Useless lenses you fell in love with

[axtstern]

Today I banned the lens I loved the most from my gear bag into the vitrine in which I keep this lenses which I'm proud to own but somehow never use.

Do you guys have also such a waiting room for the lens heaven candidate?

The lens I abandoned today is the Sigma 50-100 1.8

I admire Sigma for their boldness to bring out such a lens, I love its build, smooth zooming, bokeh and feel but I have not used this lens on more than 5 occasions while I had planed to bring it on at least 30
So why abandon the fastest tele zoom on the planet which is sharp and can replace at least three of my primes?

There are 3 main reasons:
1 The weight
2 The reach it offers... somehow always not wide enough or to short
3 What it does to other lenses.
4 The lack of OS holds you bound to always using the lens wide open. (I bought it for that purpose but...)

This lens is heavy, long and wide. Usually I carry it in a backpack or in a shoulderbag.
Lying the lens flat is not an option in the shoulder bag, it is usually mounted in the middle of the bag pointing downwards with the Sigma 18-35 1.8 and the CANON 300 4.0L or the 70-300 L flanking it left and right.
Problem 1 the weight is always present when you have these 3 lenses on a shoulder bag.
So more and more often I substitute it with a different lens. If I keep it with me Problem 2 kicks in as well and I start changing lenses multiple times per occasion. I had not recognized that this triggers Problem 3.
The lens has a beautyfull tripod mount which is not removable but way more slim than the Canon versions. But.. it has a killer of a thumbscrew with sharp carvings. Today I wanted to clean the lens, wondered why this knob is so dirty and discovered a multilayer partial coating of the full lens color variety Canon, Tamron and Sigma has to offer. It must have touched and scratched the paint of almost any other lens I joined it in my bag.

So do you guys have a similar situation of wanting to use a lens but never rally doing so?

 

[Ozarker]

Yup. My Tamron 15-30 falls exactly into that category. I won't ban it though.

 

[pwp]

Interesting topic. For me the 135 f/2 and 50 f/1.2 and 24 f/1.4 II come immediately to mind. These were lenses I really wanted to love, and I've been influenced by photographers worldwide count these lenses as firm favourites. As a photographer who places a high value on precision framing in often fast moving dynamic situations, I just don't get the appeal of primes, but can't stop sampling one every now and then.

The 135 and 50mm lenses may have kept their place in the kit if they had been IS lenses. But even so, the 135 just felt limiting, I could barely ever see the point of using it ahead of the 70-200 f/2.8isII. Same with the 50. With astounding high iso performance available on recent FF bodies, the f/1.2 speed advantage was diminished, and again the lost flexibility always had me reaching for the incomparable 24-70 f/2.8II. The 24 f/1.4 II was pretty sweet on occasions, but I suspect it wasn't a great copy. All three have since been sold.

Contemporary, top tier Canon L zooms are just plain fantastic. The zoom advantage just isn't something I'm willing to give away.

-pw

 

[Pookie]

200mm f/2 ... I wouldn't call it useless but in reality there are far more useful lenses to use and carry. Wife bought it for me so will never be sold... I use it at least a couple times a year out of guilt.

 

[axtstern]

Very interesting. I own the 135mm L and the Tamron 15-30mm 2.8 as well.
Owning the 135 is a direct consequence of reading to much Posts on this Forum.
When People called it the Lord of the rings, or one of the sharpest lenses Canon ever build I got tempted to buy a used one. The fact that ist bigger sister the 200 2.8 L has already a resting place in my abandoned Vitrine should have been a warning but at that time the high ISO capabilities of my Camera was not so good so 2.0 was very tempting.

Now adays the lens always looses against more versataile lenses, but it has found one niche which it fits perfect, it is my KungFu/Circus lens. I love to attend Circus and Martial Arts Shows wehen traveling with my Family through asia. The midprice tickets I usually buy to sit among the locals means somehow always a distance to the Action for which the 135mm was made for. Suboptimal light and the Need to be not slower than 1/250 second make this lens my choice no one. (Probably until Sigma dangles the 135 OS in front of me)

Now the Tamron, you are absolutely right... that is a strange object of love. My full frame standard lenses were ages old. I used to use the 17-40 2.8L and the 24-70 2.8L. Both lenses went to the Vitrine and will probably gon on the BAY this summer. I replaced them with the Tamron 15-30mm 2.8 and the Tamron 24-70 2.8

Now if you are an engineer you have to love how the 15-30mm is designed using the same priciple as in the old Canon 24-70 2.8 that the petal of the sunshade is fixed but the front elements extend when goig wide etc...
The 2.8 together with stabilisation is marvelous. The weight the steel and glass generate shout 'I'm an expert tool jearning for expert Hands".... But then there is my crappy Little 80d and the crappy Little Canon 10-18 STM. Of course they can't do what the mighty 5d IV with the Tamron can do, but somehow the 10-18 is always with me and the Tamron only sees once every few month the sun.

 

[Maximilian]

Hi axtstern!

Interesting topic, interesting question. But really difficult to answer for me.

I have several lenses I'm "in love" with, but I see non of them being useless or used rarely.
So I try the other way around. Which lenses are "useless"?
I have a 17-40L and a 70-300DO that I use rarely.

For the 17-40L I'd say that I yet have to fall in love with UWA photography and the 24 mm of my 24-105L are mostly wide enough. But every once in a while it is really useful or I force myself to take just this one lens with me to get better use of it.

For the 70-300DO I fell in love with compact size and the focal range it offers with that. But I didn't fall in love with its optical performance. I bought it because of some very good test results I've read, but it seems that those weren't relating to higher MP cameras (>15 MP).
I missed the time to sell it for a good price and for what I can get now I prefer to keep it.

So no real nominee for your question in my lineup.

 

[sanj]

600mm. So useless. Use it once a year or so.

 

[gregorywood]

I have had a mostly stable lens collection for over a year now. I find they all have a purpose, depending on the subject matter, location and lighting. The lenses that get the most use are the 24-105mm f/4 and the 70-200mm f/2.8 II. The lens I use least, in spite of how long I searched for a good copy, is the Canon 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye. It's a fun lens, but I just don't find myself finding ways to use it. I haven't traveled much recently and I hang on to it in the hope of using it in some interesting place where it lends itself to some interesting applications.

 

[chrysoberyl]

Every Sigma lens I have owned, when used in AF mode. Even the 35mm Art let's me down consistently. I do like them when focused manually, though.

I wish Sigma would just give up on AF, simplify their constructions and lower their prices.

I loved my Canon 100L macro until I got a Milvus 100mm Makro. I haven't touched the Canon since I got the Milvus.

 

[bhf3737]

Three for me:
1. 16-35 F/2.8L II does not see the light of day after getting 16-35 F/4L and 11-24 F/4L. It was my go to lens for landscape and its color rendering was very good.
2. MP-E 65 F/2.8 macro. It is a lovable lens for extreme macro photography but very difficult to use it to its potentials. When doing casual macro indoor and outdoor the EF 100mm L macro and some extension tubes always win.
3. The Canon Extender EF 2X III. Wanted to use it with 100-400L II or 70-200L II for longer reach. No matter what lens it is connects to, the image sharpness has always been disappointing. To be honest, I have not used it with 500-600mm great whites but with everything else it was a failure.

 

[[email protected]]

A theme I'm seeing: great lenses that are too big in practice to bring along as much as we'd hoped. Here is an exception...

I am in love with my Tamron 85 VC. I have no complaints whatsoever about it. It is much smaller and lighter than the other great 85s that just came out, but within spitting distance of image quality. So it's not the size keeping me from using it.

The problem is that I have the Sigma 50 Art and the Sigma 135 Art. Those two lenses make me tear up sometimes when I'm checking images. I seldom leave without them. When I'm taking another lens along - something longer or wider, I really don't feel like filling the gap with the 85 in the bag. I'd rather choose the 50 or 135, depending on the kind of shooting.

I'll typically take the Tamron 35 VC, Sigma 50 and 135 in the bag, and have the 100-400 II on the camera. The alternate setup is to take the Tamron 15-30 along with the 50 and 85 if I suspect I'll need a shorter lineup.

I find that the Tamron 35 and the 15-30 are two that I interchange frequently; and the Tamron 85 and sigma 135 are swapped with some frequency. The problem is that the 135 is made with magic unicorn dust, and I don't like taking it off the camera, so this very fine Tamron lens gets more and more lonely.

Won't sell it.

 

[LordofTackle]

600mm. So useless. Use it once a year or so.

I'd like to have your problem

For me it's the 50mm 1.4. I bought it when I started with FF and everyone said that 50mm is THE focal lenght, also strangely, it got pretty good critiques here. First copy was DOA (AF motor), second I kept. I rarely use it, mostly on some family parties. Over the time I just found that I am more a 85mm person

The 100L 2.8 macro. It's a fantastic lens but I just don't have much time to do macro so it mostly sits on the shelf.

-Sebastian

 

[Jopa]

Zeiss Otus 85 and 135 APO. Because MF and no IS! Good lenses though.

 

[slclick]

200 2.8 L. True there is a lot of redundancy out there with this one but when I used it as the sole lens in my bag and gave it quality shoot time, it always amazed me.

 

[c.d.embrey]

GAS can be a real financial drag. Especially the use-once-a-year Big White

I own a EF-S 10-22mm and an EF 85mm f/1.8 for use with my xxD cameras, and a 50mm f/1.8, plus using the already mentioned EF 85mm f/1.8 for my Elan7n film camera. If I buy the upcoming EOS 6D2, I'll continue to use the same lenses I use with my Full Frame Film camera.

This doesn't stop me from using 300mm f/2.8. 400 f/2.8 or 400mm DO when I need them. My local rental house has them They also have 5D3 cameras and TS-E 90mm T&S lenses when I need them

Having rental insurance is a lot less expensive than owning seldom used lenses.

 

[Zeidora]

I think I only have one, a 126 format fold-out film camera with fix lens. Never used it. But just like the look of it. Sits on a crapy tiny tripod in a book case.
For everything else, if it does not sing, it's gone. Sold an OM system, a Leica M3 system, all Contax gear (except for F-Distagon 16 mm); briefly owned a Nikon F3HP with a 3 lenses, I think. Have not sold a lens for the Canon dSLR yet. But having owned a bunch of stuff previously, I know what I like and what not. So I did not buy the Otus 28 (had that on OM and Contax, hardly ever used it), and neither the Otus 135 (had that on OM).

 

[axtstern]

This becomes a trip down Memory lane.

Especialy reading abot the teleconverters. I only own the older Version of the 1.4 and 2.0 after remembering about them I wondered where they have gone. Found them in the box of the old 400 2.8 L Mark 1. With that old lens neither the 1.4 or the 2.0 did to much damage.

One more entry in the loved but abandoned list:
Sigma 120-300 2.8 Mark1

In the Age when IS/OS was not the rule but the exception I used this lens a lot but then suddenly stopped. Now in hindsight I recognize the demise of this lens was that the last of my children grew out of the stroller age and without the babystroller as a lens caddy my desire to cary that lens arround disapeared. Once again it was weight that killed the beast.

 

[StudentOfLight]

If a lens can produce images that you love then it it is not useless. Even if it's only a handful of images they do exist and therefore the lens is not useless. I recently dusted off my 8-15mm fisheye lens and brought it back into active duty and I couldn't be more happy:

Microverse by Omesh Singh, on Flickr


Drum by Omesh Singh, on Flickr

 

[LordofTackle]

Cool pictures Omesh, I really like the one with the tires

My 100L is far from useless and I really like the pictures it produces, but 360 days a year it sits on the shelf..

-Sebastian

 

[bholliman]

All of my lenses get regular use, probably the one that gets neglected the most is the little 50 1.8 STM. Its a nice little lens, but I know its not as good optically as my L lenses, so I tend to leave it at home unless I'm wanting to go small and light with my 5DsR (which is less often these days since I normally use my M5 in that situation).

My 100L is far from useless and I really like the pictures it produces, but 360 days a year it sits on the shelf..
-Sebastian

I had the same issue and eventually sold it. Its a terrific lens, I just don't shoot macro much and have the 70-200 f/2.8 II that covers the same focal length/aperture.