-
Your most "fun" lens?
What lens, for you, is the most "fun" to use? Not necessarily the one you use the most, the sharpest, the fastest, etc, but the most fun? Bryan wrote of the 100mm f/2.8 Macro (not the new L version):
"
The Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Lens is an excellent macro lens - and may be Canon's most fun per dollar lens."
I enjoy macro photography, especially of nature--so much, in fact, that I got a Sigma 180mm f/3.5 Macro lens in addition to the Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro. (The Sigma lens may not be as good as the Canon 180mm f/3.5L--though some contend that the Sigma lens is as good or better--but it's a lot less expensive: $699 vs $1450 new at B&H. (I paid $526 on eBay, including shipping.) The Canon lens would have to be a lot better to justify double the price.
On the other hand, a super-wide-angle lens (16mm full frame, 10mm on 1.6x) can be fun, too, not to do wide landscapes (usually deathly boring), but to get really, really close to the subject. (It's different from a macro lens, as the super-wide-angle has a low magnification factor.) That can result in interesting perspective. Objects look very round, rather than flat, for example. Several times, I've given myself an assignment to use only my Sigma 10-20mm--though I may cheat and mount the 100mm macro some times.
I guess that means that my 100mm macro & Sigma 10-20mm are my most fun lenses. What are yours?
-
Re: Your most "fun" lens?
Since Ienjoy wildlife, my 100-400 is my most fun and is on the camera most of the time. I also have a great deal of fun with my 10-22, but I am not very good with it yet. I would say that My 500 or six hundred is my most fun, but since I don't have them yet, I can't say that-------YET.
-
Re: Your most "fun" lens?
Great post. For me, the 24mm f/1.4 II is the most fun. Compressed telephoto shots with blurry backgrounds and thin DOF are a dime-a-dozen. The background is either very far from the subject or only includes one or two related elements. That's fine for what it is, but I like having the ability to get up close and personal with the subject, where a perspective that feels really immersive is highly valuable. This allows you to bring in far more background and context about the subject. It's no longer just a distant person against a blurry background, but an upclose person standing in a real-life environment. It allows me to tell a story through the picture. But I still want to have a powerful subject. Many wide angle shots have so much bright, colorful, and competing backgrounds it draws attention away from the subject. You could move to a more boring background, but that takes away from the picture too. The 24mm f/1.4 allows you to keep the interesting background (and foreground), but just blur them. Now the subject gets the first look and the most attention, and the colorful, interesting background is still there, but it's blurred. Some of Bryan's photos are great examples of this:
http://the-digital-picture.com/Pictures/Picture.aspx?Picture=2008-12-25_10-33-45
http://the-digital-picture.com/Pictures/Picture.aspx?Picture=2009-02-15_15-35-40
The reason why it's so fun is that instead of walking around thinking about how a scene/background will look when it's in focus (like you have to do with most wide angle lenses, especially f/4), you think about how it will look at f/1.4.
-
Re: Your most "fun" lens?
Depending on the situation it's a toss up between the 100mm 2.8 Macro and the 10-22mm EF-S Wide Angle. The wide angle probably wins simple cause I own it, the Macro is the girlfriends, so I only get to borrow it. If I had it full time I might answer differently.
Gotta get a 100mm 2.8 L.
-
Re: Your most "fun" lens?
I love using my EF 100/2.8L macro IS. Presently, it is the sharpest lens in my collection, followed by the 85/1.8, but what really contributes to the "fun" of the lens is its close focusing ability. I find myself slowing down in a good way when I use the 100/2.8L.
My second most used lens is the EF 70-200/2.8L IS, for obvious reasons--it has excellent image quality and a very useful focal length range. It would be at the top of my "fun" list except that it is heavy and conspicuous.
But for the most fun-per-dollar, I'd say it's hard to beat the EF 50/1.8 (though I don't have one, having only ever used the FD 50/1.8, which is essentially the same optics).
-
Re: Your most "fun" lens?
Daniel:
Good idea. Those are great examples. The first, of Bryan's daughter and her horse, hints at the problem one has to be aware of--"looming noses"--on the horse, not the girl! Children tend to have flatter faces than adults, so this is less of a problem with them and Bryan wasn't that close. (A 24mm would probably not work too well for close-up portraits.)
Many years ago (about 1978), an ad agency used the stable south of LA where my horse lived as a setting for photos of models wearing riding clothes. (None of the models--2 women, 1 man--had ever been ON a horse!) The photographer had extra shots left on the roll of film, so he took photos of a horse they'd used as a prop. Unfortunately, he was using a wide-angle lens (not sure what--he had a Hasselblad), so he got pretty close to the horse's face--head on. He sent the photos to the teenaged girl who owned the horse, who was quite disappointed, as her horse looked like a camel.
You do need a very fast lens to get good blurring at such a short focal length. I wish that I could afford the 24mm f/1.4L II! I do have a Sigma 30mm f/1.4--I'll have to try it this way. (I
got it and a 50mm f/1.4 to use for indoor horse shows, when the light
isn't good enough to use f/2.8 and I'm too close to the action to use
an 85mm f/1.8.)
-
Re: Your most "fun" lens?
I only own two lenses, but my Sigma 150mm Macro takes the cake, and probably would even if I had more lenses. At about the same price as Canon's 100 2.8 (non-L) it gives better background blur, further minimum focusing distance, and the same apeture. I love it, it hardly ever leaves my camera.
-
Re: Your most "fun" lens?
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Slusher
The first, of Bryan's daughter and her horse, hints at the problem one has to be aware of--"looming noses"--on the horse, not the girl!
Agreed. For most human-sized subjects I find that that the closest I want to be is a three-quarters composition. By the way, another lens that can do all the same things that I'm talking is a TS-E, but they're not as good in low light and sometimes take more time/effort to use.
-
Re: Your most "fun" lens?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whatsreal
I only own two lenses, but my Sigma 150mm Macro takes the cake, and probably would even if I had more lenses. At about the same price as Canon's 100 2.8 (non-L) it gives better background blur, further minimum focusing distance, and the same apeture. I love it, it hardly ever leaves my camera.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>
Good choice!
In case some folks aren't familiar with what leads to "blurring," note that the 150mm lens gives the same depth of field as the 100mm lens for the same framing/image size, aperture and subject-background separation (as long as you're not close to the hyperfocal distance). In order to get the same framing, you'll have to be 1.5x as far from the subject with the 150mm as with the 100mm. Here are some figures from DOFmaster:
100mm @ 4 ft, f/2.8: 3.98-4.02 ft, DOF 0.05 ft (hyperfocal distance 611 ft)
150mm @ 6ft, f/2.8: 5.98-6.02 ft, DOF 0.05 ft (hyperfocal distance 1374 ft)
Thus, a particular feature in the background will be identically "blurred" with both lenses.
There are differences, however, that make it look like the longer lens has "better" background blur. Bryan explains this very well with examples in his review of the Canon 180mm f/3.5L Macro lens. The longer focal-length lens has a narrower angle of view, which means that less of the background shows and, conversely, each bit of the background is magnified, which makes it look more blurred.
I've seen this, myself, with my two macro lenses--Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM & Sigma 180mm f/3.5 EX DG APO (whatever all those mean!). The major advantage of the 180mm lens to me is the greater "working distance." The practical disadvantages are the weight (35 oz vs 21 oz), bulk (7.2" long vs 4.7") and difficulty in keeping it still. I need to use a monopod or tripod for macro shots with the 180mm much more often than with the 100mm. Of course, some sort of steady support is a good idea with ANY macro photography, but carrying and setting up a tripod in the field can be a real PITA. The good thing is that the 180mm lens works better with a monopod, in part because it has a collar.
-
Re: Your most "fun" lens?
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Slusher
What lens, for you, is the most "fun" to use?
The EF 17-35 f2.8L on my 5D... I shoot from the hip a lot with this lens. It's not just about wide angle but the perspective that these wider angles create. It's shorter and lighter than my 28-70 f2.8L so shooting one handed can be done easily.
Here's a couple of my favorite fun shotsfrom this summer's vacation:
I love the way it isolates my son but paints the wide expanse of the beach behind him. The color and contrast that I get from this lens is classic L supreme!!
http://ChuckLee.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p570984888-3.jpg
<span sizcache="40" sizset="1"]Canon EOS 5D, EF 17-35 f/2.8L, <span class="nowrap"]f/4 @ <span class="nowrap"]27 mm, <span class="nowrap"]1/400, <span class="nowrap"]ISO 50, <span class="nowrap"]No Flash
<span sizcache="40" sizset="1"]<span class="nowrap"]I took this one whileriding the bike with my son on the trailer bike in tow. I love the angle!
<span sizcache="40" sizset="1"]<span class="nowrap"][url="http://ChuckLee.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p997888660-4.jpg][/url]http://ChuckLee.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p997888660-4.jpg
Canon EOS 5D, EF 17-35 f/2.8L, <span class="nowrap"]f/8 @ <span class="nowrap"]19 mm, <span class="nowrap"]1/640, <span class="nowrap"]ISO 200, <span class="nowrap"]No Flash
<span class="nowrap"]Fun stuff challenge: Post examples of your fun lens photos!!
-
Re: Your most "fun" lens?
My "most fun" lens is my 100/2.8 Macro.
-
Re: Your most "fun" lens?
I'd have to say my nifty fifty is actually my most fun lens. I love getting [decent] bokeh. I have a hard time getting the same blur from my 70-200 f/4L even though it's really fun to use too. With my next $100 I plan on getting a lomo fisheye camera and I assume that will take the 50 1.8's place as most fun. Gotta have the fisheye for some winter snowboard shots! :) Good topic!
-Rodger
-
Re: Your most "fun" lens?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck Lee
The EF 17-35 f2.8L on my 5D... I shoot from the hip a lot with this lens. It's not just about wide angle but the perspective that these wider angles create. It's shorter and lighter than my 28-70 f2.8L so shooting one handed can be done easily
Interesting! Those older lenses are still really good! (The current lenses are 16-35 f/2.8L & 24-70 f/2.8L.)
One note: perspective does not depend upon the lens focal length but solely upon the relative location of the camera and the subject. It may seem that a wide-angle lens has a different perspective than a telephoto lens, but, if the subject is the same distance from the camera, the perspective will be the same. What happens, often, is that people CHANGE the distance--they move in closer with a shorter lens to "fill the frame."
What the focal length determines is how much is shown in the image--the angle of view. If you take a photo with a 20mm lens and crop it to 40% in each dimension, it will look exactly the same as a photo taken from the same spot with a 50mm lens. Crop it to 10% of each dimension and it will look the same as a photo taken with a 200mm lens from that spot. (By "look the same," of course, I'm ignoring the difference in the number of pixels.)
Here's a demo. I had to "fudge" the magnification ratio for the last comparison, rather than using exactly 0.25. Even though the EXIF said exactly 100mm & 400mm, the real focal lengths could be different. All the photos were taken with a 30D & 100-400mm L IS lens mounted on a tripod. Exposure was AV auto @ f/8 & ISO 100. The shutter speed was 1/250 for the 100mm & 200mm shots, 1/200 for the 400mm shot, as it didn't have as much sky. <span style="text-decoration: line-through;"]By keeping the aperture constant, there's no change in depth of field. {Edit: insert sound of a self-administered dope-slap. The DOF does change with focal length, but the distance is so great--well past the hyperfocal distance--216 ft @ 100mm, 3455 ft @ 400mm--that any change would be hard to notice.} The autofocus point was in the middle, as I recall.
First, the scene at 100mm.
http://homepage.mac.com/gslusher/.Pi..._100mm_800.jpg
Now, compare the scene shot at 200mm"
http://homepage.mac.com/gslusher/.Pi..._200mm_800.jpg
with a crop of the 100mm shot (the magnification is a bit different--the lens reported 200mm but appears to be a bit less than that), plus the camera may have shifted a little bit.
http://homepage.mac.com/gslusher/.Pi...-200mm_800.jpg
Now, compare the scene shot at 400mm
http://homepage.mac.com/gslusher/.Pi..._400mm_800.jpg
with a crop of the 100mm image. (This time, I "fudged" the cropping ratio to get closer to the actual magnification ratio.)
http://homepage.mac.com/gslusher/.Pi...-400mm_800.jpg
Ignore slight shifts right/left & up/down and minor differences in the magnification. Instead, look at the perspective--the relationships between objects in the image. Note that the perspective is the SAME in all the images.
-
Re: Your most "fun" lens?
Excellent demonstration, George. Thanks. Perspective is a pretty fundamental element of composition. It would be neat to see all the images cropped to the same field of view, too.
-
Re: Your most "fun" lens?
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Slusher
One note: perspective does not depend upon the lens focal length but solely upon the relative location of the camera and the subject. It may seem that a wide-angle lens has a different perspective than a telephoto lens, but, if the subject is the same distance from the camera, the perspective will be the same. What happens, often, is that people CHANGE the distance--they move in closer with a shorter lens to "fill the frame."
Come on George, your nit-pick'n.You use a wide angle lens which forces you to move closer to the subject to fill the frame which in turn changes the perspective. If I tried to shoot my son on the trailer bike behind me with a 100-400mm lens I might have gotten a blurry image of his face against a blue/gray background. That was hardly the "perspective" I was looking for.
Let me re-state: It's not just about wide angle but the perspective that these wider angles <span style="text-decoration: line-through;"]create. generate because of my ability to get closer tothe subject.
There, is that better? Geezze, I thought this was a thread about fun-lenses?
So, post some of those fun-lens pics already.....[:D] Not boring illustrations of cropped perspectives. LOL!!
-
Re: Your most "fun" lens?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
Excellent demonstration, George. Thanks. Perspective is a pretty fundamental element of composition. It would be neat to see all the images cropped to the same field of view, too.
I'm not sure what you mean, except to also crop the 200mm shot to the equivalent of 400mm.
-
Re: Your most "fun" lens?
Yeah, I just meant having the 100mm, 200mm, and 400mm all right next to eachother.
-
Re: Your most "fun" lens?
16-35 2.8L II
I like wide angles. I really like shooting at 35mm but then being able to get that ultra wide perspective at 16mm with flick of the wrist. The sharpness is very good and 2.8 is fast enough most of the time with the sensitivity of the 5DmkII.
My 24-70 is running a close 2nd. I love the versatility of this lens.
-
Re: Your most "fun" lens?
Chuck:
First, you just repeated what I said. Second, there is a common misconception that the focal length of a lens affects perspective, which is not correct. In art and photography, perspective has a definition: From dictionary.com:
"The appearance of objects in depth as perceived by normal binocular vision."
"The state of existing in space before the eye"
Thus, the way you use "perspective" in the second paragraph is not correct. The perspective would be the SAME, regardless of which lens you used.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck Lee
So, post some of those fun-lens pics already.....[img]/emoticons/emotion-2.gif[/img] Not boring illustrations of cropped perspectives. LOL!!
As Daniel said, perspective is an important part of composition. That's one reason (not the only) to use lenses of different focal lengths. We could establish the perspective we want by choosing an appropriate location, then choose the focal length (and/or cropping) to control how much of the scene (field of view) to include in the image. Here's an illustration, two photos taken with my "fun" lenses.
http://homepage.mac.com/gslusher/.Pi...pples_10mm.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/gslusher/.Pi...ples_100mm.jpg
Notice any difference, aside from being taken from slightly different angles and shifted? (Plus, the second was taken 15 minutes later, late in the day, so there's a difference in the shadows.)
The top photo was taken at 10mm (Sigma 10-20mm), the bottom at 100mm (Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro). Since the the apples are nearly the same size, the bottom photo was taken from about 10x the distance of the top photo. That translates into a major difference in perspective.
-
Re: Your most "fun" lens?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith B
16-35 2.8L II
I like wide angles. I really like shooting at 35mm but then being able to get that ultra wide perspective at 16mm with flick of the wrist. The sharpness is very good and 2.8 is fast enough most of the time with the sensitivity of the 5DmkII.
My 24-70 is running a close 2nd. I love the versatility of this lens.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>
What body are you using?
-
Re: Your most "fun" lens?
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Slusher
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith B
16-35 2.8L II
I like wide angles. I really like shooting at 35mm but then being able to get that ultra wide perspective at 16mm with flick of the wrist. The sharpness is very good and 2.8 is fast enough most of the time with the sensitivity of the 5DmkII.
My 24-70 is running a close 2nd. I love the versatility of this lens.
What body are you using?
5D mkII
-
Re: Your most "fun" lens?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith B
5D mkII
Despite what the Commandments say, I covet that camera! [:P] Some day, I might be able to get at least the Mk I, used. Right now, my first priority would be a 40D or 50D.
-
Re: Your most "fun" lens?
-
Re: Your most "fun" lens?
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Slusher
Despite what the Commandments say, I
covet that camera! [img]/emoticons/emotion-4.gif[/img] Some day, I might be able to get at least the Mk I, used. Right now, my first priority would be a 40D or 50D.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>
yeah, me too. And L series lenses, and a nice tripod....if I weren't protestant I would be in confession 4 times a day!
-
Re: Your most "fun" lens?
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Slusher
Despite what the Commandments say, I covet that camera! [img]/emoticons/emotion-4.gif[/img] Some day, I might be able to get at least the Mk I, used. Right now, my first priority would be a 40D or 50D.
I'd actually prefer the file size of the 5DmkI. 21MP will fill up HDs pretty fast. Love the 5DmkII for products, landscape and portraiture shots.
I still shoot with my 40D all the time, for my bad weather, sports and telephoto stuff. I love that camera. If focuses faster and the frames/sec are sooooo much faster the the 5DmkII. The only lenses the 40D see are the 100+400 and occasionally the 70-200.
-
Re: Your most "fun" lens?
The EF 400mm f/5.6L USM is my most fun lens [:D]. Image quality is excellent, it's small and light. I can handhold it all day long with no problem.
-
Re: Your most "fun" lens?
For me, probably 35 f1.4
Kind of wide, good for playing with perspective, but still 'normal' enough for a wide array of situations. Great in low light, so I don't have to worry much about flash.
Macro work with any lens is really fun, but usually more tedious to really get what I want, and so requires a greater investment in setup time.
With the 35, I just fling my camera around, and see what I get.
-
Re: Your most "fun" lens?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinh Nhut Nguyen
The EF 400mm f/5.6L USM is my most fun lens [img]/emoticons/emotion-2.gif[/img]. Image quality is excellent, it's small and light. I can handhold it all day long with no problem.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>
Yeah, that's a fun lens too... And the image quality you get, all things considered, is thoroughly ridiculously good...
I really love that one, and the macro, and the 70-200, and the 'normal' zooms, and the less than super telephoto primes, and the wide angle zoom...
I tend to enjoy the lens that's on my camera when I'm holding it the most...
Tough question, I guess..
For me, I think the answer probably changes from week to week.
What would really be the most fun lens is the one that gives me for free time to take pictures...
-
Re: Your most "fun" lens?
George,
Great thread!
For me, it has to be my Lensbaby Composer. I don't always get great results with it, but using it is definitely fun fun fun.
Tony
-
Re: Your most "fun" lens?
EF 100mm f/2.8 IS MACRO USM for the following reasons:
- Yes, Bryan is right, macro lenses are extremely much fun per dollar. Being able to get close-ups of familiar objects from a different perspective (you don't always need to go to 1:1) is so much fun. What augments the fun-factor of the new IS macro over the old non-IS macro is that it is very much more handholdable at macro-distances. It sometimes gets me a shot without a tripod. Being forced to use a tripod for macro is ... not so much fun.
- Moreover, this lens also doubles as a perfect portrait lens, adding another dimension to "fun". Bokeh is wonderful.
- Also, the lens CAN be stopped down to f/32 if extreme DOF is needed, (albeit at the price of less sharpness at the correct focussing distance due to diffraction), which sometimes can come handy.
- 100mm is also useful for a great number of shots: city-scapes, landscapes, ...
Although my 24-105 can obviously get me shots that the macro can't, and I would rate it a more "useful" lens, the macro is more fun.
It also depends a little upon the time of-year. Around X-mas my EF 50mm f/1.4 USM becomes my favourite lens, due to its incredible speed which (paired with high ISO settings of 1600+) is unbeatable under the X-mas tree or a candle-light dinner. Forget the macro then! Though this lens is a bit bitchy, because I find I (or "it") misfocuses quite often just a small amount in low-light, but at an Av of under 2 even the smallest amount of misfocussing is annoying, which subtracts from the fun-factor. The AF-assist beam of my flash helps a lot, however. Despite its tantrums, and despite I use it really infrequently, at times, this is my most-fun (or should it be my funniest?) lens.
-
Re: Your most "fun" lens?
most fun? I like the 70-200 f/2.8 LIS on a x1.6 crop (yes! it gives me more range on the long end!) its great to get those candid shots!
-e
-
Re: Your most "fun" lens?
50 f/1.4 Great lens for the dollar. Forces you to take a piece, not the whole pie, but the result is that your shots are always more soulful and interesting. Also the fact that it's laser sharp and super fast makes it a pretty great thing to have with you always. I just wish I had a 5d mark II so I could get some insane low light speed and quality.
