# What's the nicest lens you've used?



## keith204 (Apr 2, 2008)

I went to a NASCAR race and saw about 300 photographers (didn't count, but there were a lot), 90% of them were shooting with Canon gear.  Most of them had those HUGE EXOTIC L series lenses, gotta be 400 2.8 and bigger, going for thousands upon thousands a piece.

Just seems crazy...I mean, do THAT many people get to a point where those lenses actually make them that kind of money to afford them?

So, what's the most exotic lens you've used?  And do you think the pictures you took with it could justify your use of it?


----------



## Trenton Romulox (Apr 2, 2008)

The most exotic lens I've used is probably either my 70-200mm Nikon f/2.8 VR, or my 14-24mm f/2.8. 

http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=TrentonRomulox&p=r

There's the proof. They aren't 400mm f/2.8 or anything, but they're really nice glass, I think.


----------



## Phranquey (Apr 2, 2008)

The most exotic lens I currently own is the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR.  The most exotic I have ever _used_ is a 600mm f/4 AF-S II, which was spectacular fun.  I used to own a 500mm f/4P, which was a manual focus, but I sold that not too long ago to put together funds for a 500mm or 600mm f/4 AF-S.  I shoot mostly wildlife, birds particularly, and a large lens is essential for this.

As far as all of those guys you see at big events, probably half of those are "company" lenses, and mostly pros who are able to write them off as business expense.


----------



## usayit (Apr 2, 2008)

By far the most exotic lens I've used/own







I walked in with a box of stuff for trade and walked out with just this one lens... I was in complete disbelief of what I had just done.   Love the unique images and it will take years before I can really leverage its abilities.  I'm still learning it.

The "nicest" lens I have ever used... frankly is the nifty fifty...  You can't deny the bang for the buck factor.  I upgraded to the 50mm f1.4 later on.... which is also nice.  My cousin now owns the 50mm f1.8 markI (metal mount) that I used to have.... I kinda miss it.


----------



## keith204 (Apr 2, 2008)

usayit said:


> By far the most exotic lens I've used/own
> 
> 
> 
> ...



so what's it do?


----------



## usayit (Apr 2, 2008)

Takes pictures.... actually collects light.


----------



## usayit (Apr 2, 2008)

btw... I was a bit confused at first...
Post title says "nicest" but the question in the post says "exotic"....


----------



## craig (Apr 2, 2008)

I would say my Schneider 150 for my 4x5 camera. I still use it occasionally and I am always impressed with it's colour and sharpness.

Love & Bass


----------



## MX962 (Apr 2, 2008)

has to be the ef 300L 2.8 .I'm still drooling over this one


----------



## sabbath999 (Apr 2, 2008)

The most exotic lens I have ever used (I own it) is my Meade LX200 2500mm f/10.


----------



## Phranquey (Apr 3, 2008)

> The most exotic lens I have ever used (I own it) is my Meade LX200 2500mm f/10.


 
Well, if you want to go _there_, I own a Meade 1200mm f/4.5.....:greenpbl:


----------



## eddie gunks (Apr 3, 2008)

here is one of my favorite lenses.  not sure if exotic describes it best or even if nicest does it....but it sure does work nice.  i got it for free some time ago.  so if nothing else the price was exotic!

here is a link to the lens and a photo i took with it:

http://photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=660855

(i am unable to figure out how to post a picture in the thread...sorry)

eddie


----------



## Garbz (Apr 3, 2008)

70-200mm f/2.8 and the 105mm f/2.8 VR macro both from Nikon. Yeah I know I'm boring aren't I.


----------



## [Woodsy] (Apr 3, 2008)

Has to be my 17-55. Flawless lens imho, and built like a tank!


----------



## Fate (Apr 3, 2008)

my 70-200 2.8 i guess, by no means 'exotic'... but a bloody loveeeerly piece of glass


----------



## Stranger (Apr 3, 2008)

Well, i am probably the most boring because the best i have used is either my Tamron 28-75 2.8 or the 50mm 1.8 for nikon..

This summer it will be a 105VR though when i put in the order


----------



## Big Mike (Apr 3, 2008)

> As far as all of those guys you see at big events, probably half of those are "company" lenses, and mostly pros who are able to write them off as business expense.


Bingo.

I've used the 70-200 F2.8 L IS and the 100-400 L IS.  Both are pretty cool.


----------



## Snyder (Apr 3, 2008)

nicest Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8
biggest 300mm f/2.8 with 2X teleconvertor


----------



## renegademaster88 (Apr 3, 2008)

Has to be the Canon 85mm LII f/1.2
Just a huge chunk of glass to stick in front of your camera. 

It the Canon equivalent of the Nikon 105 that used to THE portraiture lens - i can't quite figure out why Canon dont have a 100-105 version though??

Unfortunately i had to rent it  as its like £1000, oh well maybe next year.


----------



## Socrates (Apr 3, 2008)

keith204 said:


> I went to a NASCAR race and saw about 300 photographers (didn't count, but there were a lot), 90% of them were shooting with Canon gear. Most of them had those HUGE EXOTIC L series lenses, gotta be 400 2.8 and bigger, going for thousands upon thousands a piece.
> 
> Just seems crazy...I mean, do THAT many people get to a point where those lenses actually make them that kind of money to afford them?
> 
> So, what's the most exotic lens you've used? And do you think the pictures you took with it could justify your use of it?


 
Exactly what is a "nice" lens?  (Does it smile and hug you?)
What's an "exotic" lens?  (Does it dance naked?)


----------



## solrac8126 (Apr 3, 2008)

EF 70-200 2.8


----------



## Steph (Apr 3, 2008)

usayit said:


> By far the most exotic lens I've used/own
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Is that a 50mm f/1.0? If that's the case, do you have any pictures taken with it wide-opened to show us?


----------



## Iron Flatline (Apr 3, 2008)

usayit, it's the same lens for me - I know amongst some it's considered an over-hyped toy  (LensBaby for rich people is the worst I've heard it called so far) but I love it. 

Steph, here's some samples at wide open:


----------



## Iron Flatline (Apr 3, 2008)

usayit, you can let her off the hook and tell her what it's called...;-)


----------



## Helen B (Apr 3, 2008)

Here's another one:


----------



## usayit (Apr 3, 2008)

Iron Flatline said:


> usayit, you can let her off the hook and tell her what it's called...;-)




Hehehee...  N O C T I L U X.

Most of my photos are still in rolls of developed negatives shot with the M6 Titanium pictured above...  But a while back, I did experiment a little with the 50mm f1 attached to the Epson R-D1.  Works pretty well (excuse me if yall seen this photo before):

Epson R-D1 w/ noctilux shot wide open.


----------



## usayit (Apr 3, 2008)

btw.. Iron.. I like the phone booth guy...  nice one.


----------



## usayit (Apr 3, 2008)

Another one from my Epson R-D1 + Noctilux although I don't believe it was shot at wide open.  






Yes... the camera+lens was around my neck at his birth...  I actually have a photo of my son just moments out of the womb during the Cesarean before the umbilical cord was cut.  It is by far my most amazing photo... but my wife would kill me if I posted it here.  

The Nocti is heavy and slow focusing... so I still default to a more compact lens most of the time.  Everytime I shoot with it.. it does bring a smile.  People always seem to forget that it is still a versatile lens that doesn't always have to be shot wide open... portraits, landscapes, low-low-light, bright light (especially with ND filter).  Again.. by far the most exotic lens in my collection.  Well worth the price of admission which included the sale of some very nice Canon L glass... for me "worth" (OP said "justify") is measured by enjoyment I get out of the lens.. not the final print.  I'm not fooling myself into believing that I'm such a great photographer that I "deserve" such a lens....


----------



## Steph (Apr 4, 2008)

Usayit, Iron and Helen, thank you for the examples. Just out of curiosity, how easy/difficult is it to use this lens wide open? My guess is that it is quite hard to focus accurately, but then again I never had a look through the rangefinder of a Leica.



BTW Iron, I am a He not a She


----------



## Iron Flatline (Apr 4, 2008)

Sorry mate, friend of mine called Stephanie is known around here as "Steph" - goes to show what happens when you assume...

Focusing is a matter of practice, but relatively managable - thank goodness for big Rangefinder peepholes. Certain subjects (like sugar-hyped kids at a birthday party) don't lend themselves well to this kind of photography...

It's perfect for long drawn-out conversations in a pub though - see Helen's shot, for instance. 

Or here's one of my wife:


----------



## usayit (Apr 4, 2008)

Steph said:


> Usayit, Iron and Helen, thank you for the examples. Just out of curiosity, how easy/difficult is it to use this lens wide open? My guess is that it is quite hard to focus accurately, but then again I never had a look through the rangefinder of a Leica.



Much easier than manual focus on an SLR but it does take practice.  Long but accurate focusing throw is a blessing dealing with the shallow depth of field @ wide open but both the long focus throw as well as the shallow depth of field are a challenge with moving objects (1 year old running around for example).  Also, the magnification of the rangefinder is also a factor... the more magnification the easier it is to examine the rangefinder patch.  Leica also has an optional magnifier for this purpose.


----------



## notelliot (Apr 4, 2008)

nicest lens i own, gotta be the 85/1.4. used.. 200/f2 VR!


----------



## RyanLilly (Apr 5, 2008)

Well Keith, When I win the Powerball lottery, I'm going to but the used Canon 1200mm thats sitting on a shelf at B&H, not that I would ever have a need for it but I would drive around with it in the back of my Ferrari, just to see what its like to be usayit. 

But if you drop by St.Louis I'll let you touch it.


----------



## Clutch (Apr 7, 2008)

When I was a photographer in the Navy the lens in my issued equipment was a 50mm f/1.2. It wasn't fancy but it was beautiful in its simplicity and there wasn't too many low light situations I couldn't shoot in with that thing. Simple, useful and got the job done. What more can you ask for in a lens?


----------



## iflynething (Apr 7, 2008)

I really liked a Nikon 80-200 2.8 I used for a dance competition shoot. It's an old film lens but was sharp as hell.

Now the biggest was a Sigma 50-500. That thing was monsterous and I felt like the $H!T going to the Thunderbirds airshow. 

It was funny to look at the guy next to me with a lens with a teleconverter and I was probably still getting closer. Man that was a great lens but I just used it for that airshow.

~Michale~


----------



## keith204 (Apr 8, 2008)

so that 50mm f/1.0...............................

There's the $6k one you mentioned, and Canon makes a 50 1.0 for $2k.  Why don't you just get the Canon?  I mean...is the advantage being able to hook it up to the Leica?? or what?

It's an intense lens...just wondering the difference.


----------



## usayit (Apr 8, 2008)

The Canon EF 50mm f1 (old one) was not a good one from the Canon line.  Slow focusing and known to be a bit soft all around... most ended up just buying 50mm f1.4 USM for a fraction of the price.  They are mostly collectors items now... photovillage has one in mint condition for $5400.

A long time ago, Canon made a 50mm f0.95 for their rangefinder line.  Nice lens and the mount can be modified to an M-mount.  It renders differently than the Noctilux.

There is a newer Canon 50mm f1.2 but I've never shot with it.  

 In regard to Leica versus Canon (or any other brand), I won't start because it almost always degrades to a discussion with little content.  Other than saying the obvious (Noctilux mounts to a Leica) I will just say two things..

* You have to shoot with a Leica to properly understand the "why?"
* There is a lot more to choosing glass than just looking at a focal length and max aperture number on the box...


----------



## usayit (Apr 8, 2008)

btw... 

Even among the Leica shooter's realm the Noctilux is a controversial lens that polarizes opinions.  Many dismiss it as a lens of special/limited use.   I don't necessarily agree but with so many 50mm lenses to choose from in Leica mount everyone can find one to fall in love with.  Many will choose the 50mm f1.4 Summilux (I believe Iron Flatline has one), 50mm f2 Summicron, 50mm f2.8 collapsable Elmar, 50mm f2.5 Summarit (like me), the odd 28-50-35 f4 Tri-Elmar (I like mine) and/or one of many from Zeiss or Voigtlander.  Its a matter of tastes in how the lens feels, operates, and renders.


Oh yeh... I didn't pay anywhere near to $6k for mine.  Combination of the US dollar and lack of supply for special materials/parts in the noctilux has driven prices to skyrocket.


----------



## epatsellis (Apr 15, 2008)

usayit said:


> The Canon EF 50mm f1 (old one) was not a good one from the Canon line.  Slow focusing and known to be a bit soft all around... most ended up just buying 50mm f1.4 USM for a fraction of the price.  They are mostly collectors items now... photovillage has one in mint condition for $5400.
> 
> A long time ago, Canon made a 50mm f0.95 for their rangefinder line.  Nice lens and the mount can be modified to an M-mount.  It renders differently than the Noctilux.
> 
> ...


I had one of the .95 lenses, years ago, used it with an adapter to mount on a FTb body, from what I remember, it was ok, nothing terribly exciting (other than the aperture, of course), ended up trading it for a F2 Body some years later, I do remember that my Nikkor 55 1.2 S-C outperformed it in every way, and was a hell of a lot lighter, too...


erie


----------



## usayit (Apr 15, 2008)

epatsellis said:


> I had one of the .95 lenses, years ago, used it with an adapter to mount on a FTb body, from what I remember, it was ok, nothing terribly exciting (other than the aperture, of cour



Are you sure?

The 50mm 0.95 lens which was designed for the Canon 7 rangefinder (special mount).  The Canon 7 rangefinder has the same registration distance as the Leica M-mount cameras.  IIRC, that distance is about 2/3rds the length of the FD cameras (SLRs need room for mirror box).  I've been told over and over again that it is practically impossible to adapt that lens to an SLR body....

I wouldn't mind getting a that Canon 50mm f0.95 added to my collection.  They are frequently modified to an M-mount for about $200.


----------



## Early (Apr 19, 2008)

Iron Flatline said:


> usayit, it's the same lens for me - I know amongst some it's considered an over-hyped toy  (LensBaby for rich people is the worst I've heard it called so far) but I love it.
> 
> Steph, here's some samples at wide open:


Now, that what I call a lens in the 'nicest category'.  I would have like to see the first shot taken stopped down a few notches.


----------



## usayit (Apr 19, 2008)

btw... I think it is official... Leica has discontinued the Noctilux.  My guess is this expensive lens will get even more expensive.. assuming Leica doesn't announce another noctilux in the near future.

Just like my starter house, I am so happy I purchased one before the boom in price.


----------



## epatsellis (May 18, 2008)

usayit said:


> Are you sure?
> 
> The 50mm 0.95 lens which was designed for the Canon 7 rangefinder (special mount).  The Canon 7 rangefinder has the same registration distance as the Leica M-mount cameras.  IIRC, that distance is about 2/3rds the length of the FD cameras (SLRs need room for mirror box).  I've been told over and over again that it is practically impossible to adapt that lens to an SLR body....
> 
> I wouldn't mind getting a that Canon 50mm f0.95 added to my collection.  They are frequently modified to an M-mount for about $200.



Quite certain, after searching for a 7 for a while, a friend found a Canon .95 to breechlock adapter. And yes, it focused to infinity, that much I remember.


erie


----------



## usayit (May 18, 2008)

I'd like to see that adapter as it would be a vary sought after product.  Basically means that someone determined a solution that can be applied to M-lenses being adapted to any other SLR (which I have yet to see).


----------



## epatsellis (May 19, 2008)

You may be overlooking something, the Canon 7 has two bayonets, the standard M seriea and a much larger one outside of that, specifically for the .95 lens. Tha 50 .95 adapter was made by canon and attached to the larger bayonet, which if I recall was quite a bit further away from the back of the lens. I do remember that only certain SLRs could be used, as alot of them had mirror intereference issues. 


erie


----------



## Battou (May 19, 2008)

Nicest Lens I own, would prolly be my FL 135mm f/3.5

My FD 28mm 2.8 is sharper than I expected though, it to is rather nice.

Not the most exotic lenses in the world but....


----------



## usayit (May 19, 2008)

epatsellis said:


> You may be overlooking something, the Canon 7 has two bayonets


I am familiar with the Canon 7 rangefinder.... yes two mounts and certainly not enough space difference to make up for a mirror box in the SLR.  The 7 is similar size to a Leica M5.  IIRC the lens to film distance is the same for both mounts. The distance difference between SLRs and rangefinders is HUGE.  This is the reason why many 50 0.95 lenses have been adapted to the Leica M-mount and various other rangefinders (but not SLRs).  http://www.camera-care.com/canon_f0_95_conv.htm

The reason why I am pursuing this is that this discussion has come up many times on other forums and usually results in improbable with infinity focus maintained.  If I could find an adapter, I would jump on it immediately (at almost any cost).  This would mean I can carry an SLR as a backup camera for my rangefinder.

[edit]
I just realized there are a few rather large 55mm, 58mm, and 50mm FL/FD mount lenses with f/1.2 aperture.  Perhaps those are the lenses you remember.


----------



## PushingTin (May 19, 2008)

My Nikon 300 F4 is my top choice of my lenses at this point in time. Love it!


----------



## LWW (May 19, 2008)

PushingTin said:


> My Nikon 300 F4 is my top choice of my lenses at this point in time. Love it!



I love mine also, but I'd have to say that I'll give up my 80-200 2.8 Nikkor when they pry it from my cold dead hand. 

LWW


----------



## TamiyaGuy (May 19, 2008)

The best lens I have? Probably the 50mm 1.8 AI. It just makes me think so differently about my photography. And the best lens I have used? Probably the 105mm VR Micro. It hunts, but the focusing is very accurate and the bokeh is beautiful. I'm ashamed now


----------



## DWS (May 19, 2008)

my recently acquired Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 :thumbup:


----------



## Photoguynorth (May 19, 2008)

and not one I use all the time, but my favourite is my Sigma 10-20.  Anyone who has not used a really wide angle lens should borrow one for a bit. They can be a lot of fun.


----------



## Smilemon (May 19, 2008)

For Alaskan winters I love shooting with this. Its the only lens that i have that can open up enough in the 3 hours of light we get.


----------



## Antithesis (May 20, 2008)

A Canon 50mm f1.2. It's not really exotic, but still the absolute nicest lens I've ever used. Portraits with just the eyes perfectly sharp... amazing.


----------



## christopher walrath (May 20, 2008)

My favorite lens ever was an old MD mount Rokkor-X 50mm f/1.4 lens I had for my Minoltas.  Now it sleeps with the fishes.  Note to self, periodically check strength of camera straps before the camera is hanging precariously of the edge of a 100 foot high bridge.


----------



## JimmyO (May 20, 2008)

Geez, what a bummer Chris.


----------



## epatsellis (May 26, 2008)

usayit said:


> I am familiar with the Canon 7 rangefinder.... yes two mounts and certainly not enough space difference to make up for a mirror box in the SLR.  The 7 is similar size to a Leica M5.  IIRC the lens to film distance is the same for both mounts. The distance difference between SLRs and rangefinders is HUGE.  This is the reason why many 50 0.95 lenses have been adapted to the Leica M-mount and various other rangefinders (but not SLRs).  http://www.camera-care.com/canon_f0_95_conv.htm
> 
> The reason why I am pursuing this is that this discussion has come up many times on other forums and usually results in improbable with infinity focus maintained.  If I could find an adapter, I would jump on it immediately (at almost any cost).  This would mean I can carry an SLR as a backup camera for my rangefinder.
> 
> ...



No, I'm sure it was the .95, though the camera may have been a Pellix, not a FTb, and the adapter was a Canon standard item, as well, though tough to find, even then. I ordered it from my local Canon dealer and they ended up getting one 4 weeks later, as I recall.
Hard to remember details of a camera/lens I owned for a few months, 25+ years later.


erie


----------



## tedE (May 26, 2008)

My favourite would have to be just my plain old 50mm lens on my AE-1 is my favourite, but my sigma fisheye is a close close second.  

too much fun with that lens


----------

