Your Favorite Lens

Sometimes I get so busy with the blog that I don't have time to post anything on the blog. That one has to go into the "ironies" folder.

Anyway, I thought I'd toss this out. I was watching a video of a presentation yesterday given by Harry Pearson, the founding editor of The Absolute Sound, and he mentioned a peculiar predicament that he'd gotten himself into, something that's also pretty ironic. Long ago he published his "Super Disk List"—his choices of the best recordings ever put on vinyl (the list was first published many years ago, and many times since); but then he had a fire, and lost all his records—at which point he discovered that he could no longer afford to replace his own record collection, because he himself had driven up the prices on the very records he liked best to the point that they were too expensive for him to buy.

I've had that happen a couple of times—I've extolled the virtues of a particular piece of used equipment, usually a lens, in a magazine, or on the web, or both, only to see its value on the used market go up and up to the point that I can't afford it myself any more.

Obviously the paradigm has shifted now—people aren't using the same cameras, and in many case they're not using the same lenses, either, so I don't know how much of a traceable effect, if any, a "Super Lens List" written by me would have—possibly very little. But every time I think of writing an article about "My Favorite Lenses of All Time," this is the nagging thought stays my hand.

Of my six all-time favorite lenses, for instance, I currently own only two, and one of them is a pretty poor sample that I really should replace with a better one. But what I envision is that if I write about how great my favorite lenses are, the prices of them on the used market will go up, and then I won't be able to buy any of them myself. As I say, I don't even know for sure that this would happen, but it has so far prevented me from writing about the subject.

So let me edge into the subject this way—how about you? Do you have an all-time favorite lens—that you would be willing to name, I mean? I don't mean your "best," or "most expensive," or "most used" lens, but the one you love the best, of all the ones you've ever owned or used.

If you can link to a picture taken with it, so much the better.

And if you'd rather not say—I understand!

Mike

Send this post to a friend

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...

Featured Comment by Jonas Yip:

"My favorite lens is one that I made myself out of a 99-cent store magnifying glass. It has become so 'valuable' to me now (after several exhibits of images solely from this lens) that I went back to the 99-cent store and bought a stack of those magnifying glasses in case I ever lose the current one. Here is one series."

Featured Comment by Carl Weese:

"Okay, I can't resist. Under your definition, I love my 1967 vintage 35mm Summilux because, simply, it was the lens I used to make the earliest of my pictures that I still consider good. Eight of the 12 shots in this little gallery were made with it in 1969–70. The other four were with the 28mm Elmarit, a lens I never felt as much affection for, but still liked enormously more than anything I currently use on DSLR cameras. And I do really, really, like the 240mm Apo-Sironar S I use for most pictures with my 8x10 Deardorff, like the one above—roughly equivalent focal length to the 35mm."

Comments

[Chris]

I've got two:

I will never part with my Pentax FA 77mm f1.8 Limited. I really plan to be buried with this lens. I can't find anything to fault about it, and I just love the pictures that come out of it. Sharpness, color, bokeh, etc. etc. The lens just delivers. Example Photo

For their 35th Anniversary, Tamron pulled out all the stops and built a top quality 180mm f2.5 for their Adaptall line. They limited production to 3000 units. That's really a shame, because the lens is fantastic. It can be a challenge to use wide open, but it's really sharp at f2.5. By f5.6, it's as sharp as any lens I've ever used. Color and bokeh are equally impressive. Using this one is a true treat. Example Photo

[David Ray Carson]

I bought Jonas Yip's square-hooded f/1.0 Noctilux six years ago, and it is my do-not-sell lens. Besides some large format swirl-kings and the occasional Diana shot, one cannot get that cool swirly bokeh/vignetting. And with LF/Diana's, it's either not fast or predictable. Of course, there is a heaping amount of irony to own an expensive Leica lens to replicate a common magnifying glass effect, but hey, I can focus!

Not everybody's cup of tea, but it tastes great to me.

Jonas, did you test out the Noct before deciding on the cheapo lens for your dreamy shots?

[Miserere]

Jon Schick wrote: Of my SLR lenses [...] my old Tamron 500mm SP. [...] it's a cheap secondhand buy, compact, a great solution for us city folk who rarely need such a long lens...

So jon, you just happened to take this photograph on a walk 'round the city, did you? I'd like to live in your city! :-D

[Iñaki]

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...
FA 43, dare I say?
But I´m starting to like the "nice and quiet" attitude of the FA 50. If lenses ever had personalities and talk to you, the FastFifty will be that quiet friend who is there always with a smile, no matter how long you´ve left him behind.

[Jason H.]

I have really enjoyed going through the comments on this, I hope they continue. I'm pretty new to the sport, but have tried to explore what I could. I think most of my favorites have been mentioned. My first decent lens was the Minolta 35-70 f/4. Not so good for crop digital, but sharp, tiny, and introduced me to the Minolta color. I later had the 28-85 f/3.5-4.5, not as sharp, but more useful on crop, and got a lot of use. I thought about trying to go with Sony FF just to use that 35-70, esp since it would have IS. I also had the 50/1.7 and 70-210/4 Beercan, all of those early Minolta lenses were quite nice, but certainly not designed to ever manual focus.

I moved to Canon in part because used 5Ds are so darn cheap. On Canon I wanted to replicate that tiny 35-70, and the 24-85 3.5-4.5 has come pretty close. Not quite as small and no IS, but bigger range and USM.

There just isn't as much magic in Canon EOS lenses though. A lot of people mention the 35/2, and it is a nice one, but Canon stuff is just consistently good, with less personality.

The Canon 85/1.8 is my favorite by far. It is an incredible lens for the price. Still nothing really magical about it, but it focuses fast, and takes great portraits on crop or FF.

These comments made me decide to try some adapted stuff. I currently have a Helios 44-2 on the way to try out, and if I like it a few are on my list, probably the Zeiss 50/1.4 being near the top.

[Chris]

Besides some large format swirl-kings and the occasional Diana shot, one cannot get that cool swirly bokeh/vignetting.

There are swirly lenses out there. I own two swirlers:

Vivitar 85mm f1.8 Pre-set T-mount Example">http://www.flickr.com/photos/ghosstrider/2946171732/">Example

Vivitar 70-150mm f3.8 (at the 150mm end) Example

Additionally, some of the Yashica TLRs seem to be real swirlers. There's a group dedicated to swirly lenses over at Flickr.

[Jonas Yip]

Jonas, did you test out the Noct before deciding on the cheapo lens for your dreamy shots?

David, glad the Noct has worked out for you. When I had it, I kept an ND filter attached and shot at 1.0 for the most part... but the look never really resonated with me, and the handling slowed me down too much (long focus throw), so I found myself not using it. Instead I found that I preferred my other lenses (35,50,75 lux) for wide-open fun... and so now the Noct is yours, and getting used like it ought to be.

[BrianW]

The Olympus Zuiko 85mm F/2 (mine is a late-ish MC) has been closest to my heart for 20 years. It's smaller than most maker's 50s.

The Canon EF 85mm F/1.8 is a great replacement - and amazing wide-open - but is twice the size. But then, the 5D is twice the size of my OMs...

[Bill Symmons]

My favourite lenses for their beautiful tonal quality and balanced sharpness are

Canon 50mm f1.5 leica screw mount
Takumar 135mm f3.5
Travenar 90mm f2.5 pentax mount

Current lens that impresses me - Olympus 50-200mm

[Aaron Dill]

Nikon's 35mm f2 is the lens I'm most likely to stick on my camera if I'm photographing for myself (oddly, whether or not I'm using a DX or FX Nikon).

The Nikon 105mm DC lens is my favorite lens that I still haven't really wrapped my head around. I feel like my best pictures from it are better than most, but I get fewer great photos from it than when I'm using other lenses. I haven't figured out why that is yet.

[Robbie Corrigan]

This is a hard one... 43 or 77? I carry both with me at all times along with the K20. Both are majestic. I will blame you Mike for getting both... Thank You so much! :)

The 43 is well you can do anything with it, low light? no problem, portrait? walk a bit closer, take in a scene? put the camera to your eye and focus. I hesitate to call it an all rounder because that would mean its ultimately deficient somewhere but I have not found any weakness yet except maybe for the possibilty to lose the hood. A couple of my favourite shots with this beauty:

http://robbiecc.smugmug.com/Photography/SMCP-FA-43-Limited-F19/IMGP3979b/712710159_u5RAn-M.jpg

and
http://robbiecc.smugmug.com/Photography/SMCP-FA-43-Limited-F19/IMGP4421/750262571_GEijV-M-2.jpg

Then there is the 77... You just have to look at it to know it means business and yet... its got a crazy side. My first ever shot with it, grey miserable and wet (typical Irish December) and I was in love :)

http://robbiecc.smugmug.com/Photography/SMCP-FA-43-Limited-F19/IMGP4477/750028393_SABTQ-M.jpg

[phil wright]

What an interesting and eclectic array of answers! Must say those Pentax 43 and 77 lenses look sensational. I like the Summicron 35mm vers IV that was my first Leica lens when I bought into the M system last year. I guess I read a lot about what would be a good first lens beforehand (not least here- thank you!) and I just love that little lens. It is so expressive - the dark to light transition in backlit scenes is super beautiful, as is the sharp/unsharp transition eg http://photoeclipse.zenfolio.com/p788068857/h3b60eb04#h3b60eb04 and I reckon it is more than enough lens to justify an M camera all by itself.

I also look back fondly on photos I took with my old FD 135mm Canon F2.5 - long since stolen, but a lovely soft, silvery quality eg http://photoeclipse.zenfolio.com/p833821484/h56d37b0#h56d37b0.

Oh, and can I sneak in another vote for the Olympus 50mm f2 for four thirds eg http://photoeclipse.zenfolio.com/p790664186/h7687fd6#h7687fd6? If it has to be digital, they don't come any better than this one.

Cheers, Phil

[RYAN]

Pentax A* 200mm Macro, followed closely by Pentax FA* 85mm 1.4.