What lens spends the most time on your camera?

S

synapsis

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 12, 2004
Messages
392
I finally got to spend a day shooting with a Canon 17-55mm f2.8 lens I picked up last week, and unless I'm trying to take photos of things really far off, I don't see it coming off the camera. It's a great walkaround lens. It's clear, it can stop action while zoomed, and the ultrasonic zoom is *so* fast. Plus I can take photos indoors with just a 60 watt living room lamp, handheld, without using my Speedlite (which annoys the cat.)

I'm thinking my next lens will be a 70-200 f2.8L so I can get the same great, fast aperture as this lens has. What's your go-to lens?

Before this lens, I really liked my 50mm f1.8, but the human zoom factor got old.
 
I use mostly primes with my Nikon D90, so I do a ton of lens changing over the course of a shoot. If I need to travel lite, I just have to pick the 2 or 3 lenses I think are most likely to be needed for the trip.

The one I tend to use the most is my Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 AF. I like things a little on the wide side, so this one tends to be the perfect walk-around lens for me. My usual second pic, depending on whether I'll be outdoors or indoor/low-light would be either my Tamron 90mm f/3 Macro lens, or Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 AFS.
 
Hard to say... 35L or 24-70 unless I am on vacation, then its the 24-105....
 
My 17-55 stays on most of the time; unless I'm doing something specific with my 50/1.4, then the 17-55 comes right back on when I'm done.
 
If I'm outside doing landscapes, I swap between a 10-22 and a 70-200. Indoors it's a 35 or a 24-70, depending on whether or not I'm using a flash.
 
Most of the time I have the 28-70f2.8 on the D3 and the 200mmf4 on the D2X.
 
20mm f/1.7 pancake (40mm effective). One of the best m4/3 lenses around I think. I can't remember the last time I actually used a flash with it (even outdoors in the middle of the night).
 
Canon 28-70L f/2.8 is on the camera most of the time and I use my Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 if I need a wider angle.
 
14-24 hands down. 70-200 would is the distant second, followed by 24-70.
 
The Nikon 16-85 VR spends the most time on my camera though that has slowly been changing. It is a toss-up between all the other ones I own. I try to change it up as much as possible.
 
like you, I love the 17-55. Expensive though!

I also picked up a used 70-200 2.8L (non-IS). It's a great lens...IS would be nice sometimes, though.
 
17-40 f4L is on my camera 99% of the time
 
18-55mm and i'm a photog noob. looking to acquire new lense(s) when money situation improves. What do you all recommend? I have a Canon 30d.
 
When ever the 8-15mm fisheye comes out, it might stay glued to my 5DMarkII...... 8mm on a full frame body... drool.
 
Sir_Poop_Alot said:
18-55mm and i'm a photog noob. looking to acquire new lense(s) when money situation improves. What do you all recommend? I have a Canon 30d.
Click to expand...

What type of pictures do you want to take? A telezoom or ultrawide are nice to have outside, or you could get a fast prime for indoor when you don't want to use a flash.
 
Sir_Poop_Alot said:
18-55mm and i'm a photog noob. looking to acquire new lense(s) when money situation improves. What do you all recommend? I have a Canon 30d.
Click to expand...

The Tamron 17-50 is an absolutely amazing lens for the price. It won't break the bank but has comparable sharpness to an L lens without the price tag. The build quality isn't L quality and you won't have FTM focusing but the glass is superb.
 
Sir_Poop_Alot said:
18-55mm and i'm a photog noob. looking to acquire new lense(s) when money situation improves. What do you all recommend? I have a Canon 30d.
Click to expand...

The 50mm 1.8 II is only 100$ if you're into taking pictures of things with low light.

My first lens purchase (after the kit lens) was an EFS 55-250 f4-5.6 IS. I really wanted to try out taking photos of animals at the zoo and the 55-250 got me in really close. I don't know how steady your hands are, but I *need* IS with anything over 50mm, especially at 250mm. You can really hear the servos working.

mtb2005: Yeah, it is pretty expensive, but I picked up a Canon refurb. It's about 200 bucks cheaper, looks and works like new, and Adorama tacks on a one year warranty on it. Since you have a 70-200, do you think I'd notice the "hole" between the 17-55mm and the 70-200mm lenses? After that lens I think I'll get an extender for it.

I take all kinds of photos (tiny macro, landscape, cats, architecture, sculptures, cars, etc..) so I'm trying to be really selective about the lenses I pick up to save money. On the subject of cheap kit, I'd recommend to anyone curious of macro use to try a flip ring for $9. With that and my kit 18-55mm, I can make Abe Lincoln on the back of the penny take up almost 1/3 of the frame.
 
synapsis said:
The 50mm 1.8 II is only 100$ if you're into taking pictures of things with low light.

My first lens purchase (after the kit lens) was an EFS 55-250 f4-5.6 IS. I really wanted to try out taking photos of animals at the zoo and the 55-250 got me in really close. I don't know how steady your hands are, but I *need* IS with anything over 50mm, especially at 250mm. You can really hear the servos working.

mtb2005: Yeah, it is pretty expensive, but I picked up a Canon refurb. It's about 200 bucks cheaper, looks and works like new, and Adorama tacks on a one year warranty on it. Since you have a 70-200, do you think I'd notice the "hole" between the 17-55mm and the 70-200mm lenses? After that lens I think I'll get an extender for it.

I take all kinds of photos (tiny macro, landscape, cats, architecture, sculptures, cars, etc..) so I'm trying to be really selective about the lenses I pick up to save money. On the subject of cheap kit, I'd recommend to anyone curious of macro use to try a flip ring for $9. With that and my kit 18-55mm, I can make Abe Lincoln on the back of the penny take up almost 1/3 of the frame.
Click to expand...

Never noticed the "hole" in 55-70--guess I didn't think about it much. They don't make primes in every focal length--if pros can do it, I think I can deal with it too :)
 
wow you guys really know your camera and lense. I noted all your recommendations. Thanks for the recommendations.
 
Been going back and forth between the Canon 50mm f1.4 and Tokina 11-16mm. Just obtained the Canon 70-200mm f4L IS a few days ago. It'll be spending lots of time on the camera body for the next couple weeks .
 
On my D90 I used a Tamron 17-50 2.8 which was just GREAT! However I just got a D700 and all primes so we will see, Probably will be the 85 1.8 and 35 f2 if I had to guess.
 
Canon 15-85 right now but i have the canon 60mm macro in the mail so well see when it arrives
 
Last year when I still had my D60, my 35mm f1.8 stayed on it almost all the time. Mainly because I always needed the extra light. (I also had the kit 18-55 and the 55-200mm).

Since I bought my D700 6 months ago, my 24-120 f3.5-5.6 stayed on it most of the time (my only other lens was a 50 f1.8). I just got my 70-200mm f2.8 VR I in the mail last week, and I can already tell it will spend alot of time on my camera.

Now to just save up enough $ to sell my 24-120 and get the 24-70 f2.8.
 
50mm 1.4 on my Pentax K10D. Damn, I love that lens
 
Nikon 10-24mm because the perspective is amazing. I also have a 18-200mm and a 35mm prime lens. The 35mm prime produces the sharpest pictures no doubt and it is relatively cheap at around $300.00.
 
Nikkor 35mm 1.8.

Love the sharpness, just wish it had better bokeh. I don't like using flash all that much, and my d40 is a bit dated in iso clarity... I want a d7000 so bad just for video and ability to use higher iso's with less grain (ideally d700, but no way i can afford that).
 
^Good to see more Pentax users around!
For me, it's a toss between the DA16-45 f/4 or FA50/1.4 on my Pentax K-x. Occasionally, I will throw on the manual focus A35-105/3.5. It's colour rendering is unbeatable.
 
For canon, my walkaround lens is the 24-105 F4L.

My other lenses are the Tokina 12mm - 24mm f/4.0 Pro DX, the Canon 85mm 1.8 and the Canon 70-300 IS (older, non-L version). I am currently *just* about to pull the trigger on the Canon 100-400mm IS L to replace the 70-300.

Pics from all the lenses above 'cept the 85mm 1.8 are on my picasa site linked in my sig.

BB
 
The 24-105L, as its the only L I have. I would probably get the EF-S 10-22 next, unless Canon can release a14-24L, or something else new, or Sigma releases new set of primes that perform well.
 
EngrChris said:
The 24-105L, as its the only L I have. I would probably get the EF-S 10-22 next, unless Canon can release a14-24L, or something else new, or Sigma releases new set of primes that perform well.
Click to expand...
Why not the 16-35mm f/2.8L II? I quite liked the results I got with it.
 
Blue Fox said:
Why not the 16-35mm f/2.8L II? I quite liked the results I got with it.
Click to expand...

Also an option, considering the wide end of the 24-105L isn't all that great.
The 16-35L begins to fall off near 28mm and then 24-105L begins take over for image quality at 28mm, of the two. Its a trade off for 10-22 and 16-35, but why not the 24L II?
A good wide fast prime for crop with little distortion, then the 10-22 and anything after 24mm would work well also.

Expensive choice over the cheaper 16-35L. hmm.
 
Last edited:
24-105L

I like my 10-22 as well. On a crop camera 10 is a huge difference compared to 16.

I have the 100 2.8 macro that is sweet as well. Sharpest thing I have ever used.
 
24-105L is what I carry around most of the time.

If I "know" I'm going shooting i'll bring all I've got.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top