# Unique Canon Lenses?



## supaspiffy (Jan 11, 2016)

So fellow Canonites, it's time to celebrate one of our clearest and strongest advantage of using Canon... our vast selection of first party lenses.

What are some of the most unique or exotic lenses we have that simply does not exist in other platforms or made by third party manufacturers? Why are they unique and make the experience of using Canon worth it? Price point can also be an argument too.

Thanks!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 11, 2016)

Some of the ones that come to mind immediately are the TS-E 17/4L (no other ultrawide tilt/shift lens is available for dSLRs), the 11-24/4L (widest FF rectilinear lens), the 8-15/4L Fisheye (widest fisheye zoom for FF), and the MP-E 65mm (only ultra-macro lens for FF).

Personally, I have and regularly use two of the above (TS-E 17 and MP-E 65), will likely get the 11-24 as my next lens, and have no interest in the fisheye.


----------



## jrista (Jan 11, 2016)

supaspiffy said:


> So fellow Canonites, it's time to celebrate one of our clearest and strongest advantage of using Canon... our vast selection of first party lenses.
> 
> What are some of the most unique or exotic lenses we have that simply does not exist in other platforms or made by third party manufacturers? Why are they unique and make the experience of using Canon worth it? Price point can also be an argument too.
> 
> Thanks!



The MP-E 65mm 1-5x Zoom Macro is probably my favorite Canon-unique lens. It is a lot older, and it would be nice to see it get an optics upgrade, but the concept is very cool. And the results you can get with it are amazing. Many of my favorite macro photographs were made with the MP-E 65. 

Canon's 100mm f/2.8 L macro lens has a unique IS system designed for macro photographers. The lens focal length itself isn't unique, but the IS system is. 

The 8-15mm Zoom Fisheye is a rather unique lens, as it is the only zoom fisheye available for full frame DSLRs.

The 200-400mm w/ 1.4x extender is also a unique lens combination, for a high quality telephoto lens. The built-in converter is optimized to deliver the best quality. Pricy lens, but if you need the most flexible portable telephoto lens out there, this is probably the beast to get. 

While not exactly unique, Canon does have some of the best tilt/shift lenses on the market in the 17mm and 24mm TS-Es. The 17mm is actually a unique T/S lens, IIRC. The 24mm is also one of the sharpest 24mm lenses on the market, including one of, if not the, sharpest 24mm lens Canon offers. It is not the fastest, at f/3.5, but it is extremely sharp. These are great for either creative photography or landscape photography. There are other TS-E lenses...older, really in need of being updated. Nikon also has T/S lenses, and third parties also offer TS lenses either for the EF mount or that can be adapted to the EF mount. I don't believe any, however, offer one at 17mm.


----------



## slclick (Jan 11, 2016)

Affordable TS lenses come to mind first.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jan 11, 2016)

I'd also add the 400/4 DO II


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 11, 2016)

And, how many FF SLR / DSLR interchangeable Power Zoom lenses are there?

And those with a plastic mount are even rarer  Yes, the mount has a chip broken out, but it does not affect anything.

You'll also notice that there is none of those pesky focus rings or aperture rings either. They would only detract from the elegant lines.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 11, 2016)

1200 F5.6?


----------



## NancyP (Jan 11, 2016)

This is a fossil of a lens, but it does fill a (small) niche not occupied by any other currently manufactured lens:
EF 400 f/5.6L . It has no IS, weighs ~1.2 kg, very well balanced, pretty sharp (7 elements in 6 groups, I think), and relatively inexpensive. Fun starter hand-held bird-in-flight lens for the puny of arm.  That's me, poking away at my 10# dumbbells. I would recommend the more expensive 100-400 (either version) to most beginning birders, due to the IS.


----------



## supaspiffy (Jan 11, 2016)

So I understand the MP-E 65 can go to 5X... but what would I need to get my 100mm f2.8L macro to magnify by that much? How many extension tubes and extenders?


----------



## scyrene (Jan 11, 2016)

MP-E is my top choice too.



jrista said:


> supaspiffy said:
> 
> 
> > So fellow Canonites, it's time to celebrate one of our clearest and strongest advantage of using Canon... our vast selection of first party lenses.
> ...



While the MP-E could hardly be sharper, it does suffer from hexagonal bokeh/specular highlights - an odd number of rounded aperture blades would be very welcome. Adding IS is never gonna happen, but sticking in the 100L's system would be helpful on those occasions you want to/have to use ambient light, even if it only gains you an extra stop or two at 1x.

Both these lenses are excellent value for what you get, too - £600-700.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 11, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> And, how many FF SLR / DSLR interchangeable Power Zoom lenses are there?
> 
> And those with a plastic mount are even rarer  Yes, the mount has a chip broken out, but it does not affect anything.
> 
> You'll also notice that there is none of those pesky focus rings or aperture rings either. They would only detract from the elegant lines.



Genuinely never seen that one before!


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 11, 2016)

in addition to what's been listed already:

the only two f/1.2 FF lenses with AF available currently:
* EF 85/1.2 L II
* EF 50 / 1.2 L 

except for the recently added Nikon 300/4 PF the only AF lenses for FF DSLRs using DO elements 
* EF 70-300 DO IS USM
* EF 400 / 4.0 DO L IS I + II

the most compact, inexpensive and optically great FF pancake lens: with AF: 
*EF 40/2.8 

the least expensive, yet optically decent and (quite) silent, video-suitable 50mm FF lens: 
* EF 50mm / 1.8 STM

the only surviving soft-focus AF portrait tele for FF DSLRS:
* EF 135 / 2.8 Softfocus

the most inexpensive, most compact and optically excellent pancake lens for APS-C DSLRs with AF:
* EF-S 24/2.8 STM 

and while not all of them are unique, the overall least expensive, higly compact and optically very good range of mirrorless APS-C lenses, especially:
EF-M 22/2.0 - fastest, most compact, most inexpensive and compact pancake lens 
EF-M 11-22 - widest mirrorless APS-C lens and UWA zoom on the market [together with Sony E 10-18/4] 

that's about it I guess as far as "unique" goes.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 11, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> You'll also notice that there is none of those pesky focus rings or aperture rings either. They would only detract from the elegant lines.



exactly. And if the power zoom control element was on the camera body rather than on the lens, it would be even more elegant. Give me a 24-70/2.8 L IS Powerzoom with IQ of the II, no zoom or focus ring but IP67 wheather-sealed plus a decent power zoom control on a Canon mirrorless FF camera and I'll buy it.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 11, 2016)

supaspiffy said:


> So I understand the MP-E 65 can go to 5X... but what would I need to get my 100mm f2.8L macro to magnify by that much? How many extension tubes and extenders?



This http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/macro-extension-tubes-closeup.htm suggests you'd need 400mm of extension tubes to get 5x magnification on the 100L, but I'm not sure how accurate that is.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 11, 2016)

supaspiffy said:


> So I understand the MP-E 65 can go to 5X... but what would I need to get my 100mm f2.8L macro to magnify by that much? How many extension tubes and extenders?



You'd need 16 of the EF 25 extension tubes to achieve 5x magnification. Or six tubes and a 2x extender. 

FYI, the MP-E 65 takes extenders, makes for an easy 10x mag.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 12, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> supaspiffy said:
> 
> 
> > So I understand the MP-E 65 can go to 5X... but what would I need to get my 100mm f2.8L macro to magnify by that much? How many extension tubes and extenders?
> ...



And you can stack the extenders (some of them anyway)! I've taken it to 28x, although it's diminishing returns, as you'd expect.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jan 27, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> supaspiffy said:
> 
> 
> > So I understand the MP-E 65 can go to 5X... but what would I need to get my 100mm f2.8L macro to magnify by that much? How many extension tubes and extenders?
> ...


I wonder... Would it be less expensive to get a microscope and find a way to connect the camera rather than all the extenders and tubes?

I've also found that with ETs the length of the lens barrel is an important factor. Sometimes you get the focus so close that it lies within the lens barrel so the combination becomes unusable. In those cases TC will give you mag at the cost of aberrations. 

Tangent: Just to satisfy my curiosity I also experimented with using the 24 STM on the 6D with a 2xTC and ET combinations. Silly I know, but when curiosity compels...


----------



## scyrene (Jan 27, 2016)

StudentOfLight said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > supaspiffy said:
> ...



I use both the MP-E and a microscope. They have different strengths and weaknesses. You might well have an extender and/or extension tubes, so if you get the MP-E you can play around with the combinations if you want; a microscope and camera adaptor is a more specialist piece of kit, though they can be obtained surprisingly cheaply. A microscope is much less portable, of course. Easier to go to much higher magnifications, but cheaper objectives are much less optically good than the MP-E. And good ones can be expensive! Swings and roundabouts.


----------



## danski0224 (Jan 27, 2016)

200 mm f/1.8


----------



## Ryan708 (Jan 27, 2016)

EF-50mm f/1.0


----------



## nickname (Jan 27, 2016)

150-600/5.6L
35-350/3.5-5.6L
would the 100-400 qualify?


----------



## Tinky (Jan 28, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Personally, I have and regularly use two of the above (TS-E 17 and MP-E 65)



Would love to see some examples.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 28, 2016)

_L'Arc de Triomphe_



EOS 1D X, TS-E 17mm f/4L, 8 s, f/10, ISO 100


_Rathaus Basel_



EOS 1D X, TS-E 17mm f/4L, 30 s, f/11, ISO 100


_Mantis_



EOS 1D X, MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro @ ~3x, 1/250 s, f/14, ISO 400, MT-24EX


_Micro-Cosmos_



EOS 5D Mark II, MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro @ 5x, 1/60 s, f/11, ISO 400, MT-24EX


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jan 28, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> _L'Arc de Triomphe_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"Rathaus Basel" image is fantastic. Really highlights the merits of the TS-E. Did you make a note of the tilt and shift settings that you used? Also, did you use any accessories (e.g. geared tripod, geared head, angle finder,field monitor, mirror...etc) to help with composing/shooting in an upwards direction?

With the Mantis shot did you use a flash-modifier?

The Arc de Triomphe shot looks a bit over-corrected. When I first got my TS-E I found the Schneider optics guide (http://www.schneideroptics.com/pdfs/photo/PC-TS%20Anleitung%201-12%20en.PDF) which on page 12 recommends methods to retaining some residual keystone for more natural-to-the-eye geometry. 

Personally, I feel it distracts from the picture. But then photographers are distracted by many things that most people would never think about. The residual keystone thing may just be a matter of taste.

I think keystone correction is a bit like going for the first kiss:
"Go 90% of the way, and then hold" - www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TLf5U7EuJA


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 28, 2016)

Thanks for the feedback! 

I don't generally note down the T/S settings I use, encoders would be nice. That shot of the town hall in Basel, Switzerland used quite a bit of shift ('downward' to get apparently closer to the facade) and just a bit of tilt. No accessories, just my travel tripod (RRS TQC-14 + BH-30 LR).

For the mantis in our back yard, I had the StoFen diffusers on the MT-24 EX heads.

Perhaps you're right on the keystoning - IIRC, I corrected a bit further with DxO, maybe too much.


----------

