My most used lens - Rated by wear and tear

[GMCPhotographics]

I was looking at my lenses the other day and I was thinking to myself that instead of looking in Lightroom for my lens usage...that it was far easier to inspect my lenses for wear. The more worn and shabby...the more I obviously use and abuse this lens.
So here's my list:

16-35IIL - on it's 2nd objective lens and the metal hood ring is very worn and old looking. The rubbers have a tired grey look to them. the chrome lens mount is quite beaten up. The hood has never been used.

35mm f1.4L, looks pretty fresh, although the focus rubber is looking tired and patchy. The hood ring has some marks as does the lens mount. The hood is scuffed and marked.

24-70 f2.8 L, all the rubbers are patchy and the lens hood wobbles, the hood is scuffed and marked but the lens looks quite fresh still.

135mm f2.0 L, the rubbers are in good shape but this lens barrel is knocked about and loads of dents and marks. Three screws missing from the objective lens surround and the lens mount ring really needs replacing. Some times the manual AF ring sticks...

24mm f1.2 L... looks like the day I brought it...hardly used. Says a lot...

85IIL, I use this lens a LOT and yet it shows no sign of visible wear except the lens mount is a bit worn.

100mm macro LIS, again, hardly used.

70-200 f2.8 LIS II, only the lens mount shows wear. I have replaced the AF window...but this is one tough lens. The hood is badly busted up.

TSe 17L and fisheye 8-15L, again...immaculate and hardly used.

400mm f2.8 LIS, a few marks and scratches on the body. I swapped out the tripod foot for a RRS variant, so that looks new. The lens mount shows a lot of wear.

While all these lenses show some signs of wear, optically they are all perfect (except for a little dust) but it's always amazed me how much professional abuse / use a Canon L lens can take.

What's your wear and tear like? Shall we do pictures too?

 

[AcutancePhotography]

I tend to baby my stuff so there is little wear and tear.

But the lens I use most of the time is the 35mm. Which surprises me as I never thought I would enjoy the 35 as much as I do. It is a handy FL.

 

[JonAustin]

I try to baby my gear, as well (as much as possible, anyway), but I'm not sure that physical appearance is the best indicator of use. It really depends on where and how you use your gear. For example, I have a few lenses that I use almost exclusively when hiking, and others that never get out of the studio. Regardless of the relative amount of use, guess which lenses look more worn?

 

[tomscott]

On other forums there is an emoji that has

"this thread is worthless without pictures!"

Get some pics up ;D

I like my gear looking a little warn! Means its worked hard and been worth its money!

 

[StudentOfLight]

What a coincidence!
My most beat up looking lens is also the 16-35mm f/2.8L II.
My second place also goes to the 35mm f/1.4L mainly due to the immensely scratched lens hood.
Next is my TS-E 24L II with some cosmetic scratches on the lens "barrel"
I'm quite careful in general so nothing else shows visible wear and tear.

Some notable mentions:
While indoors I broke the lens hood of the 24L II when the lens accidentally fell out of my camera bag. It was a scary moment as it fell from about chest height. Luckily I stuck a foot out to cushion the impact.
My Tamron 24-70 VC also survived a drop off a coffee table while attached to my 6D.

 

[NancyP]

My most beat up item not bought used is the 6D L bracket (Kirk makes good stuff!). I slipped on a wet rock/algae, fell backward, and the left lower corner of the camera was smashed on a rock. The L bracket has a scratch without anodized black on it, the camera is perfect.

 

[Tinky]

My gear is used for my photography hobby, but is purchased for mercenary use in my video day job.

I'm quite callous about it and take considered risks. No cotton wool here.

My goto lens which lived on my camera used to be my Sigma 18-50 f2.8 DC Macro.

Sharp enough for 1080 wide open all through the range. No major nasties like chromatic aberrations or obvious distortion, great close focus. Could use as a wide scene establisher in one shot and as a shallow focus interview portrait the next, and get a macro shot of some salient detail into the bargain.

Great, versatile lens.

It came a cropper by falling off my rear seats in the car one day and the zoom helix collapsed. A trip to my local repairers, the much trusted A.J Johnstones (free estimates, and they charge for the parts/work, not a generic service charge, they are not shy to tell you when it's time to write something off either) who fixed it for a very modest fee and it came back better calibrated than when it came out the box.

Scuffed. Battered. Rebuilt. A veritable trouper, which has earned its keep many times over.

Of course it's of that powdered Sigma EX generation where everything looks hard worn after a week rolling about the bottom of the billingham. My 70 Macro, once of my absolutely least used lenses, looks like it's done a tour of duty in the middle east rather than a wee stroll around my allotment.

My lensbaby looks in mint condition mainly because it's in mint condition. I've never used it. Anybody want to buy a lensbaby?

 

[N2itiv]

I tend to baby my stuff so there is little wear and tear.

But the lens I use most of the time is the 35mm. Which surprises me as I never thought I would enjoy the 35 as much as I do. It is a handy FL.

My situation is similar. Most used lens would be the 70-200 2.8L IS ll. The only lens I currently have showing great wear would be the old 35-105 f/4.5-5.6. That was once the only lens I had and it was used constantly. Still have it, but don't use it.

 

[AlanF]

On other forums there is an emoji that has

"this thread is worthless without pictures!"

Get some pics up ;D

I like my gear looking a little warn! Means its worked hard and been worth its money!

Are scratched painted, dents and wobbly rings signs of hard work or just the results of carelessness and misuse?

 

[wsmith96]

Are scratched painted, dents and wobbly rings signs of hard work or just the results of carelessness and misuse?

Let's assume hard work ;D

I too baby my gear. By far the lens that show the most wear for me is my trusty 17-55, but in reality it's really not that worn, closely followed by the 70-200. I was heart broken one day when my daughter came back from taking some pictures outside and there was a small scratch on the lens of my 85mm. My record for keeping pristine glass was ruined, but now my daughter and I get to share time together as she now enjoys photography too. The gain far outweighs the loss.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

The 3 lenses I use the most are a general zoom like 24-70mm/24-105mm, 35mm prime and 70-200mm lens.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I once tried a older Sigma TC on my lenses. Several of them went into vibration mode and it seemed they were shaking themselves apart. All without making them look ugly. Later, I discovered that the front element on my 135mm L had shaken loose. I have a lens spanner wrench, so I tightened it back up.

So looks are not always the only thing that wears lenses out. None of the other lenses I tried have shown issues.

 

[adventureous]

16-35 f2.8II I can't believe it still works
70-200 f4 IS with 1.4 II extender
50 1.4

 

[H. Jones]

5D mark III: Scratches on the bottom of the hand grip and a small dent there-- weird, not sure how that happened honestly. Doesn't seem to affect anything. One of my CF pins got bent at one point, and I fixed it, but now it's still a little off. CF cards still work though.

60D: ended up needing a new set of back-panel controls after water damage, messed up the SD card slot door, scratched the top LCD, got sand jammed into some of the buttons and the battery grip, pretty dusty viewfinder. Used this for a few years before my 5D Mark III came along.

16-35mm f/4 IS - I got this in feburary, not a scratch or a mark on it.

24-70mm f/2.8 II - Also a recent buy, already marked up the lens hood from the amount I've used it though!

70-200mm f/2.8 IS II - this thing is definitely my most used lens and you can tell. Lens hood doesn't like being mounted backwards anymore, scratches all over the hood, scratches on the tripod foot, and tons of scratches around the tripod socket. Lens mount frequently needs tightening. There's some play in the zoom ring, which was super super tight when I got it, but it's still not as bad as some of the cheaper non-L lenses in my career when I bought them brand new. This thing has been through so, so so much. Still smells like smoke from a fire I covered two weeks ago.

50mm F/1.8 - I never really use this thing, it's not bad. Hardly a mark on the glass even.

My old 17-55mm f/2.8 IS: broken zoom ring, broken IS, broken aperture cable, previously water damaged, dented lens hood, numerous body scratches.. That lens got used so so so much. Gave it to a friend who only wanted it for F/2.8 and autofocus and could manage with pulling/pushing to zoom it.

 

[scyrene]

My most battered lens is the 500L, partly because the white paint shows nicks and dirt a lot more, partly because I know it can take the abuse, and partly because it gets taken out into the messiest environments. I'm very careful with the glass at either end of all my lenses, never scratched it or anything. But the bodies are less important.

 

[jeffa4444]

The 24-105mm f4L is my most used lens followed by the 16-35mm f4L followed again by the 70-200mm f4L lens. Least used is the 50mm f1.8STM, my tried and tested and oldest EF the 28mm f2.8 still gets used often. The 100mm f2.8L Macro is used in small bursts.

 

[HighLowISO]

Interesting, my most used lens is my original 100-400mm, it does not look to bad to me, but just yesterday
I had to do a little fix because the hood was just too loose and finally fell off once unexpectly, but recently I've
been checking it often it's so loose. It won't be falling of again I expect for a long time, at least if I leave it on
like I've been doing as of late. Most of my shots were in the film days, but recently started using the dSLR more.
My serial number is UN0xxx, so I think it has to be one of the very early ones. It's worked fine for me, I'm not
rofessional, and I've ignored all the bad comments since the day I bought it when people were still talking about
how useless IS was not to mention the image quality. The truth was this lens was so revolutionary when it was
introduced all there was was people talking S*** about it. I might get the updated version, I might not.

I think pros beat up their lenses more, not only because they use them more, but they also have less time to baby them.

My least used lens is my 135mm f/2, just never found time for it yet. Now with a couple different systems it's harder to
get sufficient time on all the optics.

I think my uses go in phases; just depends where I'm going or what subjects I'm shooting at the time.

 

[Spectrum]

I use two lens/body combos routinely in photojournalism: the 16-35 f/2.8 II L on a 5D Mark III, and the 70-200 f/2.8 L II on a 1DX. All are heavily worn. I also use the 300 f/2.8 I with and without 1.4X extender II for outdoor sports, and the 85 f/1.8 non-L and 135 f/2.0 for indoor sports. If it's not too dark I pair these with relatively new 7D Mark II.