Your most "fun" lens?

[George Slusher]

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?

[bob williams]

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.

[Daniel Browning]

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.

[George Slusher]

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.)

[Dan Fleming]

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.

[George Slusher]

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 &amp; 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.

[Daniel Browning]

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.

[Cory]

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.

[wickerprints]

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).

[Chuck Lee]

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!!





<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]


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!!