Let's Talk Lenses

egproductions

egproductions

Veteran
The photo section is my favorite section on DVXUser so in an attempt to revive it a little I thought I'd post a fun topic we could talk about....Lenses! Really anything you want to talk about, lenses you love, observations, or questions you have.

If someone is local to NJ, I wouldn't mind swapping lenses for a week with the right person. My lenses are geared toward Full frame cameras (although a have a couple that I carried over from a cropped sensor) I'm personally a huge fan of the new Sigma line. I shoot mostly weddings and portraiture but love landscape and wildlife photography as well.

I currently own:
Tokina 11-16 II - Vignettes on anything below 16mm on a full frame...looking to sell actually
Canon 24 1.4L II - Also looking to sell since I no longer really need a fast aperture at such a wide focal length
Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art - Best 35mm I've shot with
Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art - Best 50mm I've shot with
Canon 24-70 2.8 I - I've gotten the most use out of this lens, results arent anything spectacular from a quality standpoint
Canon 100mm Macro II - non-L series - Just as sharp as the L series but no IS
Canon 135mm F2 - Probably the sharpest lens I own and it's the perfect focal length for portraits if I had to choose one

I wish I owned:
Tokina 16-28 F2.8 - Pretty usefull super wide lens for the price range
Canon 17mm Tilt and shift - No autofocus, expensive, no filter threading, and precarious front element, but man is it sharp and fun to use!
Canon 24-70 II - To replace the first version I own
Sigma 120-300 f2.8 Sport - just slightly less sharp than the Canon 300 f2.8 but zooms, is the same weight and is almost half the price
Sigma 150-600 Sport - what an incredible zoom range! - sport version has the same specs and price as the contemporary version but is heavier and better optically
 
I've got one for you.

NIKKOR 35-70mm f/3.5 zoom from 1979. KILLER.
VERY sharp for a zoom and it zooms internally - no telescoping, so I can use it with my rails and matte box.
and the focus ring feel and length is just fantastic.

This is my one lens I just wont ever part with.
 
I too have a bunch of great vintage lenses. No so much for their sharpness, color, or any quantitative quality reasons but simply because it can be creatively inspiring to shoot with vintage equipment.

I own a 5cm industar 26M for my fed-2
I also have a 100mm Macro 3.5, 50 2.0, 80-200 3.5-5.6 for a 1970's ricoh SLR (pentax-K mount).

The Challenge with all my vintage lenses is mounting them to my 5D II. I used to be able to mount them to my old rebel xt but the 5D's mirror gets in the way or the flange distance needed is too short (in the case of the industar)
 
Here are a few shots from an engagement shoot I just did. I purposely made an extra effort to use a lot of different lenses to switch things up.

Canon 135 F2
006.jpg


Canon 135 F2
017.jpg


Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art
023.jpg


Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art
064.jpg


Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro (non-L)
092.jpg


Tokina 11-16 @ 16
103.jpg


Tokina 11-16 @ 16
110.jpg


Tokina 11-16 @ 16
112.jpg
 
egproductions said:
Here are a few shots from an engagement shoot I just did. I purposely made an extra effort to use a lot of different lenses to switch things up.

Canon 135 F2
006.jpg


Canon 135 F2
017.jpg


Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art
023.jpg


Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art
064.jpg


Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro (non-L)
092.jpg


Tokina 11-16 @ 16
103.jpg


Tokina 11-16 @ 16
110.jpg


Tokina 11-16 @ 16
112.jpg
Click to expand...


These are VICIOUS!

What year is that lens from? Is it still made?

And what camera do you have it attached to on these shots?!?
 
The lenses are listed above each image (they are modern lenses). I was shooting on a Canon 5D II. I'm looking forward to getting the 5D IV for some crazy low light abilities but honestly, i never felt the need to upgrade since I almost always shoot at ISO 1600 or below since I always use auxiliary lighting.
 
Beautiful images indeed, simply excellent. 135mm has always been one of my fav focal lengths. For portraits, It gives enough standoff so the photographer isn't in the face of the subject and calms things down for the shoot. 135 also reduces all distortion of the subject and gives a nice DOF.

Much like a big brother to the 135, I have a 180macro which is extremely sharp with wonderful bokeh. It is very useful as a medium long prime. And of course when mounted on a tripod, is a spectacular macro lens.
 
Thanks! Haven't really played with the 180 macro..seems like a lens I would like to get behind (i've used the 200 2.8). I'm a little shocked by the price (or the fact that it's an L series at F3.5 and no IS at that focal length).
 
egproductions said:
Thanks! Haven't really played with the 180 macro..seems like a lens I would like to get behind (i've used the 200 2.8). I'm a little shocked by the price (or the fact that it's an L series at F3.5 and no IS at that focal length).
Click to expand...

It is an older generation lens, large, heavy, a little slow to focus, and expensive. And it is so wonderful, it is worth all the drawbacks for the optics. Believe!

Grant
 
I'd be interested to see how it handles engagement rings. I've always used my 100mm macro or I use a 50mm with an extension tube.

_9766756183.jpg


_0862770134.jpg
 
Sorry I didn't get back to this thread sooner. The 180 could handle the ring photos easily. But remember, this is a short telephoto, and for macro work, a tripod is all but required to eliminate shake. If you open the aperture up, you can also get very very shallow DOF. So shallow in fact, you also need a tripod since you can't really hold focus hand held when up close. While a unique tool for macro, allowing you to stand-off your subject (biting insects come to mind), it does needs a lot of care and patience to use. I suspect the 100 would be more foregiving and easy to use. For macro the optics are incredible, but it takes a very deliberate style or it will break your heart. For general photography, all those issues disappear and it becomes an excellent and very sharp short telephoto, just a little shorter and half a stop slower than the 200/2.8, and for a lot less money.
 
Hey, what would be a good lens for both portrait/headshot as well as a general filming lens? I saw you mentioned the Canon 100 f/2.8 and know it's great for portrait, but not sure how it stands up for video.
 
The 100 breaths a lot so not great for video if you plan on rack focusing. I like the 135 or higher for portraiture/headshots. The 70-200 f2.8 IS II is great lens for both video and photo.
 
I have been using the zeiss zf set, from a nikon ais set. Have played around with canon L series too. But despite some of the quirks of the zf glass, they are among my favorites. Canon L's are beautiful, but don't have the same character, and the nikons ais are just a bit out classed by the newer lenses out there. The old ais lenses still hold value, and are quite nice when needing something with less contrast and a touch more flaring for flattering or nostalgic results. However, when it comes to just all around favorite, the zf has been hard to beat. Anything out there you guys would like more than zeiss zf in that price range?
 
Nobody seems to have mentioned 85 f1.2 as a portrait lens. It's about the very best lens for that purpose, and it gives a look that no other lens can get. Though, for video, Zeiss 85 f/1.4 gives better control.

For portrait/headshot and also as a general purpose lens, Canon 100-400 is one of the best, a somewhat cheaper alternative to 70-200 f2.8. Its newer Mark II version got rid of the push-pull focus design, which many people have hated. It can be used as a makeshift macro lens, though technically not as sharp as a 100 macro (but for video, that does not matter as mcuh as for stills).
 
I never got into the Ziess ZE/ZF lenses. I was very turned off by the 50 1.4's barrell distortion and corner sharpness. Not what I expected from zeiss priced optics.

I'm also not a fan of the 85mm 1.2L for portraits. There isn't enough compression at that focal length unless shooting wide open, however, its pretty soft wide open. The autofocus is also pretty slow with that lens and it has a lot of coma.

The Canon 100-400 II is great.
 
At first i was turned off by the 50mm 1.4, due to the barrel distortion and the softness wide open, but when i shot with it along side the Canon L 50 1.2, i liked the ZF better in the shots i was going for. The Canon was obviously technically better, just didn't get the same feel. Granted, if i were shooting architecture, or using the 50mm for wide shots, i would probably use a different lens, but for mediums and close ups, it gave the right feel. Perhaps the barrel distortion pulled the subjects into focus. It was a good combination of vntage and modern. Now we open (f1.4), was more of an effect, because of the hallowing, however, there was still a sharpness through it all, so it was ethereal in a way. Obviously not for everything, but lovely in it's own way. Unlike the Nikon 50 1.4, which was almost ugly wide open. The Canon L is a more versatile lens, no doubt... But i don't use just one lens.
 
Last edited:
Photography is how I make a living. I switched around a year ago to Nikon after 8 years with Canon. I owned about every lens Canon made in the L series in 8 years. My favorite lenses were 35L and 135L. The TS-E 17 was also fabulous but lack of filtering system at the time really turned me off. I mostly always shot with prime lenses except for my 8 months work at the local newspaper in Montreal.

I now shoot with 2x Nikon D750, Sigma 24 art, Sigma 35 art, Sigma 50 art, , Nikon 60 micro, Nikon 85 1.8G and Nikon 70-200 VRII. All these lenses are super sharp but they don't have has much character as some other lenses. If Sigma decides to make a 135 art, the 70-200 will be replaced by such a lens.

I shoot 2 subjects. I am a wedding photographer (www.sebastiendamour.com) and also an automotive editorial photographer (auto123.com). I am also DOP/Editor at auto123.com.

Cheers,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top