"I forgot!" What lens or lenses do you own that you've forgotten?

[JPAZ]

Grandkids came to town this weekend. Because we were going to a park and because I wanted to have reasonable reach but not a big kit to deal with, I remembered my 24-105 L f/4 Mk1 that was sitting in a lens case on the shelf. Now, I've been very pleased with the 24-70 f/2.8 Mkii that is my go-to most used lens. The contrast and colors are great. The f/2.8 is useful. Lack of IS has not been a major issue. But when I shot with the old 24105, I remembered how much I used and liked that lens. At one point, I thought of selling it since the newer lens has taken its place so well. I am glad I still have it, even if it mostly sits ignored.

So this got me to wondering. I'll bet many of us have a lens that we don't use much or that we have literally forgotten about but that (for one reason or another) still sits in our collection. Is it because we don't think the price we'd get is worth it? Is it because we think we might have a need for it? Is there some sort of emotional attachment? I think this would be fun to explore.

So for me, it is the 24-105. What's your forgotten lens (need not only be Canon gear)?

 

[chrysoberyl]

The Canon 100mm L macro. It was replaced by a Milvus 100mm Makro. I keep it only for portraits and it never gets used that way. But I can't see selling it for a big loss.

 

[jeffa4444]

The Canon 100mm L macro. It was replaced by a Milvus 100mm Makro. I keep it only for portraits and it never gets used that way. But I can't see selling it for a big loss.

Interesting I used the Milvus recently and own the Canon 100mm f2.8L macro. For the life of me I could not really see a discernible difference on my Canon 5DS in Lightroom between the two lenses. The canon has autofocus which the Milvus doesn't have but the Milvus has a faster f stop at f2. I use the Canon for both macro and portrait and I consider it to be one of their best lenses so its not going in my cupboard!

The lens I use the least is the original 1988 EF 28mm f2.8, the focal length is covered by either the EF 24-70mm f4L or the EF 24-105mm f4L.

 

[ahsanford]

The Canon 100mm L macro. It was replaced by a Milvus 100mm Makro. I keep it only for portraits and it never gets used that way. But I can't see selling it for a big loss.

Interesting I used the Milvus recently and own the Canon 100mm f2.8L macro. For the life of me I could not really see a discernible difference on my Canon 5DS in Lightroom between the two lenses. The canon has autofocus which the Milvus doesn't have but the Milvus has a faster f stop at f2. I use the Canon for both macro and portrait and I consider it to be one of their best lenses so its not going in my cupboard!

The lens I use the least is the original 1988 EF 28mm f2.8, the focal length is covered by either the EF 24-70mm f4L or the EF 24-105mm f4L.

Milvus = 100mm f/2 + 1:2 macro - autofocus - IS

100L = 100mm f/2.8 + 1:1 macro + autofocus + IS

Chrysoberyl, the Milvus had better be Otus-good to justify all the red above. It's not even a macro lens in my book, and losing AF + IS effectively limits it considerably for my needs. I'll take the 100L as my macro / portraiture / video 'utility infielder' all day.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

My forgotten lenses are:

My EF 40mm pancake. Sharp for days, but it's neither fast or modern, and I cannot stand focus by wire. I also think there's an focal length inflection point where a prime must be fast (f/2 or better), and 40mm is just about at that FL. I think I'd use a ton more if it was f/2.

Second one is my 2x T/C, which I only use on my 70-200 2.8L IS II. I know it's not a (standalone) lens, I only use it 1-2x per year it seems. It does fine on stationary wildlife in good light (see below), but it's a hot mess when I try to chase varmints in motion with it. (It also breaks my heart to do such bad things optically to such a stellar lens, but I digress.)

- A

 

[neuroanatomist]

How do you forget a lens?

Sure, some are niche lenses that don't get used frequently – if I'm going out to shoot my kids horseback riding or skiing/snowboarding, I don't bring the TS-E 17mm or the MP-E 65mm. But even though I've got plenty of them, I remain well aware of which lenses I have, and if I don't use them enough, I sell them.

 

[slclick]

Hmmm, that's a toughie, I had bought and sold in order to get as far away from that situation as I could. There are periods where I don't shoot any macro for months so then the 100L gets that treatment and times when the pancake doesn't come out. But all in all over a years time span, they all get about equal exposure.

16-35 f/4L IS
24-70 2.8L Mk2
40 Pancake
50 Art
100L
135L
100-400 Mk2
Lensbabies

 

[bholliman]

As Neuro said above, I don't really "forget" any of my lenses (much easier for me to remember my 6 EF lenses than it is for Neuro to remember is dozens...), but there are certainly some that don't get used much for long stretches of time.

The lens I'm currently neglecting the most is my 24-105 Mk1. I used it a bunch for a family trip last October (I just took it and my 16-35 f/4) and don't think I've used it since. Its a good copy and I appreciate the focal range , but most of the time I like to shoot wide (16-35/4) or long 70-200 or 300 II, so this standard zoom sits in a camera bag. My 50 STM doesn't get much use either on my DSLR, but I'm using it a fair amount now with the M5.

Looking at my LR lens information for 2017 YTD, The pictures with my 300 and 16-35 make up 75% of my shots. Largely since in the winter I'm mainly shooting wildlife/birds and landscapes. As the weather warms, there will be more trips and family activities where I'll use standard zooms.

 

[NancyP]

Well I definitely remember my 40 mm f/2.8 pancake, even if it is a PITA to manually focus by wire. It is so light and small that it is easy to pop into a pocket, even if not intending to use that FL, just to have on hand "in case". I would have to say that the wider-than-20mm category gets left behind most of the time.

 

[chrysoberyl]

The Canon 100mm L macro. It was replaced by a Milvus 100mm Makro. I keep it only for portraits and it never gets used that way. But I can't see selling it for a big loss.

Interesting I used the Milvus recently and own the Canon 100mm f2.8L macro. For the life of me I could not really see a discernible difference on my Canon 5DS in Lightroom between the two lenses. The canon has autofocus which the Milvus doesn't have but the Milvus has a faster f stop at f2. I use the Canon for both macro and portrait and I consider it to be one of their best lenses so its not going in my cupboard!

The lens I use the least is the original 1988 EF 28mm f2.8, the focal length is covered by either the EF 24-70mm f4L or the EF 24-105mm f4L.

Milvus = 100mm f/2 + 1:2 macro - autofocus - IS

100L = 100mm f/2.8 + 1:1 macro + autofocus + IS

Chrysoberyl, the Milvus had better be Otus-good to justify all the red above. It's not even a macro lens in my book, and losing AF + IS effectively limits it considerably for my needs. I'll take the 100L as my macro / portraiture / video 'utility infielder' all day.

- A

I'm happy with the Milvus; it has 3X the DOF, is noticeably sharper, easier to focus and has better contrast. I'm not putting down the 100 L; I just like the Milvus better for wildflowers and macro. The 100L is yours for just $800...

 

[Besisika]

Mine is the 300 f4 because of the 100-400 II
I don't sell it because once or twice a year I need to shoot both video and photo at the same time from far away and that lens is still good for a telephoto video.

 

[ken]

For me: Lensbaby Composer Pro Lens with Edge 80 Optic (and Sweet 35 Optic)

Maybe I just never experimented with them enough, but I never got what I was expecting out of these lenses, so they just sit on a shelf. They're cheap enough that I never bothered to sell or trade them. Maybe I'll give them another try come spring.

 

[chrysoberyl]

Second one is my 2x T/C, which I only use on my 70-200 2.8L IS II. I know it's not a (standalone) lens, I only use it 1-2x per year it seems. It does fine on stationary wildlife in good light (see below), but it's a hot mess when I try to chase varmints in motion with it. (It also breaks my heart to do such bad things optically to such a stellar lens, but I digress.)

- A

I completely forgot that one! My 2X T/C has not been on a lens for at least a year. I need it to get to 2X magnification, though.

John

 

[ahsanford]

I completely forgot that one! My 2X T/C has not been on a lens for at least a year. I need it to get to 2X magnification, though.

John

I made a major decision when I was shopping for a 70-200 five years ago to future-proof it for length to stop any potential GAS from setting in with longer glass. I knew I needed (and wanted) a proper short tele zoom but didn't want it to be a gateway to bigger/larger things. Consider: I generally live around 24-50mm FF with my photography.

So I was waffling between the 70-200 f/4L IS and f/2.8L IS II (rented both and loved both) for my crop rig at the time and I wanted to get a 2x T/C to 'cordon off' the longer end of the spectrum and find an affordable path to 400mm. Back then, AF @ f/8 wasn't on the table, so a 2x effectively would have rendered a 70-200 f/4L IS as being an MF lens, which I couldn't abide. So the f/2.8L IS II was purchased, and I did not regret it.

And I was right with the future proofing. I only need 200mm a few times a year and 400mm once in a blue moon if I get dumped in an informal birding/wlidlife situation (where a rental might even be the right move). Had I gone with the f/4L IS, surely a 100-400L II would have ended up in my cabinet before long, so I'm glad I stuck to the plan.

- A

 

[Sporgon]

Well I definitely remember my 40 mm f/2.8 pancake, even if it is a PITA to manually focus by wire. It is so light and small that it is easy to pop into a pocket, even if not intending to use that FL, just to have on hand "in case". I would have to say that the wider-than-20mm category gets left behind most of the time.

I don't forget I've got the 40mm pancake, but I keep losing the damn thing. It's so small and light it gets put in a pocket or drawer and then I send months looking for it before it mysteriously reappears.

 

[chrysoberyl]

I made a major decision when I was shopping for a 70-200 five years ago to future-proof it for length to stop any potential GAS from setting in with longer glass. I knew I needed (and wanted) a proper short tele zoom but didn't want it to be a gateway to bigger/larger things. Consider: I generally live around 24-50mm FF with my photography.

Ha - I wish that had worked for me! Instead, now I have T/C I don't use much and an intractable desire for a 400-500mm prime.

 

[ethanz]

If you type your lenses in your signature or make a webpage like Neuro you won't forget them ;D

 

[jolyonralph]

Well, according to my spreadsheet I currently own 38 EF-mount lenses.

This includes things such as the EF-S 24mm f/2.8 pancake which I don't think I have used even once for real photography (I've thrown it on a camera to test it, but that's all).

There are a few lenses that really SHOULD be forgotten (such as the EF 35-80mm f/4-5.6 POWER ZOOM which I got with a film camera for £10 at a car boot fair).

But, the one lens that stands out for me that is sitting in my peli case unused and unloved is the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART. I can't quite get the love for this lens from everyone. I really don't rate it at all. Autofocus is spotty (as has been my experience with other Sigma lenses in the past) - I bought the USB dock to try and get it working right, spent several hours on several occasions trying to get the thing right, but never have been happy with it at all.

Have never bought another Sigma lens since, probably never will again.

 

[dpc]

24-105L... I like it fine but just never reach for it.

 

[rfdesigner]

for me it would have to be the little scope.

110mm f8 (110mm diameter, so that's 880mm fl)

I have some old praktica lenses destined for a spectrometer one day.. so mothballed.