money were all environmental portraits taken with the 35mm f/1.4. Its a perfect focal length for those shots. Distortion is something people on photograhic forums worry about - clients have other priorities. Its like my obsession with bokeh. It matters a lot to me. But I make no illusions about what the general public thinks. Almost all older portrait pictures (pre-1970's) were taken with a wide angle lens. Works great. In fact - apart from extremely wide angle lenses - all lenses can work for portrait imho. My next-most used portrait lens is the 300mm f/2.8. I'm sure you would consider that too "flat". So use something else and be happy with your choice.


Maybe I will try to get my wide angle portraiture technique better with the 35mm f/2.0 and consider the f/1.4 sometime. I read though the original f/1.4 actually has better bokeh than the f/1.4 II despite the latter being sharper, true? 

I still can't give up the 35mm f/2 IS though, its just too sweet of a street photography lens. Would have to own two primes at same focal length!


----------



## Fischer (Apr 30, 2021)

Ruined said:


> Maybe I will try to get my wide angle portraiture technique better with the 35mm f/2.0 and consider the f/1.4 sometime. I read though the original f/1.4 actually has better bokeh than the f/1.4 II despite the latter being sharper, true?
> 
> I still can't give up the 35mm f/2 IS though, its just too sweet of a street photography lens. Would have to own two primes at same focal length!


Bokeh is a question of taste (and I'm a sickler for smooth bokeh). Too me it was positive that it showed less of onion ring effects: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-35mm-f1-4-ii/4 - as you can see here. The 35mm f/1.4 L II was also better corrected and somewhat sharper . You will see the difference between the 35mm f/2 IS and the 35mm f/1.4 L II in many shots.


----------



## Ruined (Apr 30, 2021)

Fischer said:


> Bokeh is a question of taste (and I'm a sickler for smooth bokeh). Too me it was positive that it showed less of onion ring effects: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-35mm-f1-4-ii/4 - as you can see here. The 35mm f/1.4 L II was also better corrected and somewhat sharper . You will see the difference between the 35mm f/2 IS and the 35mm f/1.4 L II in many shots.


I was referring to 35L I vs 35L II btw. The former has a rep for having better bokeh but I've never used it. I believe the 35L I has more of the "classic" Canon bokeh like the 50L 1.2 and 85L II while the 35L II has the newer Canon bokeh which has less artifacts but it also less smooth.

I actually owned the 35mm f/1.4 ii a while back, and I've owned the 35mm f/2 IS twice (currently own now). I found that i didn't use the f/1.4 of the 35 II because if I was taking an environmental portrait I'd generally stop down to get more of the environment in focus, and if I really wanted a smooth bokeh transition I would just use the 50mm f/1.2 instead. The 35mm f/2 IS practically is very useful because of it's size though and the IS helps with street shots of moving cars - so that remains in my kit.

The contrast of the 35mm f/2 isn't as good (tho this can be mostly remedied in post), and the bokeh isn't as smooth.. but I never find myself reaching for 35mm anyway if I'm looking for a creamy background.


----------



## AccipiterQ (Apr 30, 2021)

600 4.0iii lightweight, superior image quality...never held a better nature lense.


----------



## Fischer (Apr 30, 2021)

Ruined said:


> I was referring to 35L I vs 35L II btw. The former has a rep for having better bokeh but I've never used it. I believe the 35L I has more of the "classic" Canon bokeh like the 50L 1.2 and 85L II while the 35L II has the newer Canon bokeh which has less artifacts but it also less smooth.


And I was also answering on the bokeh between the two L-lenses - and the samples I refereed to show them both.


----------



## Ruined (Apr 30, 2021)

Fischer said:


> And I was also answering on the bokeh between the two L-lenses - and the samples I refereed to show them both.


Ah I see what you are saying now, it wasn't working on mobile and from the rest of your statement I thought you meant the 35 IS f/2.

So why do some people (like Ken Rockwell for instance) prefer the 35mm f/1.4L I bokeh over 35mm f/1.4L II (curious)? If I ever plan to pick up one of these two lenses, "draw" would be the most important factor.

Speaking of onioning, I was surprised how much I saw in the optical limits review of the RF 85mm f/1.2L


----------



## stevelee (Apr 30, 2021)

Fischer said:


> The portraits that made me most money were all environmental portraits taken with the 35mm f/1.4. Its a perfect focal length for those shots. Distortion is something people on photograhic forums worry about - clients have other priorities. Its like my obsession with bokeh. It matters a lot to me. But I make no illusions about what the general public thinks. Almost all older portrait pictures (pre-1970's) were taken with a wide angle lens. Works great. In fact - apart from extremely wide angle lenses - all lenses can work for portrait imho. My next-most used portrait lens is the 300mm f/2.8. I'm sure you would consider that too "flat". So use something else and be happy with your choice.


Facial distortion is not a matter of focal length, but of subject distance. Focal length just changes the amount of stuff in the picture. Stand 10 or more feet from a subject and take pictures with a 24–105mm zoom lens, for example, taking various shots across the zoom range. The face will be bigger or smaller in the frame, but should look about the same.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 30, 2021)

Ruined said:


> Ah I see what you are saying now, it wasn't working on mobile and from the rest of your statement I thought you meant the 35 IS f/2.
> 
> So why do some people (like Ken Rockwell for instance) prefer the 35mm f/1.4L I bokeh over 35mm f/1.4L II (curious)? If I ever plan to pick up one of these two lenses, "draw" would be the most important factor.
> 
> Speaking of onioning, I was surprised how much I saw in the optical limits review of the RF 85mm f/1.2L


Because bokeh is subjective not objective.

I much prefer the EF 70-200 f2.8 IS MkI over the MkII but most people prefer the increase in sharpness of the MkII over the MkI, I think they are both ‘sharp enough’ and much prefer the bokeh of the MkI.

As for the two versions of the 35 f1.4 L, I like them both and preferred the MkII, but own the f2 IS because I like the size and weight better and the rendering at f2 and 2.2 is, to my subjective eye, extremely good.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 30, 2021)

stevelee said:


> Facial distortion is not a matter of focal length, but of subject distance. Focal length just changes the amount of stuff in the picture. Stand 10 or more feet from a subject and take pictures with a 24–105mm zoom lens, for example, taking various shots across the zoom range. The face will be bigger or smaller in the frame, but should look about the same.


Not only should it look the same, if you crop the 24mm shot to the framing of the 105 shot it will be the same, apart from the dof.

The bigger question for portrait shooters is ‘how big is the subject in the frame?’ That will largely determine the ‘optimal’ focal length to use. Having said that there are a lot of portrait shooters that throw guidelines out the window. Joel Grimes does a lot of high end portraits at the wider end of the 24-105.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 30, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Not only should it look the same, if you crop the 24mm shot to the framing of the 105 shot it will be the same, apart from the dof.



Do I need to repost my beer bottles example?


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 30, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Do I need to repost my beer bottles example?


Probably...

Or I could repost my 17mm and 200mm portraits!


----------



## Ruined (May 1, 2021)

stevelee said:


> Facial distortion is not a matter of focal length, but of subject distance. Focal length just changes the amount of stuff in the picture. Stand 10 or more feet from a subject and take pictures with a 24–105mm zoom lens, for example, taking various shots across the zoom range. The face will be bigger or smaller in the frame, but should look about the same.


The main issue is for me, as I stated earlier, is that you don't really have much of that type distortion at 50mm+ focal length to worry about, so eliminating this variable takes one more potential issue to ruin a photo out of the equation. Yes, you could take a 24mm or even 16mm shot and crop it to 50mm equivalent if the subject is in the center; but on the other hand, shooting a portrait at 24mm means you will have a big "danger zone" where the subject will look distorted (not just face, but limbs, etc) beyond a certain unmarked boundary if you are not very careful, it could be hard to fix, and may not be immediately noticeable if you are taking a lot of shots.

This is what I meant about shot framing looking the same on first page, you having to end up shooting more and more in the middle of the frame and protecting the edges from people to avoid people looking weird the further you go below 50mm. Just seems non-ideal unless you are forced into the wider angle due to space constraints (in which case you will probably be using a zoom lens anyway for flexibility), or unless there is some environment you want to capture - but then you probably won't be at f/1.4 if you want that environment to be in focus (again which makes that f/1.4 > f/2.0 difference for the 35mm FL less useful for me - same reason i am not clamoring for a 24mm f/1.4 for portraits)! And yes, you could use the distortion for some specialty subject-stretching effect but I can't imagine most people would find this flattering in general.


----------



## JohnC (May 1, 2021)

1. 24 f1.4L. My first L lens and only wide angle at the time. 
2. 70-200 f4L non is - the only EF L I have that I use for landscape work typically. Tremendously sharp and probably sharpest lens I have in some ways. 
3. 100-400 L2. - for obvious reasons.


----------



## PCM-madison (May 1, 2021)

As I anticipate a future sell-off of my EF, EF-S, EF-M lenses, these are the ones I will hold onto the longest.
1. EF 400mm F4 DO IS II
2. EF 135mm F2L
3. EF 24-105 F4L IS
4. EF 70-300mm L IS
5. EF 16-35mm F4L IS
6. EF 1.4X extender III
7. EF 2X extender III
8. EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II
9. EF 50mm F1.4
10. EF-S 55-250mm IS STM


----------



## stevelee (May 1, 2021)

A couple days ago I ran across an 11” x 14” print of a photo of a friend that I shot with a fisheye c. 1970. I must have had the lens about 2” from his nose since his face about filled the image circle. He was a unique character, so the portrait was an appropriate fun representation.

I have never heard anyone say, but I assume that the point of a selfie stick is to get your phone farther from your face than your arm can reach.

Anyway, I find it useful to think of subject distance and focal length as separate artistic decisions. They are not completely unrelated, as evidenced by my fisheye shot where the distortion was the point, and the lens was a matter of choosing the right tool for the job.


----------



## SteveC (May 1, 2021)

stevelee said:


> A couple days ago I ran across an 11” x 14” print of a photo of a friend that I shot with a fisheye c. 1970. I must have had the lens about 2” from his nose since his face about filled the image circle. He was a unique character, so the portrait was an appropriate fun representation.
> 
> I have never heard anyone say, but I assume that the point of a selfie stick is to get your phone farther from your face than your arm can reach.
> 
> Anyway, I find it useful to think of subject distance and focal length as separate artistic decisions. They are not completely unrelated, as evidenced by my fisheye shot where the distortion was the point, and the lens was a matter of choosing the right tool for the job.



The one positive use I've seen for those sticks is to raise the phone over the heads of people in front of you.

One time I was in Europe and was continually pestered by selfie stick salesmen. I eventually just started pointing at my ILC (It was a Rebel T3, not even a T3i) saying, "This won't fit on that stupid thing, go away."


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 1, 2021)

stevelee said:


> Anyway, I find it useful to think of subject distance and focal length as separate artistic decisions. They are not completely unrelated, as evidenced by my fisheye shot where the distortion was the point, and the lens was a matter of choosing the right tool for the job.


They are related in terms of artistic choices, true. But in terms of photographic perspective, subject distance is the only thing that matters, focal length is irrelevant.


----------



## Czardoom (May 1, 2021)

When I had my first digital rebel (the original digital rebel, eventually named the 300D, I believe) I purchased a used *Canon EF 28-70 f/3.5-4.5 II*. Although old, this was a great lens on a crop camera. Some reviewers consider it as sharp as many Canon L lenses of the time, and not only was it my favorite lens at the time, but it cost me less than $100 if I remember correctly. When I went to FF after my rebel bit the dust after 9 years, alas, I sold the lens as there was no lens correction profile for that lens and the vignetting was pretty bad on FF. In all other respects, I think it had equal IQ to the EF 24-105 that I got to replace it - and of course, the 24-105 has a much more practical zoom range. I still miss that 28-70 sometimes!

Just recently, I bought a nice used *Canon EF 24-70mm f/4 L.* So far, it seems to be a really good lens, and though I haven't has a chance to use it much, I'm intrigued with it's "Macro" mode. Paired with my *Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 L*, I have some nice EF lenses to use on my R6 camera.

I've tried a few others that I liked, but didn't keep for one reason or another. I really liked the IQ of the *Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L*, but just couldn't handle the weight.

Hopefully people will keep selling of their EF lenses, although since the release of the R5 an R6, many EF lenses have been harder to find used and the price has gone up a bit, but, in my opinion, they are still a great bargain compared to the RF lenses that are available.


----------



## Ruined (May 1, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> When I had my first digital rebel (the original digital rebel, eventually named the 300D, I believe) I purchased a used *Canon EF 28-70 f/3.5-4.5 II*. Although old, this was a great lens on a crop camera. Some reviewers consider it as sharp as many Canon L lenses of the time, and not only was it my favorite lens at the time, but it cost me less than $100 if I remember correctly. When I went to FF after my rebel bit the dust after 9 years, alas, I sold the lens as there was no lens correction profile for that lens and the vignetting was pretty bad on FF. In all other respects, I think it had equal IQ to the EF 24-105 that I got to replace it - and of course, the 24-105 has a much more practical zoom range. I still miss that 28-70 sometimes!
> 
> Just recently, I bought a nice used *Canon EF 24-70mm f/4 L.* So far, it seems to be a really good lens, and though I haven't has a chance to use it much, I'm intrigued with it's "Macro" mode. Paired with my *Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 L*, I have some nice EF lenses to use on my R6 camera.
> 
> ...


My first camera was a rebel t4i. I have to say both the ef-s 10-22 & 17-55 f/2.8 lived up to the hype. I love the 70-300L you mentioned, it is a bit hefty but after getting used to the 70-200 f/2.8 it feels light. I will say keep an eye out for the EF 50mm f/1.2L. once you learn how to use that lens it's the most versatile incredible looking lens in the lineup! It draws similar to the 85L II but focuses much faster and its wider (but not too wide) focal length makes it ideal for so many use cases.


----------



## stevelee (May 1, 2021)

SteveC said:


> The one positive use I've seen for those sticks is to raise the phone over the heads of people in front of you.


Yes, I’ve seen that, too. I can hold my G5X II over my head to see over crowds and use the tilty screen if need be for composition.


----------



## SteveC (May 2, 2021)

stevelee said:


> Yes, I’ve seen that, too. I can hold my G5X II over my head to see over crowds and use the tilty screen if need be for composition.



I've played that trick too. In fact since I don't have a selfie stick, I pretty much have no choice!


----------



## stevelee (May 2, 2021)

SteveC said:


> I've played that trick too. In fact since I don't have a selfie stick, I pretty much have no choice!


An example was of the changing of the guard in Copenhagen:


I got some better pictures, but am sharing this one since you see some of the crowd I was looking over.


----------



## SteveC (May 2, 2021)

stevelee said:


> An example was of the changing of the guard in Copenhagen:
> View attachment 197362
> 
> I got some better pictures, but am sharing this one since you see some of the crowd I was looking over.


I think I once witnessed that same ceremony.

Since you _want_ to show the crowd, just this once, that makes this a good picture. 

I just realized on that trip where I was having to fend off selfie-stick sellers (about seven years ago), the camera I had didn't have a flip screen at all (not even a tilt one), so for a shot like this I'd have needed a periscope and arms long enough to hold the camera in front of it, or just fool luck in being able to aim without seeing what I was doing! But I honestly never felt the lack for whatever reason.


----------



## stevelee (May 2, 2021)

SteveC said:


> I think I once witnessed that same ceremony.
> 
> Since you _want_ to show the crowd, just this once, that makes this a good picture.
> 
> I just realized on that trip where I was having to fend off selfie-stick sellers (about seven years ago), the camera I had didn't have a flip screen at all (not even a tilt one), so for a shot like this I'd have needed a periscope and arms long enough to hold the camera in front of it, or just fool luck in being able to aim without seeing what I was doing! But I honestly never felt the lack for whatever reason.


I am not sure I bothered with the tilty screen when I shot this out in the sun. But my pictures came off too well composed to depend upon luck. I know when I shot video of an air show at Pensacola that I couldn't see the screen enough to use, so I just pointed the camera in the right general direction. That also meant I could hold the camera above the heads of people around me, and that I could watch the show live rather than looking into a screen. Seeing it was more important than the shoot. Same was true of my helicopter ride to volcanos in Hawaii. I also bought the video the company made of our flight with the pilot's commentary, so I would have been OK if my video had not turned out as well as it did.

The tilty screen on the G cameras I have been using for travel are often handier than the screens that swing out on my DSLRs. Looking down while shooting up into domes and towers works really well. I found that the 24mm equivalent was not wide enough to get the whole pantheon dome in one shot, so I did that as a panorama. I didn't get quite enough pieces, but I didn't fake it by flipping another part to fill in the gaps. But for even Vatican-sized domes it works pretty well.


----------



## Bdbtoys (May 2, 2021)

I started getting into the ILC's with the purchase of a 70D. And although I had most/all of the STM's at the time, outside of some of the inexpensive EF's (40/2.8 & 50/1.8) the majority of the collection was EF-S (man, that was when glass was cheap... relative to L). I have to say, although lackluster compared to what I use now, I really liked the 18-135/3.5-5.6 at the time (paired with the 2 EF's mentioned).


----------



## stevelee (May 2, 2021)

My best EF-S lens is the 10–22mm. I have been really pleased with its results on my T3i. I still have it, but have no occasion to use it, since I got the 16–35mm f/4 for the 6D2. Come to think of it, I should have said "better." It is the only EF-S lens I have other than the kit lens. Everything else I bought for the T3i was EF.


----------



## tron (May 2, 2021)

I just sold (actually part-exchanged with RF100-500) my EF70-200 2.8L IS II. I just couldn't justify having this and RF70-200 2.8L IS at the same time.

Other than that I do not think I will sell other overlapping lenses like EF24-70 2.8 II EF16-35 2.8L III EF35 2 IS EF100-400 4.5-5.6L or non-overlapping lenses like EF135 2L EF85 1.4L IS TS-E17 4L TS-24L II or the future overlapping lenses EF300 2.8L IS II EF400 4 DO II EF500 4L IS II. 

I haven't decided about EF24-105 4L IS (Mk I) yet.


----------



## SteveC (May 2, 2021)

stevelee said:


> I am not sure I bothered with the tilty screen when I shot this out in the sun. But my pictures came off too well composed to depend upon luck. I know when I shot video of an air show at Pensacola that I couldn't see the screen enough to use, so I just pointed the camera in the right general direction. That also meant I could hold the camera above the heads of people around me, and that I could watch the show live rather than looking into a screen. Seeing it was more important than the shoot. Same was true of my helicopter ride to volcanos in Hawaii. I also bought the video the company made of our flight with the pilot's commentary, so I would have been OK if my video had not turned out as well as it did.
> 
> The tilty screen on the G cameras I have been using for travel are often handier than the screens that swing out on my DSLRs. Looking down while shooting up into domes and towers works really well. I found that the 24mm equivalent was not wide enough to get the whole pantheon dome in one shot, so I did that as a panorama. I didn't get quite enough pieces, but I didn't fake it by flipping another part to fill in the gaps. But for even Vatican-sized domes it works pretty well.
> View attachment 197363


Just to make it clear for others who do not know, this dome is some 43m/142ft across, its center is 42 meters above the floor (you could fit a perfect 42m sphere into the building), was cast in one piece, in concrete, over 1800 years ago and is intact to this day! Those Romans could sure _build_.


----------



## stevelee (May 2, 2021)

SteveC said:


> Just to make it clear for others who do not know, this dome is some 43m/142ft across, its center is 42 meters above the floor (you could fit a perfect 42m sphere into the building), was cast in one piece, in concrete, over 1800 years ago and is intact to this day! Those Romans could sure _build_.


The trick was that they made the dome thinner the higher it got. So it was thick at the bottom to support the weight, and thin at the top to cut down on the load. This is perhaps the best-preserved building from antiquity because it was converted into a church early on. Most of the old buildings (especially the Coliseum) were used as sources for building materials over the centuries.


----------



## Maximilian (May 2, 2021)

SteveC said:


> ... cast in one piece, in concrete, over 1800 years ago and is intact to this day! Those Romans could sure _build_.


But we've so much further developed since then 
Today we try to fight a pandemic with the same methods of the pest.
Today we have the internet but we don't know how ro renovate Notre-Dame de Paris. Instead we try to burn it down. 
Today we fight wars with drones but still have no key to peace. 
Homo sapiens sapiens (lat.: "_sapiens_" = "wise", "sapient" = "knowledgeable")


----------



## SteveC (May 2, 2021)

stevelee said:


> The trick was that they made the dome thinner the higher it got. So it was thick at the bottom to support the weight, and thin at the top to cut down on the load. This is perhaps the best-preserved building from antiquity because it was converted into a church early on. Most of the old buildings (especially the Coliseum) were used as sources for building materials over the centuries.


The concrete itself was lighter the closer it got to the top, too, with pumice used as aggregate. The Colosseum also suffered damage from earthquakes, most of the outermost ring/uppermost level is gone today (those tidy slopes to what's left of the outer wall were added later).

A lot of classical buildings, incidentally, show where people chiseled holes where the blocks join, to get at the piece of iron that the builders had used to tie the blocks together. (This includes places in the Colosseum, but also, for instance, the theater at Miletus, over on what is today the west coast of Turkey.)


----------



## Ruined (May 6, 2021)

Saw this article, timing was too good and had to share re: dangers of wide angle portraits:








Understanding the weird Biden-Carter photo could help you take better selfies


It's likely not lens distortion that caused the curious appearance. Instead, it's something called perspective distortion.




www.popsci.com





Can't believe the photog couldn't position subjects better than this heh


----------



## Ruined (May 6, 2021)

tron said:


> I just sold (actually part-exchanged with RF100-500) my EF70-200 2.8L IS II. I just couldn't justify having this and RF70-200 2.8L IS at the same time.
> 
> Other than that I do not think I will sell other overlapping lenses like EF24-70 2.8 II EF16-35 2.8L III EF35 2 IS EF100-400 4.5-5.6L or non-overlapping lenses like EF135 2L EF85 1.4L IS TS-E17 4L TS-24L II or the future overlapping lenses EF300 2.8L IS II EF400 4 DO II EF500 4L IS II.
> 
> I haven't decided about EF24-105 4L IS (Mk I) yet.


This is pretty smart IMO . Most of the RF lenses offer no size / weight or even image quality benefits without some tradeoff. Even the RF 70-200 f/2.8 - while collapsed size is much appreciated - many will find the faster and smoother non-telescoping zoom mechanism of the EF version better; in fact, it was often cited as a major selling point how superior the internal zoom of the 70-200 f/2.8 handled vs telescoping zooms like the 70-300L before the RF was available. The RF is now the "new thing" so I think this is purposefully being glossed over. The biggest reason to buy the RF versions seems to be in general not to need an adapter.


----------



## dwarven (May 7, 2021)

The latest Sigma 70-200 is my favorite. It's the sharpest, fastest focusing, best IQ lens I've ever used. I'm still amazed that I was able to get it for $999 brand new. I'll be using it for years and years to come I'm sure.


----------



## Del Paso (May 23, 2021)

Maximilian said:


> But we've so much further developed since then
> Today we try to fight a pandemic with the same methods of the pest.
> Today we have the internet but we don't know how ro renovate Notre-Dame de Paris. Instead we try to burn it down.
> Today we fight wars with drones but still have no key to peace.
> Homo sapiens sapiens (lat.: "_sapiens_" = "wise", "sapient" = "knowledgeable")


At least, Notre-Dame will be rebuilt the way it was before the fire, using the original material, methods, contradicting the former wish by our dear president who wanted to make a "geste contemporain", a contemporary statement(?) aka modernizing what should not be modernized. Even foreign donors had signaled no money would flow if the original construction plans were modified. Fortunately...


----------



## Ruined (May 23, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> The 135/2 is magic--makes anyone look like they're a still from a movie. It was about the #2 sharpest black EF for a long time though I stopped paying attention to such figures 20 years ago. This (and the 600/4 and maybe 50/1.0, hmm and maybe 85/1.2) are the only lenses whose images can fill me with wonder, even though I took the photo!
> 
> The 85/1.2 MkI was the worst lens I ever owned in every dimension, except the images now and then were incredible. Too heavy, ungainly, slow-focusing, battery-eating, weird hood bayonet clamps, hard not to touch the rear element when changing lenses.


Really love the rendering of these two, my favorite rendering of all the Canon lenses - and would add the EF 50mm f/1.2L which has a similar type of rendering as these two lenses.


----------



## Dockland (May 24, 2021)

AccipiterQ said:


> 600 4.0iii lightweight, superior image quality...never held a better nature lense.



I just bought it. Will arrive tomorrow Tuesday. I'm a bit excited tryin it out. Not that many amateur-reviews out there but I hope it's a good lens. I have the RF 100-500 and it's okay, but a bit to slow for my needs. Going to sell that one.


----------



## AccipiterQ (May 24, 2021)

Dockland said:


> I just bought it. Will arrive tomorrow Tuesday. I'm a bit excited tryin it out. Not that many amateur-reviews out there but I hope it's a good lens. I have the RF 100-500 and it's okay, but a bit to slow for my needs. Going to sell that one.



It's an amazing lens....I still can't believe how great it is. It takes every "5-star" shot I took before and bumps them down to like 3.5 stars.


----------



## Ruined (May 24, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> 135/2 in color, 85/1.2 in B&W


The irony I am seeing online is that softening filters are now becoming popular again because the newest batch of lenses look too sharp and clinical for portraits!


----------

