Whats your favorite Canon Lens?

M

McNyat

Suspended / Banned
Messages
493
Name
Ciaran
Edit My Images
Yes
Good evening everyone. Im sure that most of you, if not all, have that one lens that yiu jyst live and keep using more that the rest. Mines so far is the 70-200 f2.8 which seems to cover almost all of my shooting. I have added the 300mm f2.8 recently for sports, which is great for that reason, but I dont get to use it for anything else. Im thinking more now about going for the 85mm f1.4 and just wanted to see if it might be anyone's fav lens above all others, and if it is def worth the spend? All lenses mentioned above are ef mount and part of Canons 'L' spec range. Looking forward to hearing what you all think?
Thanks
 
All Canon 'L' lenses in order of favouritism.

1) 70-200 f2.8
2) 300 f2.8
3) 135 f2

I did have a 85mm f1.2 but it was very slow at focusing.
 
That’s a hard question- my favourite lens that I’ve loved more than any other for its versatility would be the RF 15-35 and the 24-70. In terms of character, maybe the 35 1.4 or 85 1.2. But desert island lens - 15-35 for sure!
 
The 15-85 that came with my 7D, a good walk round lens that covers most focal length needs, just a shame it isn't a bit faster.
 
For me it was the EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM. It was really an L lens for EF-S bodies.

I loved mine but had to go when I got a 1Dmk4, I guess now it's 24-70 2.8 L or 70-200 2.8 L

I've not bought any new glass for many years so little to compare.
 
Last edited:
They are all favourites for one thing or another :) If I have to pick one, probably the EF 200 F 2.0.
 
Such a hard question, it really depends on your mood and what you're shooting. In no particular order:

EF 135 f/2 L Just fantastic
EF 100 f/2.8 L My best value lens, it gets the most use of all of my lenses
EF 24-70 f/4 L Great walkabout lens
EF 17-40 f/4 L Another great walkabout lens, but for a wider view


I also have an EF 85 f/1.2 L, and it is fantastic - but, oh, so heavy.
 
I have owned and adapted several canon lenses but for me probably the 100mm f2
Seems like a lens that's no longer in fashion these days. It's not available on any brand. Only other AF version i know off is the the minolta one which IMO was overpriced compared to better performing canon EF version.
 
Of all that i owned and actually need only rf 70-200 f4 meets the expectations
400 5.6 is fine too, just dont really need it

Still struggling with ef 16-35 iii, and have long dumped and replaced all the rest with sigma art aging range
 
nandbytes said:
I have owned and adapted several canon lenses but for me probably the 100mm f2
Seems like a lens that's no longer in fashion these days. It's not available on any brand. Only other AF version i know off is the the minolta one which IMO was overpriced compared to better performing canon EF version.
Click to expand...

Yeah it’s a focal length I’ve always liked got the 105 1.4 from Sigma which is astonishing but really heavy. Also got the 100mm macro which is a nice portrait lens.
 
cuthbert said:
Yeah it’s a focal length I’ve always liked got the 105 1.4 from Sigma which is astonishing but really heavy. Also got the 100mm macro which is a nice portrait lens.
Click to expand...
135 1.8 is the best compromise between all of them
 
cuthbert said:
Yeah it’s a focal length I’ve always liked got the 105 1.4 from Sigma which is astonishing but really heavy. Also got the 100mm macro which is a nice portrait lens.
Click to expand...
Yeah the 105mm f1.4 is massive :(
Though the nikon variant is a bit more manageable

LongLensPhotography said:
135 1.8 is the best compromise between all of them
Click to expand...
It's a bit too long for my uses.

For me 85mm primes are a better option than going longer.
 
nandbytes said:
Yeah the 105mm f1.4 is massive :(
Though the nikon variant is a bit more manageable


It's a bit too long for my uses.

For me 85mm primes are a better option than going longer.
Click to expand...
85mm can also create nice images, but typical mfd is very poor on most of them, no matter the system. I looked btw. Tight headshot or close-up simply isn't happening. I cant imagine many situations where walking back half a meter or a meter isn't an option.
The last sigma 85 for canon is actually much bigger than their 135. Just a little fact. But both are well optically corrected unlike 85mm dn e mount version. You actually have an option of 50-150f2 on sony and thats one i really want. No chance of it from canon, unless it is maybe 80% ff once again
 
LongLensPhotography said:
85mm can also create nice images, but typical mfd is very poor on most of them, no matter the system. I looked btw. Tight headshot or close-up simply isn't happening. I cant imagine many situations where walking back half a meter or a meter isn't an option.
The last sigma 85 for canon is actually much bigger than their 135. Just a little fact. But both are well optically corrected unlike 85mm dn e mount version. You actually have an option of 50-150f2 on sony and thats one i really want. No chance of it from canon, unless it is maybe 80% ff once again
Click to expand...

That is true, 85mm lenses have terrible mfd. The only exception i know off is the RF 85mm f2 but it's AF isn't great.
Though this hasn't caused me too many issues even with shooting people, I don't mind cropping in a little if needed.

While walking around is one thing, the field of view isn't the same when you zoom with in or out with your feet. But I can get 135mm field of view (or close enough) with a 1.5x crop, the other way round its not possible.

Currently I use a samyang 85mm f1.4 mk2 and have used various 85mm primes (85/1.8, 85GM, 85DN) since switching from the EF100 f2 to a native e-mount lens.

But I do miss the closer MFD of the 35GM after swapping it for new Sigma 35mm f1.2ii :(
 
Thanks everyone for your replies. If im being honest, im surprised that the 85mm f1.4L hasn't featured here, as alot of people seem to absolutely love it???
 
LongLensPhotography said:
135 1.8 is the best compromise between all of them
Click to expand...

The Canon 135 f2 (which I still have) was my first L lens - I lusted after it, I loved the rendering and bokeh, but over time, I really started to dislike the compression and flattening effect - I actually had more than one person who I'd taken portraits with it saying they didn't like how it made their face look fat. I do most headshots with an 85 which I think is a good balance - but as you suggested earlier the MFD is pretty bad and the AF is slow slow slow - but it has a lot of character. I still wonder whether I should pick up an old EF 50 1.2 as a dreamy in-between - I have the 1.4 and it's not too different but the rendering is nicer.

I think my style of photography has moved towards wider as I've got older - I shot for many years with a 50 1.4, then a Sigma 40 1.4, and then I found 24mm and if you look at most of the photos I take, most of them now are at either 24 or 35 - it just feels natural - and I love the depth those focal lengths can create.
 
McNyat said:
Thanks everyone for your replies. If im being honest, im surprised that the 85mm f1.4L hasn't featured here, as alot of people seem to absolutely love it???
Click to expand...
the vcm one has only been around for weeks. If not the price I would try it.

The old EF one, however is arguably slightly behind sigma but much more expensive. The IS is nice, but nearly pointless when you have IBIS and presumably a whole bunch of strobes.
 
nandbytes said:
That is true, 85mm lenses have terrible mfd. The only exception i know off is the RF 85mm f2 but it's AF isn't great.
Though this hasn't caused me too many issues even with shooting people, I don't mind cropping in a little if needed.

While walking around is one thing, the field of view isn't the same when you zoom with in or out with your feet. But I can get 135mm field of view (or close enough) with a 1.5x crop, the other way round its not possible.

Currently I use a samyang 85mm f1.4 mk2 and have used various 85mm primes (85/1.8, 85GM, 85DN) since switching from the EF100 f2 to a native e-mount lens.

But I do miss the closer MFD of the 35GM after swapping it for new Sigma 35mm f1.2ii :(
Click to expand...
I don't so much mind the difference between 85 and 135 fov. I have both. I just feel like Sigma ART 135mm is much better than 85mm, and 85mm isn't bad. You get that insane sharpness wide open, whereas 85mm is just a little dreamy at f/1.4 (probably preferable for older skin LOL), and that super critical corner sharpness only comes after f/2.8. The MFD, that front size just puts you off a little.
I would really like to get my hands on 135mm f/1.4 ART. I don't really need it, other than maybe better flare control.

however I feel very strongly about not using anything under 50mm for people. These are strictly architectural, landscape and lifestyle lenses.
 
EF 80-200mm f/2.8L (aka the magic drainpipe) for no other reason than it was my first L lens 35(ish) years ago
 
No favourites as it depends on the subject but I do really like the EF 85mm f1.8.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
I don't so much mind the difference between 85 and 135 fov. I have both. I just feel like Sigma ART 135mm is much better than 85mm, and 85mm isn't bad. You get that insane sharpness wide open, whereas 85mm is just a little dreamy at f/1.4 (probably preferable for older skin LOL), and that super critical corner sharpness only comes after f/2.8. The MFD, that front size just puts you off a little.
I would really like to get my hands on 135mm f/1.4 ART. I don't really need it, other than maybe better flare control.

however I feel very strongly about not using anything under 50mm for people. These are strictly architectural, landscape and lifestyle lenses.
Click to expand...

the 135mm f1.4 is certainly one I'd like to have a go at :D
Amazing what sigma are doing these days. Oh and also that 14mm f1.4, though the recent canon RF version looks smaller and lighter.

Indoors i find 35mm useful for people. though its mostly for landscapes and night time landscapes/astro shots.
 
My favourite Canon lens is the 300 2.8 IS mk 2 had it a long time now use it with and without TCs for wildlife and birds unfortunately not made anymore and can’t think of anything that I would replace it with
My favourite non Canon lens is the Sigma 150 macro non OS a bit slow focusing but incredibly sharp and gives lovely out of focus backgrounds for macro
 
nandbytes said:
Oh and also that 14mm f1.4, though the recent canon RF version looks smaller and lighter.
Click to expand...
I would 100% go for the sigma if you require 14mm. It is half price, but sharper and actually full frame unlike canon which is more like 80% (image height 18.6mm) with massive barrel distortion. It gets stretched, and may look reasonable enough given that it resolves ok, but you can very clearly tell the difference. I had a very good play with 24 and 20mm raw files and it is very very noticeable. If requirements are only 4000-5000 long edge and you are throwing 45mp at it, obviously it will completely hide it. The only way to really justify these lenses is develop insane resolution cameras beyond anyone's needs
 
Yes, the 70-200mm f2.8 but also the 25-105mm f4. However, I rarely use my Canon now as it is too heavy.

Dave
 
@McNyat I do like the ef 85 1.4 a lot. I have the RF 85 1.2 but have still kept 1.4 as a) it's much lighter and b) I haven't switch all the camera bodies to RF so sometimes need it for filming. I also like many of the lenses mentioned 135 2 (RF 135 1.8 is better), EF 35 1.4 mk2, EF 300 2.8. I'm not so keen on the EF 70-200 2.8 M2 that I have. It's good for filming, but for stills always found the results a bit soft.
 
hunnymonster said:
EF 80-200mm f/2.8L (aka the magic drainpipe) for no other reason than it was my first L lens 35(ish) years ago
Click to expand...
^^^^ That lens has a wonderful rendering wide open throughout the focal length range, as called the Sport Illustrated.
By today's standards it is soooooo slow focusing but I love that lens, or I did when I had an EOS 5 and then a 5D.

Of equal irreverence to the question, my most used Canon lens is my 50mm f/1.4 in Leica screw mount with a LTM to Leica M mount adapter on either a M2 film or M typ.240 digital camera.
 
I moved from Canon to micro 4/3 years ago and the lens that hurt the most to let go was an old beaten up 300mm f/4 L (non IS). Not too big/heavy, very sharp and contrasty, still good with teleconverters. It just seemed to be a lens that was almost incapable of taking a bad photo (despite being operated by me!).
 
Sorry, im tweaking things a little here.... I have been given the opportunity to buy a Campn 24-70 f2.8 in good condition and wondering if it might be a good upgrade to my f.4 versio. I bought my f4 new, and it still in the exact same condition as I haven't used it as much as I thought I would (prob mainly to f4 in low light not being great). Id say approx £150 to £200 would make the change....... is it worth it?
 
McNyat said:
Sorry, im tweaking things a little here.... I have been given the opportunity to buy a Campn 24-70 f2.8 in good condition and wondering if it might be a good upgrade to my f.4 versio. I bought my f4 new, and it still in the exact same condition as I haven't used it as much as I thought I would (prob mainly to f4 in low light not being great). Id say approx £150 to £200 would make the change....... is it worth it?
Click to expand...

If you are talking about the RF 24-70 2.8, this is an excellent lens - incredibly sharp throughout the range with equally good micro contrast. Highly recommended, a real workhorse and Swiss army knife of a lens.

Though if you haven’t used the f4 version, is it because it’s f4 or just because you don’t use those focal ranges all that much?
 
cuthbert said:
If you are talking about the RF 24-70 2.8, this is an excellent lens - incredibly sharp throughout the range with equally good micro contrast. Highly recommended, a real workhorse and Swiss army knife of a lens.

Though if you haven’t used the f4 version, is it because it’s f4 or just because you don’t use those focal ranges all that much?
Click to expand...
Its because of the aperture
 
Macro EF 100mm 1:2.8 USM, which I use for most of my museum archive photography, quick to focus and super sharp (maybe just a bit behind the L version but not so much that you would notice, I expect). It was also pretty cheap when I bought it used last year. Under some circumstances I revert to a Sigma 50mm macro and even a Canon 40/2.8 'macro', which is a great lens. I'm a museum volunteer so don't have a funded budget for equipment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top