What's new
DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a spin-off of dpreview. We are a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. From smartphone to Medium Format.

DPRF is a community for everybody, every brand and every sensor format. Digital and film.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

What lens do you like more than you thought you would?

Smaug

Smaug

Well-Known Member
I recently bought into the Nikon Z system with a used Z5 body and a few lenses. (40/2, 24-50/slow, 24-120/4, 70-300/slow, 400/8 mirror)

I bought the 40 mm f/2 with the idea of it being my low light, lightweight prime lens, which would only occasionally displace the 24-120 that I thought would be pretty much glued to the camera all the time. I thought the 70-300 would get the next most use and the 24-50 would be my vacation lens. (compact & lightweight)

In reality, I find myself questioning whether I could get the job done with the 40, even when the 24-120 would technically be the better choice.

One recent example was my stepdaughter's prom photos. The 24-120 on the Z5 would have given me the "better" focal length, or I could have used the 45/1.8 on my Olympus E-M10.3 body for a good combo of portrait focal length + fast maximum aperture. But no, I chose the 40/2 and just moved around more. Or backed up a bit too far to keep the semi wide angle distortion from wrecking the closer shots, then cropped a bit later.

I just love that lens! Maybe I'm going into a prime lens phase again? It's just so light and the focal length seems just right, so often. Here's a sample shot. Stepdaughter and her boyfriend, about to go to their junior prom. I embarassed him a little when I asked if he would like to borrow one of Lorelai's hair ties to help keep the hair out of his face. :teufel-grinsend-schwanz:

Prom2023.jpg
 
Smaug said:
In reality, I find myself questioning whether I could get the job done with the 40
Click to expand...

I find 40mm a really universal FL. IMHO often underestimated. 50mm is often too close to get more environment on the image. This is what I like so much with my Z 40/2 and Ricoh GR3x. Unfortunately the Sigma 45/2.8 is more on the soft side if you are close.

The lens I do you like more than I thought I would is the Fuji XF 50/2.0 and the Sigma 35/1.4 ART DG DN.

With the Fuji XF 50/2.0 I was an early buyer and there were nop reviews available. I just wanted to have a small prime. The XF56/1.2 is a great lens, but big and heavy. The Fuji surprised me with its image quality and fast AF. I really liked it. But today, I tend to use the XF 23/1.4 XR and XF 35/2.0 more often. I think because of the optical viewfinder of the XPro2. With the XF50, it gets really small and when I purchased the 50mm years ago, I used it more with a XT1 and X-E1.

The Sigma 35/1.4 ART DG DN was a purchase for a project I wanted to do. I never thought of using it outside of that use case, because normally I do not like big and heavy lenses. But this lens is so impressive wide open, that it is really a joy to use. The sharpness, the bokeh. I really like it!
 
Panasonic Lumix 12-60; kit lens with my Panny G9. As I recall, $200 over the body-only price. Its image quality considerably exceeded my expectations.
 
Canon 18-150.
I run 2 R7s. My long gun for wildlife is the 100-400 with 1.4x TC.
It was planned for my short shooter to be the EF 17-55. I had this on my 7Dii and really enjoyed it.
The 18-150 came with the kit, and was a lot better than I expected. And a lot lighter than the EF.
So now the EF gets used only for the low light indoors work, and spends most of the time on the shelf.
 
I bought in to the Canon M system for a specific purpose (in Astrophotography). I had the kit lens (which was fair) and bought the Sigma 56 mm prime (which is great). Wasn't interested in much further. Then Canon had some refurbed gear available and I got an M200 and the 55-250 lens (said lens costing $99, as I recall}. Most of my walkabout shots are taken at 50mm. But it turned out that more reach was fun to have, and now the M200 with this stabilized zoom lens is my only walk-about gear. (If I need wider, there's always my phone).

Canon sunset-IMG_1991.jpg

IMG_1385w24.jpg


A seal has caught a skate and the gulls want some of the action:
IMG_1570Cr.jpg


David
 
Smaug said:
I recently bought into the Nikon Z system with a used Z5 body and a few lenses. (40/2, 24-50/slow, 24-120/4, 70-300/slow, 400/8 mirror)

I bought the 40 mm f/2 with the idea of it being my low light, lightweight prime lens, which would only occasionally displace the 24-120 that I thought would be pretty much glued to the camera all the time. I thought the 70-300 would get the next most use and the 24-50 would be my vacation lens. (compact & lightweight)

In reality, I find myself questioning whether I could get the job done with the 40, even when the 24-120 would technically be the better choice.

One recent example was my stepdaughter's prom photos. The 24-120 on the Z5 would have given me the "better" focal length, or I could have used the 45/1.8 on my Olympus E-M10.3 body for a good combo of portrait focal length + fast maximum aperture. But no, I chose the 40/2 and just moved around more. Or backed up a bit too far to keep the semi wide angle distortion from wrecking the closer shots, then cropped a bit later.

I just love that lens! Maybe I'm going into a prime lens phase again? It's just so light and the focal length seems just right, so often. Here's a sample shot. Stepdaughter and her boyfriend, about to go to their junior prom. I embarassed him a little when I asked if he would like to borrow one of Lorelai's hair ties to help keep the hair out of his face. :teufel-grinsend-schwanz:

Click to expand...
Fir me it has been the Panasonic 20/1.7
I wasn't expecting to add much to my photography given it was sitting uncomfortably aside the 12-40 and 25/1.4 but despite its AF flaws, it has surprised me with its lovely rendering. It is still one of my favourite primes, not only in mFT realm.
 
Primes. I vary between 28 and 40mm (FF Equivalent) depending on how I feel, or what's mounted on the camera I take at the time.

I mostly walk around and shoot whatever interests me these days and I enjoy finding compositions that fit with the lens on the camera. Plus I "grew up" using primes. Silly I suppose. With zooms I often spend too much time zooming around and fooling with the thing rather than moving around and finding really the best angle.

However...

Having said the above, I notice I'm using a Zfc with 16-50 kit zoom more and more, probably because that combination is so easy to carry and inexpensive enough to risk loss or damage. But I also notice that my "keepers" are mostly shot at the wide end, seldom past the middle range. So I'm using it almost as a prime.
 
I love the Fujifilm GF 110mm lens. It is F2, and the rendering is very aesthetic. Lens resolving power is extremely high, solid sharpness even at its widest aperture. I really love using this lens. At about 87mm in 35mm equiv., it is perfect for what I mainly shoot. I wasn't very sure about this lens when I purchased it first, as I was used to use F/1.4 lenses, and F/2 is kinda slow for me, but now my camera won't leave the home without it attached.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top