What's your favorite Canon lens and why?

[Quasimodo]

I have a good selection of L lenses, and I have been fortunate to be able to try many other lenses (even strange ones, like for instance the 8-15 F4.0L and the 200 F2.0L IS (strange because in my opinion of their limited areas of use).

A little disclaimer first. I know that specific lenses are for specific uses and shooting styles.

What I am asking you to share here is what lens and why it is your favorite

I'll start. My favorite lens is the 135mm F2.0L. I love this lens because it is a really kind lens for an amateur like me, insofar as the resulting images are great, and the ones I have to throw away afterwards are few. I love this lens because it gives me a distance that I like to shoot portraits in given its range. I love this lens for its quality of bokeh (although I would argue that my 100mm F2.8L HIS Macro is better in this specific area). Finally I love this lens because it is the best combination of price and quality that I have seen on any canon lens.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5D mkII, 135 F2.0L, 70-200 F2.8 IS II, 17 TS F4.0L, 100 F2.8L HIS Macro, 24-105 F4.0L, 16-35 F2.8L II, 50 F1.4, Tokina 17mm. 430 EX II, 580 EX II, ST-E2.
Hoping to buy: 24-70 F2.8L II, MP-E65 (with the Macro Twin flash).

 

[kubelik]

I've owned the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II for a shorter period than any of my other lenses yet I've taken more photos with it than any of my other lenses. it's useful for so many things.

 

[LACityPhotoCom]

Ooh tough call. I would say overall, the 16-35MK II. It works flawlessly, silently, instantly, and is extremely sharp wide open. The wide end for landscapes and fun portraits and the long end (35mm) for normalish shots. It just has a ton of uses.

Don't get me wrong though I love my 50 1.4 and 135L and ultimately they produce the cleanest, sharpest images, but the 16-35 II is just so wonderfully versatile and such a joy to operate.

Yes the 70-200II is excellent also somewhat versatile but it's really too big to lug around. It's like taking a pitch fork to a chili-eating contest.

 

[lol]

I can easily say 100-400L without thinking. Easily more than half of my lifetime shots on any camera are with that lens. Great optical quality, great handling and a flexible range.

If you asked me what my 2nd fave lens was, I couldn't answer that easily!

 

[Quasimodo]

Ooh tough call. I would say overall, the 16-35MK II. It works flawlessly, silently, instantly, and is extremely sharp wide open. The wide end for landscapes and fun portraits and the long end (35mm) for normalish shots. It just has a ton of uses.

Don't get me wrong though I love my 50 1.4 and 135L and ultimately they produce the cleanest, sharpest images, but the 16-35 II is just so wonderfully versatile and such a joy to operate.

Yes the 70-200II is excellent also somewhat versatile but it's really too big to lug around. It's like taking a pitch fork to a chili-eating contest.

I think the 16-35 is great too. I use it specifically for landscape and city/architecture shots. I read one of Scott Kelby's books on how to take good shots, and he recommended using a wide angle and push in tight (subject to the left or right of the image, and lots of context in the frame). But when I try this, the subjects get distorted in a convex manner. I might be doing it wrong, but I would love to hear how you do it, so I can get even more use of it

 

[Quasimodo]

I can easily say 100-400L without thinking. Easily more than half of my lifetime shots on any camera are with that lens. Great optical quality, great handling and a flexible range.

If you asked me what my 2nd fave lens was, I couldn't answer that easily!

I have not had the chance to use this lens in a proper way. I borrowed it from a friend, but there was a malfunction with the AF (it jumped and changed focuspoint when I hit AF). Unfortunately I have not had the chance to use it afterwards, but given its price and range it is definitely something I am considering. But first, my next buy is the 2x extender mk III, which I will attach to the 70-200 F2.8 IS II.

Would I need it with that combo (given that it has the same max aperture at 5.6 at 400)?

 

[frisk]

My favourite qualifies as strange, or at least unusual, as it is no longer in production - the 50mm f/1.0. It has all the disadvantages and problems of the f/1.2 (and is three times as expensive), but for paper-thin focus plane and wonderful bokeh in low-light, you just cannot beat it.

Sure, it is slow to focus, and not the sharpest lens around, but it is my favourite.....well, together with the 85mm f/1.2, pretty much for a similar reason.

 

[wickidwombat]

Ooh tough call. I would say overall, the 16-35MK II. It works flawlessly, silently, instantly, and is extremely sharp wide open. The wide end for landscapes and fun portraits and the long end (35mm) for normalish shots. It just has a ton of uses.

same here, tough call but I think the 16-35 mk2 except i love it more on aps-h for a walk around lens giving 20-48mm and corner to corner sharp images wide open

my other favourite lens is my sigma 85mm f1.4

 

[lol]

But first, my next buy is the 2x extender mk III, which I will attach to the 70-200 F2.8 IS II.

Would I need it with that combo (given that it has the same max aperture at 5.6 at 400)?

I had considered that option too, but basically if you need to go from 100-400 quickly, you get the 100-400. Lighter, cheaper, no need to mess around with extenders in the field... of course the 70-200 II optionally with 2x extender on it has different advantages. You need to weigh the benefits and costs for your uses. For my needs, a fast aperture at shorter focal lengths is not only unnecessary, it is a disadvantage as I usually need greater depth of field.

 

[Crapking]

The one I am currently looking through b/c that means I am shooting and not in front of a computer

 

[Quasimodo]

My favourite qualifies as strange, or at least unusual, as it is no longer in production - the 50mm f/1.0. It has all the disadvantages and problems of the f/1.2 (and is three times as expensive), but for paper-thin focus plane and wonderful bokeh in low-light, you just cannot beat it.

Sure, it is slow to focus, and not the sharpest lens around, but it is my favourite.....well, together with the 85mm f/1.2, pretty much for a similar reason.

I read a review of the 50 F1.0L and it was acclaimed as a legendary lens. I have however never seen it on sale. The 85 F1.2 is one of my surprisingly biggest dissapointment. I found the AF to be very slow and a bit nervous (as if it was jumping around searching for another focus point). I took it on a field trip to take portraits, and ended up throwing away more than 80 of the images. This could of course be because I am not a good photographer, but I believe that this lens is best for studiowork.

 

[Viggo]

It must be the 50 L, I liked my 24 L II better when on 1,3 crop, but now that I'm on FF, the 50 L is a fantastic lens, I have the 85 L II, but it's more limited, the 50 can be used for everything, LOVE IT!

 

[ontarian]

I have or have had more than my fair share of Canon lenses ( over 50 by last count ). If I had to pick 1 it would depend on the subject, and my mood. A top 10 in no particular order would be

EF 135/2L
EF 14 2.8 II L
EF 400 2.8 L IS
EF 300 2.8 L IS
FD 800 5.6 L made EF by EdMika adapter
FD 300 2.8 L made EF by EdMika adapter
FL 55 1.2 made EF by EdMika kit
TS 35 2.8 made EF by EdMika kit
EF 70-200 2.8 L IS II
EF 100 2.8 L HIS

Honorable mention
EF 85mm 1.2 L II

 

[ksuweh]

That is really tough! I have an EF 70-200 2.8 L IS II that I LOVE for its versatility & amazing IQ (sharpness & bokeh). I just bought my first prime though.... an EF 35 L. That lens, attached to my 7D, is a GREAT lens!! Image quality, check, super thin DOF, check, AWESOME bokeh, check & all in a good & usefull focal length! So, as for now I have to say my favorite lens in my 35L.

 

[barryjphoto]

Here's to hoping my favorites are the one's I'd like to upgrade to in the near future. Currently my favorite's are 70-200 f/4 L for it's range on a 1.6 and the sweet creamy almost 85 1.8-esque Bokeh is gives. Plus light weight and price. I also love my 35 f/2. Except for it's seeking and noisy AF it's a pleasure on my Elan 7 and dig. A great street hip shooter.

 

[RobertG.]

It's hard to say but at moment my favorite is the TS-E 24mm L II. I really love the build quality, the lack of distortion (compared to other wide angle lenses) and lack of vignetting. Vignetting is the most anoying feature of my half dozen other primes and of all zoomes. Of course the possibilities of tilt and shift are great and are a major reason, too. Closely following is t
he TS-E 90mm. I love to manuel focus with this lens but I miss the more modern design of the TS-E 24.

 

[Harley]

I have or have had more than my fair share of Canon lenses ( over 50 by last count ). If I had to pick 1 it would depend on the subject, and my mood. A top 10 in no particular order would be

EF 135/2L
EF 14 2.8 II L
EF 400 2.8 L IS
EF 300 2.8 L IS
FD 800 5.6 L made EF by EdMika adapter
FD 300 2.8 L made EF by EdMika adapter
FL 55 1.2 made EF by EdMika kit
TS 35 2.8 made EF by EdMika kit
EF 70-200 2.8 L IS II
EF 100 2.8 L HIS

Honorable mention
EF 85mm 1.2 L II

Hear, hear for the FL 55mm f/1.2...! My TS 35mm f/2.8 and FD 300mm f/2.8 L are tied for second.

 

[7enderbender]

For me that would be the FD 50 1.4 and the EF 135L.

With that being said: I am very curious about a converted FL 55 1.2 which may just be the closest EF compatible replacement for the FD 50 1.4. For the time being I'm using the EF version of the 50 1.4 (for digital).

I was also always very happy with my 28mm FD lens.

 

[JR]

I do a lot of portraits and I would say its a tie between the 135L and the 85 1.2L II right now. I picked those because they are super sharp even wide open, fast, and offer really bokeh. I could not live without either one.

Jacques

 

[Drewskers]

My favorite Canon lens might have been my 70-200mm f/4 IS L, but it's not. Why? Because it is not as sharp as the 70-200 f/4 non-IS L that it replaced. Not by a long shot! And it flares much more easily than the non-IS version. Which, unfortunately, I sold. So every time I use the IS lens, I get pissed off.

My most used Canon lens is the 24-105mm IS L. Why? Because of the wonderful focal length range and very effective IS, and reasonable (though not great) sharpness. But, it's not my favorite lens either, because of the absurd amounts of barrel distortion and vignetting at the wide end. When barrel distortion is bad enough that it hinders composition, it's really remarkable! Thank the gods for PTLens (and now, auto lens correction in Adobe Camera Raw), they calm my anger towards Canon for fobbing this off as an "L" lens.

Similarly, I'd like to know Canon's excuse for stupid amounts of barrel distortion on my 400mm f/5.6 L lens. It's a prime telephoto for cripe's sake. The barrel distortion should be low enough so that it is not visible!

I'd discuss the merits of my Canon 20mm f/2.8 EF lens, but the only one I can come up with, is that I wouldn't be bothered if I dropped it on the sidewalk by accident.

Actually, my favorite lens on my Canon camera (a venerable 5D), is the Sigma EX 14mm f/2.8 which I bought 12 years ago for $700. I thought about upgrading to the Canon 14mm f/2.8 L II lens, but after the experience with the 70-200m lens, this time I decided to "try before I buy". I found the Sigma has less field curvature and less distortion than the Canon, and auto-focuses more accurately. It does flare a little more than the Canon. But the extra $2000 in my bank account more than covers the cost of the piece of black cardboard I use to shield the lens. That Sigma 14mm is the oldest lens in my Canon arsenal, a tried and true "keeper".

My future lens budget is allocated to Zeiss, and quite possibly the ZF series, so they can be used on Canon, and other brands as well.