# Sleeper Lenses?



## Jay Khaos (Jul 18, 2013)

Does anyone have a lens (or a few) that they love, but rarely comes up in conversation, isn't reviewed well online, is overshadowed by an alternative, etc?

Mine is the 50 1.8. Even though it's not _totally_ overshadowed, but I think it tends to get pushed aside in favor of the 50 1.4 more than it deserves


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jul 18, 2013)

+1 for the nifty fifty, but I don't think it's maligned or sneered at so much, a lot of folk just don't get on with the build or genuinely require faster quieter af. I love mine, it's the third plastic I've owned (one stolen off me by my dad, one dropped) and I had a metal mk1 before that.

In the same vein, I loved my 28mm f2.8. Lots to hate. Geometric bokeh, arc-form drive, but it was compact, fringe free, cheap and sharp wide open. It's a lens that I knew would deliver for me and wouldn;t need much post-procrssing. Worked out as a slowish standard lens on my cameras, but a great wee walkabout lens. 

I replaced it with a zoom as I was consolidating with an eye to video, but it's the only lens I've sold that I actually wish I hadn't. And I say that having owned tilt shifts, bigmas, fast L telephotos etc.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 18, 2013)

I always hear about 

16-35's
24-70's
70-200's

and yet I don't own one of those lenses. When I say 135mm F/2 to a newer photog, they look at me, pause for a moment and say "They still make 135's?" or the proverbial "What's that?" *Facepalm.


----------



## Jay Khaos (Jul 18, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> +1 for the nifty fifty, but I don't think it's maligned or sneered at so much, a lot of folk just don't get on with the build or genuinely require faster quieter af. I love mine, it's the third plastic I've owned (one stolen off me by my dad, one dropped) and I had a metal mk1 before that.



True. I've heard a lot of good too, but I've also heard it get talked about as if it's garbage... as if one of its drawbacks is a complete dealbreaker, like the skinny focus ring or plastic construction.



RLPhoto said:


> I always hear about
> 
> 16-35's
> 24-70's
> ...



lol.. I agree on the 135 being a sleeper. It was the first L I owned, but honestly probably wouldnt have even knew about it without the internet at my disposal.


----------



## RobertG. (Jul 18, 2013)

For me it's the TS-E 90mm. It is hardly ever mentioned, although the image quality is excellent.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jul 18, 2013)

iPhone and lensbaby for me

iPhone is always there and paired with Instagram it's an amazing tool... Lensbaby is my want to play lens, I've got 4x & 10x macros, I've the wide and tele adapters, the fisheye, the shaped aperture rings - hours of fun every time it comes out of my kit bag - got £300 to blow ? Go spend it on a load of lensbaby kit !


----------



## mb66energy (Jul 18, 2013)

Using with APS-C, primarily 40D:

* 2.8/24mm (non-USM): Very sharp, contrasty lens + great FOV, similar to 40mm on FF. Compact, sturdy, unobtrusive
* 2.0/100mm (USM): Very sharp, contrasty, unobtrusive lens, very compact compared to 100mm macros. I like the 160mm effective focal length for landscape, nature, street etc.

A nice couple too with to APS-C bodies ... and will be nice too with two (dreaming!!!) FF bodies ...


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jul 18, 2013)

> lol.. I agree on the 135 being a sleeper. It was the first L I owned, but honestly probably wouldnt have even knew about it without the internet at my disposal.



I had it's sister lens the 200mm f2.8L which on APS-C was a superlative sports lens.

I also had the 135 f2.8 SF. Nice images with SF dialled out. Awful. slow. focusing.


----------



## axtstern (Jul 18, 2013)

The Dinosaur among the sleepers:

The Tamron 28-105 1:2.8

Fat (82mm) front lens and the body never slimmer than that
Long fully extended (it extends twofold) it is about 20% longer than the EF 200 L
Noisy The AF engine was engineered in a past century
Color Tamron's baroque grey/antrazit plastic finish

Nothing for the weak, after 15 years of heavy use the surviving models of this lens need a lot of strength to move the zoom ring. Feels like wringing water out of an old wet leather hide. 

No IS, No USM

but.. 50% more reach than the EF 24-70 and still 1:2.8
When I shoot as a guest some pictures at a wedding the pros usualy run forward and backward with their 24-70L while I stand like a rock. When I have a Chance of doing some gear talk with this guys laughter often changes to desire once they tried this lens on a 1D

regards


----------



## Swphoto (Jul 19, 2013)

I really liked my Canon 28mm 1.8 when I was using it on a crop - it rarely left the camera. Build quality was really good (or seemed it) for a non-L lens - nice focus ring, and internal focusing - so no issues with it being fragile like the 50 1.4.

I didn't care for it on full frame, though.

You can pick them up used or refurbished for a good price, given that they're not very popular.


----------



## friedrice1212 (Jul 19, 2013)

Kind of a sleeper on the Internet because of its age, but certainly not a sleeper in the real world, the 70-200 2.8 IS Mark I. I picked one up for 1200$ the other day and I was simply amazed by it. Sure, it's not as sharp as the Mk II at 200/2.8 and the AF isn't as blistering fast, but it doesn't cost 2800$ with taxes here in Quebec, Canada. I shoot low light dance events with it at ISO 6400, so lens sharpness is the least of my worries. Unless you earn your living with the 70-200, the Mark I is still one hell of a lens. Bang for buck guaranteed!

(Of course if you're gonna use it outdoors at ISO 100 and you're tight on budget, go get an f/4 and skip this old lens)


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jul 19, 2013)

+1

The trusty old f2.8 non-Is is in my kit bag.


----------



## LewisShermer (Jul 19, 2013)

Swphoto said:


> I really liked my Canon 28mm 1.8 when I was using it on a crop - it rarely left the camera. Build quality was really good (or seemed it) for a non-L lens - nice focus ring, and internal focusing - so no issues with it being fragile like the 50 1.4.
> 
> I didn't care for it on full frame, though.
> 
> You can pick them up used or refurbished for a good price, given that they're not very popular.



Was going to say exactly the same. the 28mm 1.8 was never off my 7D/60D/500D but I never have it on my 5Diii. such a shame. it's a beautiful little lens on a crop sensor, just not that great on a full frame.


----------



## steven kessel (Jul 19, 2013)

Sure! My candidate is the 400DO. Wonderfully light when compared with the 400 F2.8, a lens that I can hike with. And, just great for bird and wildlife photography. It's as sharp as any telephoto I own. Apparently, this lens got bad reviews back when it was introduced and has languished in the shadows for years. It has a bad rap, take my word for it. Mine is my favorite lens.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 19, 2013)

There are some older lenses that are not commonly found any longer that are low cost, yet do a good job for their price.
The old EF 70-210mm F/4 does a fair job, as does the old Tokina 400mm f/5.6 and the Tokina 17mm f/3.5.


----------



## Jay Khaos (Jul 19, 2013)

RobertG. said:


> For me it's the TS-E 90mm. It is hardly ever mentioned, although the image quality is excellent.



This one is on my wish list for sure...


----------



## Jay Khaos (Jul 19, 2013)

axtstern said:


> The Dinosaur among the sleepers:
> 
> The Tamron 28-105 1:2.8



I've never seen one of these in person... I'd like to try one


----------



## verysimplejason (Jul 19, 2013)

Canon 28mm F1.8 USM. One of the most hated/loved lens. I definitely love mine. Very fast AF, fast aperture, very sharp images @ 2.0 and smaller, small, light (what's not to love?), but with some noticeable CA (sometimes). Pair it with LR/DPP and those CA almost disappear/negligible. I'm still saving for my first FF (a 6D). Hopefully it'll be a better performer.


----------



## distant.star (Jul 19, 2013)

.
The most underrated, overlooked lens I have is the EF-S 60mm macro. It does everything from macro to landscapes and usually gives a unique look. I can usually tell a picture taken with this lens. Here's one of my favorite pictures that no one would ever guess was taken with a macro lens:


----------



## dr croubie (Jul 19, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> There are some older lenses that are not commonly found any longer that are low cost, yet do a good job for their price.
> The old EF 70-210mm F/4 does a fair job, as does the old Tokina 400mm f/5.6 and the Tokina 17mm f/3.5.



I've got the Tokina 17/3.5, and it certainly does the job, especially on film (there's no point using it on my 7D, it's not as good as my EF-s 15-85).

And my Super Ozeck 28mm f/2.8 Macro is great (even if it's only 1:2 macro), i've never found much on it by googling so it can't be too common. Small, sharp, and light, makes a great street-lens hyperfocalled on my EOS 3, I bring it together with my Shorty McForty and swap either between camera and pocket.


----------



## babiesphotos.ca (Jul 19, 2013)

Tamron 28-75 2.8
Much smaller and lighter than either 24-70, and perfect all around lens. 2.8 all the way, goes up to 75, where I often found myself taking portraits.

Copy I had was quite sharp in the centre, in line with Tamron 24-70, but edges aren't it's thing. 
However, for people pictures, great. Also inexpensive, small, travel alternative.

They say focus is slow. I don't agree, but it's loud, which makes it appear slower... Vanity made me upgrade to Tamron 24-70, but I'm not sure I'm getting better pictures now...


----------



## MLfan3 (Jul 19, 2013)

Jay Khaos said:


> Does anyone have a lens (or a few) that they love, but rarely comes up in conversation, isn't reviewed well online, is overshadowed by an alternative, etc?
> 
> Mine is the 50 1.8. Even though it's not _totally_ overshadowed, but I think it tends to get pushed aside in favor of the 50 1.4 more than it deserves



well, I love my 100f2USM lens and I think it is an L quality lens.
I also love my old Nikon AIS105mmf2.5 on my D800 and my 6D via adapter.
I also love Samyang 8mm fisheye lens.
I think the 35mm f2ISUSM is also a great sleeper lens ,everybody loves the Sigma or the L and seldom talks about this lens but I think the new IS version of 35mm f2 is one of the best Canon primes.


----------



## rt (Jul 19, 2013)

Underrated lenses:

EF 135L ("so old!", "no IS") -- I hesitated waaay too long before I bought it...
EF 35mm f/2 -- very sharp in center (in corners not so much), short minimum focusing distance, very accurate AF -- this is a viable alternative to my 24-70 f/2.8 Mk II in many situations, it's way lighter, it's way smaller. I often use it for video (manual focus is very OK, fairly accurate and barely audible). It's excellent for closeup portraits, with face details, like eyes.

Overrated lenses:

EF 85mm f/1.8 -- no contrast, AF often misses (which negates the overall sharpness argument).
EF-S 15-85mm f/1.8 -- AF unacceptable for a walkaround zoom.

This is all on crop, 7D, BTW.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 19, 2013)

Samyang 14mm: One of the most arty lenses I own. The 'moustache' distortion is no dealbreaker for my use of this lens. Excellent sharpness and colors and the (self added) addition of an AF confirmation chip makes it sweet to use (MF is otherwise almost impossible due to the large DOF in the viewfinder, even with an EF-S screen). Costs next to nothing too compared to the 14mm L. Fully open it can create some wicked lens flare (that I like), but only fully open.

Sigma 20 mm: I have an excellent copy. Little known is that this lens creates fabulous bokeh when used up close and personal (The tiny MFD is the absolute strong point of this one), and I like the lens flare with the sun in the frame.

EF 35mm f/2: Not a perfect lens but due to its modest dimensions & weight it's fabulous for low light application when travelling.


----------



## mb66energy (Jul 19, 2013)

distant.star said:


> .
> The most underrated, overlooked lens I have is the EF-S 60mm macro. It does everything from macro to landscapes and usually gives a unique look.
> ...


+1

If I had to do photography with an APS-C body and 1 single lens my EF-S 60 would be the one! It was my first lens with the 20D and the reason to switch from my G2 to the D*SLR* boat.


----------



## adhocphotographer (Jul 19, 2013)

Tokina 300mm 2.8 is meant to be a hidden gem, that and the Tokina 17mm f/3.5 AF. I don't own either of these lenses, but i would like to!


----------



## pwp (Jul 19, 2013)

I've always considered the Canon EF 300mm f/4Lis to be one of the great "sleepers" of the Canon range. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF_300mm_lens

I got one when they first shipped in 1997 and was astounded with what it could deliver at f/4 right up to the time I upgraded to the 300 f/2.8is. Honestly, I wish I'd hung onto the 300 f/4is. There is room in my life for two Canon 300mm lenses. Sure, you can hear the IS working away from 20 paces, but it more than makes up for this irrelevant shortcoming with it's very light weight, compact size (about the same as a 70-200) brilliantly sharp images wide open and its almost macro minimum focus distance of 1.5m. Great for a unique portrait, plus I used to shoot great food shots with it.

Hell....I'm going to get another one!

-PW


----------



## symmar22 (Jul 19, 2013)

Jay Khaos said:


> RobertG. said:
> 
> 
> > For me it's the TS-E 90mm. It is hardly ever mentioned, although the image quality is excellent.
> ...



+2 on the TS-E 90mm, I recently bought a 100mm Macro IS L that I love, but when I work with a tripod for close-ups (like flowers), I most of the time end using the 90 TS-E, since it's as sharp (if not more than the macro), and the tilt is a feature that cannot be replaced.

Another lens no one ever talks about is my 50mm f2.5 Compact Macro. It's light, cheap, has zero distortion, a perfectly flat field, and is brutally sharp until the very corners from f5.6. 
The drawbacks are : no USM, only 1:2 macro (not very important for a 50mm IMO), it is soft in the corners and has lot of vignetting until f4. It's not a very good looking lens either  .

For subjects that require lots of DoF (landscape and architecture), it's probably the best Canon 50mm. Having been designed in 1987, it's one of the 2 oldest lenses in the Canon catalogue, (with the 135 f2.8 Soft Focus), it might be time that Canon replaces it. However for 269$ (B&H), it's a steal.


----------



## pato (Jul 19, 2013)

I really like my old Sigma 400mm F/5.6 APO Macro HSM on my 550D. Great reach, quite fast AF, but sadly not re-chipped and thus no F/5.6.
Anyway, a really nice lens and great for birding


----------



## cwild (Jul 19, 2013)

I would have to say the Leica 35-70mm f4 R on a Leitax adapter.

I have a 16-35 ii, 24-70i and 70-200 ii, but the Leica is by far my favorite lens for Landscapes, I just love the 'look' that it gives to my images.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 19, 2013)

pwp said:


> I've always considered the Canon EF 300mm f/4Lis to be one of the great "sleepers" of the Canon range.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF_300mm_lens
> 
> I got one when they first shipped in 1997 and was astounded with what it could deliver at f/4 right up to the time I upgraded to the 300 f/2.8is. Honestly, I wish I'd hung onto the 300 f/4is. There is room in my life for two Canon 300mm lenses. Sure, you can hear the IS working away from 20 paces, but it more than makes up for this irrelevant shortcoming with it's very light weight, compact size (about the same as a 70-200) brilliantly sharp images wide open and its almost macro minimum focus distance of 1.5m. Great for a unique portrait, plus I used to shoot great food shots with it.
> ...



This lens fascinates me, considering getting one despite the fact that I already have a 70-200 F/2.8 ISII + 1.4TC II and a 100-400L. This however makes it difficult to justify because I don't want to part with these two lenses anyway.


----------



## crasher8 (Jul 19, 2013)

100 f/2 
135L f/2
200L 2.8

Sigma 17-50 2.8 for Crop
Anything made by Lensbaby (If you haven't tried a composer you are missing out on a LOT of fun)


----------



## bchernicoff (Jul 19, 2013)

crasher8 said:


> Sigma 17-50 2.8 for Crop



+1 I loved it when I used a 7D. Since then two friends have bought one based on my recommendation and they love theirs.


----------



## insanitybeard (Jul 19, 2013)

distant.star said:


> The most underrated, overlooked lens I have is the EF-S 60mm macro. It does everything from macro to landscapes and usually gives a unique look. I can usually tell a picture taken with this lens.



I agree with this, the EF-S 60 is probably my sharpest lens, and that's including the 70-200 f4 IS. Get the focus right and it's corner to corner sharp (macro obviously excepted-unless photographing a brick wall!), even at 100% on the 7D. Compact as well, and great value!


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jul 19, 2013)

crasher8 said:


> 100 f/2
> 135L f/2
> 200L 2.8
> 
> ...



Never owned the 135 f2, but I have, or have had everything else here, well the previous 18-50 f2.8 DC Macro version of the Sigma, which is also a great lens, and cheap used.


----------



## TBenson (Jul 19, 2013)

insanitybeard said:


> I agree with this, the EF-S 60 is probably my sharpest lens, and that's including the 70-200 f4 IS. Get the focus right and it's corner to corner sharp (macro obviously excepted-unless photographing a brick wall!), even at 100% on the 7D. Compact as well, and great value!



It is so compact that you can use a camera's built-in flash for macro without the lens casting a shadow. Great for travel. And the EF-S 60 is a good focal length for portraits and is sharp wide-open. 

Only downside: it hunts during focus sometimes. I wish it had a focusing distance limiter switch to help.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Jul 19, 2013)

*Tamron 28-75 2.8 non-stabilized*



babiesphotos said:


> Tamron 28-75 2.8



Agreed, this is a great lens for someone who has switched to full frame, but doesn't have the budget for L lenses. I keep mine around for backup.

I also have a friend who shoots lots and lots of people pix with this lens on a 7D. Its a nice portrait lens on a crop body.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 19, 2013)

*Re: Tamron 28-75 2.8 non-stabilized*



drmikeinpdx said:


> babiesphotos said:
> 
> 
> > Tamron 28-75 2.8
> ...



This was excellent when I had it and used it on my 40D (now sold). For my 7D (which I normally use only with long lenses) I have a Tamron 17-50mm F/2,8 and it's absolutely fabulous.


----------



## Chapaboy (Jul 19, 2013)

Well.. I have a Macro Tokina 100 f2.8 This Baby ROCKS! I got it for 250 bucks on ebay and it was pretty much new.Few months back I had some money trouble and I had to sell canon 70-200L and many other lenses and cameras but I kept this one until I got a couple of new cameras.

As a Macro is wonderful! as portrait is is a dream. Every time I mention this lens everyone goes like HUH! what is that?


----------



## preppyak (Jul 19, 2013)

babiesphotos said:


> Tamron 28-75 2.8
> Much smaller and lighter than either 24-70, and perfect all around lens. 2.8 all the way, goes up to 75, where I often found myself taking portraits.


Yeah, its a solid portrait lens; not so great on full-frame for landscape, etc. But compared to the used prices on the 24-70 f/2.8 v1, it's an absolute steal.

I mostly used it on APS-C, and while I loved the shots it took, I never found the range quite wide enough.



crasher8 said:


> 200L 2.8


Yep, dropped my 70-200 f/4L IS and got this instead, much more useful for AF, teleconverters, etc, and a lot less conspicuous


----------



## preppyak (Jul 19, 2013)

But my ultimate favorite, though it does get pretty good reviews, is the 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 Macro from Sigma. Only way it could be better is if it was constant f/2.8, but, you get nearly 1:2 macro and good sharpness from f/5.6 on. And, when I need it, 17mm f/2.8 is good for environmental sports stuff, where I am capturing the scene around a person but still need fast shutter speeds.

The newer version only goes to 1:3.3, is pricier, but it does add OS.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 19, 2013)

Chapaboy said:


> Well.. I have a Macro Tokina 100 f2.8 This Baby ROCKS! I got it for 250 bucks on ebay and it was pretty much new.Few months back I had some money trouble and I had to sell canon 70-200L and many other lenses and cameras but I kept this one until I got a couple of new cameras.
> 
> As a Macro is wonderful! as portrait is is a dream. Every time I mention this lens everyone goes like HUH! what is that?



I suspect it's essentially the same lens as the Tamron 90mm despite the extra 10mm extra FL. The rotating focus limiter switch is a dead give-away.


----------



## AJ (Jul 19, 2013)

Canon 85/1.8
Tamron 90/2.8 macro
Tamron 17-50/2.8 non-VC
Canon 55-250/4-5.6 IS
Canon 50/1.4
Canon 70-200/4 non-IS
Canon 17-40/L, when used as an UWA on FF gear, not as a standard lens on crop.
Canon 15/2.8 fisheye


----------



## Jay Khaos (Jul 19, 2013)

rt said:


> EF 35mm f/2 -- very sharp in center (in corners not so much), short minimum focusing distance, very accurate AF -- this is a viable alternative to my 24-70 f/2.8 Mk II in many situations, it's way lighter, it's way smaller. I often use it for video (manual focus is very OK, fairly accurate and barely audible). It's excellent for closeup portraits, with face details, like eyes.



I wanted this lens pretty bad since it came out. It did kind of immediately get thrown into the equally-priced, faster-aperture Sigma's shadow. But depending on the person (like one who shoots video), it might be the obvious choice over sigmas 35 1.4. Thats what it seems like to me anyway. This lens is one of them I had in mind when I created this thread. Whenever it ends up on sale I'm probably going to snatch it up... maybe earlier..lol


----------



## Knut Skywalker (Jul 19, 2013)

Definitely the 100mm f/2. Totally overshadowed by the 85mm 1.8 but the majority of the reviews state that it's better corrected and focuses faster than its smaller brother. I use it for portrait stuff on the 5D Mk II and its awesome. Autofocus is the fastest i have ever seen and the bokeh is nice and creamy.


----------



## wsmith96 (Jul 19, 2013)

insanitybeard said:


> distant.star said:
> 
> 
> > The most underrated, overlooked lens I have is the EF-S 60mm macro. It does everything from macro to landscapes and usually gives a unique look. I can usually tell a picture taken with this lens.
> ...




+1 - I love this lens on my t1i - produces beautiful results every time.


----------



## Act444 (Jul 20, 2013)

When I had it, I would say the 85 1.8. I feel it often gets overlooked by CR folks (and folks on other serious photo forums) for the far more expensive, heavier, slower 1.2 version. While the 1.2 version produces some amazing results (and I may end up with one eventually) the 1.8 offers one of the best price/performance ratios in the Canon system IMO. Compact, inconspicuous and has decent reach and speed for close-range sports on 1.6x (bonus points here - the 1.2 is too slow for sports on a non-pro body). Really doesn't get much better than that...that and the "sister lens" 100 f2. 

Only reason I gave up the 85 was to help fund an upgrade from the 70-200 f4 to the 70-200 2.8 (don't regret at all...would do again)...still though, that was a tough lens to part with. There has been many a time where I either wished I had it or contemplated re-purchasing it...probably would go for the 100 f2 if I did it all over again.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 20, 2013)

AJ said:


> Canon 55-250/4-5.6 IS



Excellent little lens! I just sold mine because of disuse (but the 400D I used it on has been replaced with a Sony NEX).



Jay Khaos said:


> rt said:
> 
> 
> > EF 35mm f/2 -- very sharp in center (in corners not so much), short minimum focusing distance, very accurate AF -- this is a viable alternative to my 24-70 f/2.8 Mk II in many situations, it's way lighter, it's way smaller. I often use it for video (manual focus is very OK, fairly accurate and barely audible). It's excellent for closeup portraits, with face details, like eyes.
> ...



I suppose you're talking about the IS version. I love the older f/2 (non-IS) for its tinyness as mentioned earlier.


----------



## insanitybeard (Jul 20, 2013)

AJ said:


> Canon 17-40/L, when used as an UWA on FF gear, not as a standard lens on crop.



Why do you say this? I use the 17-40 as a standard lens on crop and it performs very well for the most part IMO, as I understand it it's biggest weakness is used at the wide end without stopping down on FF. Using it on crop negates most of this issue.


----------



## AJ (Jul 20, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> AJ said:
> 
> 
> > Canon 55-250/4-5.6 IS
> ...



Yes it's a good lens. I have messed around with quite a few starter telephoto lenses over the years, and this is the only one that does not disappoint. It's no L lens, but it's decently sharp optically. Just stop down a little when at the long end. The 5x zoom and low weight make it a great choice for lightweight travel, hiking, and other uses in strong light. I have a 2'x3' canvas wrap printed from a photo taken with this lens, and it looks like it was taken with far more expensive and bulky gear.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 20, 2013)

AJ said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > AJ said:
> ...



I took this with a 55-250 IS II and a 400D:


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 20, 2013)

insanitybeard said:


> AJ said:
> 
> 
> > Canon 17-40/L, when used as an UWA on FF gear, not as a standard lens on crop.
> ...



The 17-40 is Canon's best full frame WA zoom.


----------



## insanitybeard (Jul 20, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> The 17-40 is Canon's best full frame WA zoom.



Don't get me wrong, I own and like the 17-40, but I don't think owners of the 16-35 II would agree with you that the 17-40 is the better lens. Reviews I have seen suggest they perform similarly at the same apertures with the exception that the 16-35 is a bit better at the wide end around f4-5.6. My main reason for opting for the 17-40 was it's compact size and low weight, weather sealing, decent optical performance and (compared to most L lenses) reasonable price!


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 20, 2013)

insanitybeard said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > The 17-40 is Canon's best full frame WA zoom.
> ...



From many reviews I've been led to believe the 17-40 generally outperforms its wider aperture sisters. In any case I got it for the exact same reasons you mentioned


----------



## AdamJ (Jul 20, 2013)

Sigma 12-24mm II.

Perhaps I have a golden sample but I marvel at how sharp it is away from the extreme corners. Anyway, its outright sharpness obviously isn't the big attraction of this remarkable lens.


----------



## crasher8 (Jul 20, 2013)

I think the 40 pancake is a sleeper as well.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 20, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> insanitybeard said:
> 
> 
> > AJ said:
> ...



I'm using a 17-40L on crop as a standard zoom because I plan (for CR regulars yes, really ) to upgrade to ff sometime and most of all the L is sturdy and sealed which makes a great difference because I regularly shoot in snow and dusty/dirty outdoor conditions. Just be sure to replace the lens hood with a 83J...

... however @f4 the 17-40L is clearly lacking in sharpness and except for the above reasons I really wouldn't recommend it on crop, even though it has a very good price nowadays esp. with Canon cashback rebates.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=100&Sample=0&CameraComp=736&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## jd7 (Jul 20, 2013)

Act444 said:


> Only reason I gave up the 85 was to help fund an upgrade from the 70-200 f4 to the 70-200 2.8 (don't regret at all...would do again)...still though, that was a tough lens to part with. There has been many a time where I either wished I had it or contemplated re-purchasing it...probably would go for the 100 f2 if I did it all over again.



Hi Act444,
Just curious - what would make you go for the 100 f2 over the 85 1.8? I haven't used either, but am contemplating getting one of them (or possibly sigma 85 1.4) for use on a 6D, and I'm intrigued that even though you liked the 85 you'd choose the 100 now.
Cheers


----------



## SithTracy (Jul 20, 2013)

Fan of my EF 85 F1.8. Sharp and a solid performer for me. It's lightweight and small and gives me decent reach when I need to go light.

My wife and kids got me a Rokinon 14mm for fathers day and I am having a blast with that lens right now.


----------



## J.R. (Jul 20, 2013)

There was a time when I used to shoot with the 400L f/5.6 ... The most comments I used to get were ... Can you still buy these new? and the old faithful ... why this lens, this dodo doesn't even ZOOM!


----------



## tron (Jul 20, 2013)

J.R. said:


> There was a time when I used to shoot with the 400L f/5.6 ... The most comments I used to get were ... Can you still buy these new? and the old faithful ... why this lens, this dodo doesn't even ZOOM!


Hmmm, they must be dodo themselves! ;D

However, an interesting answer to them could be that the 400mm f/4L DO is the real DODO lens= Diffractive Optics for Digital Ornithologists ;D ;D ;D


----------



## archiea (Jul 20, 2013)

I don't think its been mentioned, but the non-L 70-300mm. Lesser build quality than the L, noisey IS, but its way cheaper, often deeply discounted, excellent image quality, its black, and smaller & lighter to carry.

Another is the 100mm L macro. F2.8 makes it a great portrait lens, hybrid IS handles even rotation motion, hand holdable macro and night portrait photography. Great for events because u can hand hold portrait photography AND do macro shots.

(Drops microphone, walks away....)


----------



## lholmes549 (Jul 20, 2013)

Out of all my lenses my favourite is, without a doubt, my Pentacon 135 f/2.8. It is quite unbelievably sharp, has beautiful bokeh and while some may list this as a disadvantage in certain situations, it has a long focus throw for precise focussing! The build quality is excellent and ever since I re-greased it, the focussing ring is smoother than ever! 
Fairly light too, and the 15 aperture blades are just a nice addition when using it stopped down.


----------



## AJ (Jul 20, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > insanitybeard said:
> ...


Sure, it works as a standard zoom on crop. But used this way I wouldn't call it a "sleeper lens".


----------



## jd7 (Jul 20, 2013)

+1 for 28 1.8 at least on APS-C cameras. Light, small, relatively cheap, USM, and with 45mm FOV on APS-C I think it makes an excellent walk around lens when you want to travel light. I'm yet to play with it on a 35mm sensor camera though.

I've also been pretty happy with my sigma 10-20 3.5 EX DC HSM. I rarely see it mentioned anywhere though.


----------



## Act444 (Jul 20, 2013)

jd7 said:


> Act444 said:
> 
> 
> > Only reason I gave up the 85 was to help fund an upgrade from the 70-200 f4 to the 70-200 2.8 (don't regret at all...would do again)...still though, that was a tough lens to part with. There has been many a time where I either wished I had it or contemplated re-purchasing it...probably would go for the 100 f2 if I did it all over again.
> ...



The main reason is that both the 85 1.8 and the 100 f2 are the same size. The 100 gives sightly more reach and f2 is still plenty of light to stop action in all but the darkest of venues. It would, IMO, be a solid choice for a relatively compact lens that would offer good reach on a 1.6x camera (e.g. venues disallowing "professional" equipment, inconspicuous "street" shooting, still manageable with the EOS M + adapter). The 85 would work very well for these uses, too, but 100 would give me just that little bit extra cropping power...


----------



## jd7 (Jul 20, 2013)

Act444 said:


> jd7 said:
> 
> 
> > Act444 said:
> ...



Thanks Act444. I do quite like the idea of the 100mm focal length. If the IQ is pretty much the same as the 85 1.8 though, I guess I'll have to decide if the extra 15mm is worth the extra A$130 or so.


----------



## alek35 (Jul 22, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> Samyang 14mm: One of the most arty lenses I own. The 'moustache' distortion is no dealbreaker for my use of this lens. Excellent sharpness and colors and the (self added) addition of an AF confirmation chip makes it sweet to use (MF is otherwise almost impossible due to the large DOF in the viewfinder, even with an EF-S screen).



This got me curious - how did you add the AF confirmation chip ? It works on your Canon, right ?

Br,
Thomas


----------



## insanitybeard (Jul 22, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> I'm using a 17-40L on crop as a standard zoom because I plan (for CR regulars yes, really ) to upgrade to ff sometime and most of all the L is sturdy and sealed which makes a great difference because I regularly shoot in snow and dusty/dirty outdoor conditions. Just be sure to replace the lens hood with a 83J...
> 
> ... however @f4 the 17-40L is clearly lacking in sharpness and except for the above reasons I really wouldn't recommend it on crop, even though it has a very good price nowadays esp. with Canon cashback rebates.
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=100&Sample=0&CameraComp=736&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0



The softness I can see in TDP's sample crops with the 60D compared against the full frame 1Ds III isn't exclusive to the 17-40 though, do the same thing with the 16-35 II, the 24-70 II and even the legendary 70-200 2.8 IS II and the lens looks much softer used on the crop body at the same aperture (I started a thread on this a while back trying to understand the apparent softness of the same lens used on the crop body compared to full frame), which makes me think it is more to do with the the performance/ rendering of the crop sensor than the lens sharpness itself: 
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0


----------



## SithTracy (Jul 22, 2013)

alek35 said:


> This got me curious - how did you add the AF confirmation chip ? It works on your Canon, right ?
> 
> Br,
> Thomas



Don't do it myself, but was thinking about it when someone sent me this video. I found it is not needed with practice.

http://youtu.be/kQHHW2tUle0


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 22, 2013)

alek35 said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > Samyang 14mm: One of the most arty lenses I own. The 'moustache' distortion is no dealbreaker for my use of this lens. Excellent sharpness and colors and the (self added) addition of an AF confirmation chip makes it sweet to use (MF is otherwise almost impossible due to the large DOF in the viewfinder, even with an EF-S screen).
> ...


It works on any Canon EOS camera 

I bought an AF confirmation chip and glued it onto the rear of the lens as shown in the pictures below. I positioned it in the right place using the supplied alignment tool and checked it with a Canon lens. Note that I had to make a spacer to raise the chip to the correct level: flush with the edge of the metal mount. If you glue it inside the recess it won't contact the pins in the camera! 

The chip is programmable so that it will report the correct focal length and maximum aperture but will work without programming. 

More importantly, it has internal 'focus micro adjustment' which I programmed at f/4 to nail focus every time and give sharp results at f/4 and above which is the aperture range I use mostly. I found there is some focus shift in this lens depending on aperture so at f/2.8 and f/3.2 the focal plane is not the same as at f/4 and above. Programming the AF chip at f/2.8 therefore results in a false calibration for the stopped down apertures.

Now, for stuff at infinity focus, the focus confirmation is still OK even at f/2.8-3.2 but for stuff critically close to the lens at wide apertures I resort to the precision matte focus screen in my 5DII to check focus is in the correct place. 

The chip is programmable as follows:



> Samyang 14 mm: 14mm F/2.8, AFMA 26
> 
> Preparation:
> 
> ...



Note that it is possible to have the Exif report the actual aperture selected, but I use the lens with the camera set to aperture priority and maximum aperture ( f/2.8 ), then I stop down the lens manually and let the camera sort out the metering. This works the easiest but it does mean that if I actually take a photo at f/5.6, it is still reported as f/2.8. Focal length and exposure time are however always reported correctly.


----------

