|
| Canon EF 17-40/4L: I bought this lens for my normal range (27-64mm equivalent at 1.6x crop) zoom to 20D in 2004.
It is optically very good and by build nothing short of excellent lens for it's price. Anyway I found zoom is not my cup of tea: I tended to be moving too little and was compensating framing by rather moving zoom ring than my feet. If you cannot previsualize perspective and framing simultaneously then you may be in the same boat too.. Besides on 1.6x crop body f4 -aperture is not offering too much control for shallow depth of field.
Those aspects combined it is no wonder that my pictures were usually looking boring travel snapshots at best. I bought 5D in November 2006. In theory I had then very capable wide angle zoom with my 17-40/4.
In practice my work at 17mm-28mm was lacking that something, I was not committed and not spending enough hours practicing, maybe I cannot see wide like some other photographer can, maybe both. Anyway I sold 17-40/4 a couple of months after buying 5D.
Don't get me wrong: EF 17-40/4L is one of the best lenses in its price class but I hope it does not detoriate your shooting like it did mine! I'm going to try 28mm prime sometimes, hopefully putting more effort and hours to produce better pictures than earlier.
|
| Canon EF 35/2: After zoom I decided to try normal prime (56mm eqv. at 1.6x). For
results this was a good move, it felt like homecoming after I have been using 35 and 50mm in my earlier
film years. Viewfinder was now brighter, lens felt well balanced with tiny 30D and pictures were getting
better and closer to my personal taste after each shooting session.
I began to experiment by carrying camera while walking in forest and even during dinner. Taking a few hundred of more or less impulsive pictures from from various subjects I felt 35mm is more suitable for me than what normal
range zoom ever was. Against my earlier predictions I was not missing a little bit wide angle view or ability to zoom.
Logistically EF 35/2 is very compact lens and picture quality is excellent for price. Unfortunately I met the disadvantage of this 'pocket rocket' in Eastern Turkey May 2007: Focusing ring suddenly got jammed at infinity without any noticeable reason
to damage, maybe lens was slightly touching against car door or something. Anyway it was now without manual AND automatic focusing in middle of nowhere, but as a
precaution I had backed up with 50/1.8 so it was possible to continue shooting.
Canon service examined camera repair cost to exceed product price. I would have suffice without autofocus unit as I'm focusing manually below 100mm, but they said MF couldn't be done separately. Lesson learned: for critical work you should have backup for very cheap and fragile lenses like EF 28/2.8, EF 35/2 or EF 50/1.8 II. Or better still: slightly more
robust and a tidbit more expensive lens of the same focal length.
|
| Canon TS-E 90/2.8: Originally I bought tilt and shift 90/2.8 for product photography. Eventually
my studio project ceased but I decided to keep the lens for another projects covering flower and fungi shooting. This lens is a dream to use in so many ways with rugged build, various options for lens movements and optically
superior performance.
But wait there is a little problem: the 90mm focal length is too long for my plant projects!
I took 50mm macro around for sessions and immediately noticed that my style wasn't for that tele at all. The resulting
pictures with 50mm were obviously better with close up subject and stronger connection to subject background.
Gadget collector inside me said 'keep it', but then I have to be honest to myself, I really don't need dead weight in my camera bag. It is
a fancy lens, but as a useless for my purposes it went for sale a few weeks ago. |
| Canon EF 50/1.8 II: At 75 euros or dollars this one is not too much an investment. I bought 50/1.8 to back up other lenses when traveling. It is so light I can pack it inside styrofoam box and tuck between clothes into my
checked-in luggage. If someone steals it or it will get broken, no big deal. But it can be priceless if lens nn is
out of service during trip. As was with the case described above with EF 35/2.
The mechanics of this lens are unreliable to say at least, in my copy the autofocus switch is bordering broken with
minimal hours of duty. I keep it at manual focus all the time, but will not superglue it. If manual focusing will get
broken, I want to have a try with autofocus before I dump the lens ;) Optically this lens is a good performer and I think it is not holding back my creativity or technical requirements AS LONG AS it will not break apart with all those flimsy plastic
focusing mechanics! |
| Canon EF 50/2.5 Macro: This lens is often labeled as 'outdated' or 'not real macro' and
generally left without attention which it in my opinion really deserves. Optically excellent, versatile, light,
inexpensive, supporting 1:2 magnification ratio, fast enough for many applications and slightly more robust than some
of other lenses mentioned here.
This lens is practically always on my 5D and I'm doing most of my shooting except birds with 50/2.5. I have get used to
50mm focal length and it's 'chameleon nature' to provide both wide angle and tele effects depending on subject and
perspective.
I have been taking an occasional document picture of bird habitat with 35mm or with some other lenses. But for my personal use, including the more strict species shooting of flowers and fungi, I have found 50/2.5 lens to be as versatile as is my EF 500/4L IS for bird photography: no need to think or argue what lens should I use next but rather fully concentrate to subject, light and composition.
|
|
|
