Sleeper Lenses?

[Jay Khaos]

Does anyone have a lens (or a few) that they love, but rarely comes up in conversation, isn't reviewed well online, is overshadowed by an alternative, etc?

Mine is the 50 1.8. Even though it's not totally overshadowed, but I think it tends to get pushed aside in favor of the 50 1.4 more than it deserves

 

[paul13walnut5]

+1 for the nifty fifty, but I don't think it's maligned or sneered at so much, a lot of folk just don't get on with the build or genuinely require faster quieter af. I love mine, it's the third plastic I've owned (one stolen off me by my dad, one dropped) and I had a metal mk1 before that.

In the same vein, I loved my 28mm f2.8. Lots to hate. Geometric bokeh, arc-form drive, but it was compact, fringe free, cheap and sharp wide open. It's a lens that I knew would deliver for me and wouldn;t need much post-procrssing. Worked out as a slowish standard lens on my cameras, but a great wee walkabout lens.

I replaced it with a zoom as I was consolidating with an eye to video, but it's the only lens I've sold that I actually wish I hadn't. And I say that having owned tilt shifts, bigmas, fast L telephotos etc.

 

[RLPhoto]

I always hear about

16-35's
24-70's
70-200's

and yet I don't own one of those lenses. When I say 135mm F/2 to a newer photog, they look at me, pause for a moment and say "They still make 135's?" or the proverbial "What's that?" *Facepalm.

 

[Jay Khaos]

+1 for the nifty fifty, but I don't think it's maligned or sneered at so much, a lot of folk just don't get on with the build or genuinely require faster quieter af. I love mine, it's the third plastic I've owned (one stolen off me by my dad, one dropped) and I had a metal mk1 before that.

True. I've heard a lot of good too, but I've also heard it get talked about as if it's garbage... as if one of its drawbacks is a complete dealbreaker, like the skinny focus ring or plastic construction.

I always hear about

16-35's
24-70's
70-200's

and yet I don't own one of those lenses. When I say 135mm F/2 to a newer photog, they look at me, pause for a moment and say "They still make 135's?" or the proverbial "What's that?" *Facepalm.

lol.. I agree on the 135 being a sleeper. It was the first L I owned, but honestly probably wouldnt have even knew about it without the internet at my disposal.

 

[RobertG.]

For me it's the TS-E 90mm. It is hardly ever mentioned, although the image quality is excellent.

 

[Haydn1971]

iPhone and lensbaby for me

iPhone is always there and paired with Instagram it's an amazing tool... Lensbaby is my want to play lens, I've got 4x & 10x macros, I've the wide and tele adapters, the fisheye, the shaped aperture rings - hours of fun every time it comes out of my kit bag - got £300 to blow ? Go spend it on a load of lensbaby kit !

 

[mb66energy]

Using with APS-C, primarily 40D:

* 2.8/24mm (non-USM): Very sharp, contrasty lens + great FOV, similar to 40mm on FF. Compact, sturdy, unobtrusive
* 2.0/100mm (USM): Very sharp, contrasty, unobtrusive lens, very compact compared to 100mm macros. I like the 160mm effective focal length for landscape, nature, street etc.

A nice couple too with to APS-C bodies ... and will be nice too with two (dreaming!!!) FF bodies ...

 

[paul13walnut5]

lol.. I agree on the 135 being a sleeper. It was the first L I owned, but honestly probably wouldnt have even knew about it without the internet at my disposal.

I had it's sister lens the 200mm f2.8L which on APS-C was a superlative sports lens.

I also had the 135 f2.8 SF. Nice images with SF dialled out. Awful. slow. focusing.

 

[axtstern]

The Dinosaur among the sleepers:

The Tamron 28-105 1:2.8

Fat (82mm) front lens and the body never slimmer than that
Long fully extended (it extends twofold) it is about 20% longer than the EF 200 L
Noisy The AF engine was engineered in a past century
Color Tamron's baroque grey/antrazit plastic finish

Nothing for the weak, after 15 years of heavy use the surviving models of this lens need a lot of strength to move the zoom ring. Feels like wringing water out of an old wet leather hide.

No IS, No USM

but.. 50% more reach than the EF 24-70 and still 1:2.8
When I shoot as a guest some pictures at a wedding the pros usualy run forward and backward with their 24-70L while I stand like a rock. When I have a Chance of doing some gear talk with this guys laughter often changes to desire once they tried this lens on a 1D

regards

 

[Swphoto]

I really liked my Canon 28mm 1.8 when I was using it on a crop - it rarely left the camera. Build quality was really good (or seemed it) for a non-L lens - nice focus ring, and internal focusing - so no issues with it being fragile like the 50 1.4.

I didn't care for it on full frame, though.

You can pick them up used or refurbished for a good price, given that they're not very popular.

 

[friedrice1212]

Kind of a sleeper on the Internet because of its age, but certainly not a sleeper in the real world, the 70-200 2.8 IS Mark I. I picked one up for 1200$ the other day and I was simply amazed by it. Sure, it's not as sharp as the Mk II at 200/2.8 and the AF isn't as blistering fast, but it doesn't cost 2800$ with taxes here in Quebec, Canada. I shoot low light dance events with it at ISO 6400, so lens sharpness is the least of my worries. Unless you earn your living with the 70-200, the Mark I is still one hell of a lens. Bang for buck guaranteed!

(Of course if you're gonna use it outdoors at ISO 100 and you're tight on budget, go get an f/4 and skip this old lens)

 

[paul13walnut5]

+1

The trusty old f2.8 non-Is is in my kit bag.

 

[LewisShermer]

I really liked my Canon 28mm 1.8 when I was using it on a crop - it rarely left the camera. Build quality was really good (or seemed it) for a non-L lens - nice focus ring, and internal focusing - so no issues with it being fragile like the 50 1.4.

I didn't care for it on full frame, though.

You can pick them up used or refurbished for a good price, given that they're not very popular.

Was going to say exactly the same. the 28mm 1.8 was never off my 7D/60D/500D but I never have it on my 5Diii. such a shame. it's a beautiful little lens on a crop sensor, just not that great on a full frame.

 

[steven kessel]

Sure! My candidate is the 400DO. Wonderfully light when compared with the 400 F2.8, a lens that I can hike with. And, just great for bird and wildlife photography. It's as sharp as any telephoto I own. Apparently, this lens got bad reviews back when it was introduced and has languished in the shadows for years. It has a bad rap, take my word for it. Mine is my favorite lens.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

There are some older lenses that are not commonly found any longer that are low cost, yet do a good job for their price.
The old EF 70-210mm F/4 does a fair job, as does the old Tokina 400mm f/5.6 and the Tokina 17mm f/3.5.

 

[Jay Khaos]

For me it's the TS-E 90mm. It is hardly ever mentioned, although the image quality is excellent.

This one is on my wish list for sure...

 

[Jay Khaos]

The Dinosaur among the sleepers:

The Tamron 28-105 1:2.8

I've never seen one of these in person... I'd like to try one

 

[verysimplejason]

Canon 28mm F1.8 USM. One of the most hated/loved lens. I definitely love mine. Very fast AF, fast aperture, very sharp images @ 2.0 and smaller, small, light (what's not to love?), but with some noticeable CA (sometimes). Pair it with LR/DPP and those CA almost disappear/negligible. I'm still saving for my first FF (a 6D). Hopefully it'll be a better performer.

 

[distant.star]

.
The most underrated, overlooked lens I have is the EF-S 60mm macro. It does everything from macro to landscapes and usually gives a unique look. I can usually tell a picture taken with this lens. Here's one of my favorite pictures that no one would ever guess was taken with a macro lens:

 

[dr croubie]

There are some older lenses that are not commonly found any longer that are low cost, yet do a good job for their price.
The old EF 70-210mm F/4 does a fair job, as does the old Tokina 400mm f/5.6 and the Tokina 17mm f/3.5.

I've got the Tokina 17/3.5, and it certainly does the job, especially on film (there's no point using it on my 7D, it's not as good as my EF-s 15-85).

And my Super Ozeck 28mm f/2.8 Macro is great (even if it's only 1:2 macro), i've never found much on it by googling so it can't be too common. Small, sharp, and light, makes a great street-lens hyperfocalled on my EOS 3, I bring it together with my Shorty McForty and swap either between camera and pocket.