What is your favorite zoom lens and why?

[Asher Kelman]

Winston,

I was surprised that you could conveniently take such a picture given you were focused on bird shots! What was the camera mount you were using.

"Sony DSLR-A700 ,Sony SAL-70400G, 1/125s, f/16.0, 70.0mm, iso320"

I now know that Sony has a really great range, from 70-400 and that's impressive!

Is it push-pull?

Asher

I was surprised by this wonderful picture. After all, Winston was set up for bird photography. So I thought of the lens! So I repeat it here, to look at the unique favorite lenses we each rely on.Asher

Weather permitting, I do a lot of trail walking. I always cary my camera with the birding howitzer mounted. It occurred to me recently that I never record the trail itself, just the things I find around it. Here's a recent attempt at a trail image.

​

©2009 Winston Mitchell: Cottonwood Creek Trail
Sony DSLR-A700 ,Sony SAL-70400G, 1/125s, f/16.0, 70.0mm, iso320​

 

[Asher Kelman]

Imagine being on this path, setup for birds, lugging a heavy tripod and long lens combo and you realize the path itself demands to be recorded.

What do you so? You have a spare camera with a WA lens or you carry a P&S? I'm impressed by the Sony quality. What do others here use for such a wide range?

Asher

 

[Mike Shimwell]

No wide range here I'm afraid. I sold my 70-300DO as it never got any use and only have the 24-105 f4 IS and 70-200 f4 IS now. The 24-105 is a great walkaround lens if you want the zoomability and don't mind the size, and the 70-200 is my long(ish) lens. I'd like the 135/2 and 200/2.8 but the pair cost more than the zoom... and as I haven't use the long end much of late it's not really necessary.

I do use the zoom for panoramas, at which it excels.

Mike

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Asher,

My favorite zoom lens is my Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM.

My most commonly used zoom lens is my Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Mike,

I've often thought about the value of the Canon 28-300 L. It seems to be an aggressive range for perhaps a fashion shoot, (or wedding) where the subjects are 60 feet away and then a half a minute later, it's all happening a within whispering distance!

However, I've only heard of one photographer here who owns this lens.

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Asher,

I've often thought about the value of the Canon 28-300 L. It seems to be an aggressive range for perhaps a fashion shoot, (or wedding) where the subjects are 60 feet away and then a half a minute later, it's all happening a within whispering distance!

However, I've only heard of one photographer here who owns this lens.

It sounds like a nice idea, but:

• It costs about USD 2400
• it weighs about 3.7 lbs, almost 'arf a pound more than a "milk bottle" (70-200 f/2.8 IS)
• The zoom is "push-pull", which some people like, but I find hard to control (like a slide fader on a vertical mixer panel).

But, to make a bad pun, diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Asher Kelman]

• The zoom is "push-pull", which some people like, but I find hard to control (like a slide fader on a vertical mixer panel).

Doug,

The fact of the matter is that the exact focal length is not important as getting somewhere near "very wide" and "tele" very quickly is what the tool can do. In all this rapid change, (as we all know), the perspective is not changed but the amount of pixels assigned to the subject of interest.

If we had enormous resolution and lenses to match then one wide angle lens would be all we'd ever need!

Asher

 

[Mike Shimwell]

Hi, Asher,


It sounds like a nice idea, but:

• It costs about USD 2400
• it weighs about 3.7 lbs, almost 'arf a pound more than a "milk bottle" (70-200 f/2.8 IS)
• The zoom is "push-pull", which some people like, but I find hard to control (like a slide fader on a vertical mixer panel).

But, to make a bad pun, diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks.

Best regards,

Doug

Yes Doug, all good reasons to leave it in the shop. You could buy a nice Zeiss Ikon and C-Sonnar for that much, and practice real photography

In jest, but I have grown less patient with the big heavy kit (including the 24-105 really) and, unless I have a good reason to use the dslr, prefer the lighter camera at the moment. I can't afford an M9 yet, but if I sell a few big prints who knows... I had a play with one in my local shop the other day and I was quite taken with it.

Mike

 

[Deleted member 55]

My favorite zoom lens is the Canon EF 50mm f1.2L and my feet for the zoom.

It is sharp, AF is fast, has a large max F stop for low light, and low weight.

It also fits in a small bag and is water sealed.

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Asher,

Doug,

The fact of the matter is that the exact focal length is not important as getting somewhere near "very wide" and "tele" very quickly is what the tool can do.

" .... sagittal strokes for approximate folks."

Sometimes we might want "somewhere near the middle".

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Charles L Webster]

My favorite zoom these days is the Canon 17-40 f/4L. Since I'm shooting indoors more these days, I find the range suits what I'm doing.

Almost all my studio work is done with the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 macro, I use the zoom rarely in the studio, but frequently for events.

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Charles,

Almost all my studio work is done with the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 macro . . .

Is that a lovely thing or what!

Best regards,

Doug

 

[George Elsasser]

I am kind of old school when it comes to lenses, infact I did not go near a zoom lens until I began doing commercal work (in about 1993) and journalistic weddings in 1997.

Prior to that for my personal work; from 1977 - 1986 it was a 50mm. Then from 1986 -1992 a 35mm 2.8. After that from 1992 - 2005 mostly a variety of primes depending.

That only began to change for the personal work when I started using digital in 2005 at which time I used the nikor 18-200mm VR on FX bodies. That was a very fine lens on the FX cameras.

In early 2008 - till now a nikor 17-35mm 2.8 on a D3 is what I have been using, it is a wonderful lens the best I have ever owned. It is also nice cause I can switch the camera to FX mode and it becomes about a 26-53mm with greater depth of field if I desire such. Sample image below:

 

[Winston Mitchell]

Is it push-pull?

Asher

Twist.

Asher,

If you duplicate my stuff in a new thread, please leave some bread crumbs. I almost didn't see this. I generally don't read the hardware forums.

 

[Winston Mitchell]

Mike,

I've often thought about the value of the Canon 28-300 L. It seems to be an aggressive range for perhaps a fashion shoot, (or wedding) where the subjects are 60 feet away and then a half a minute later, it's all happening a within whispering distance!

However, I've only heard of one photographer here who owns this lens.

I was in Tanzania in June of '08. Two people (brothers) had this lens mounted on 40Ds. It was the only glass they had and they seemed happy with the setup. They didn't seem to use the neck straps much.

My 70-400, f/4-5.6 weighs a little less (3.3 lbs) and was, like many lenses, about $1/gm.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Winston,

Your right, next time I'll leave a good trail! I was just blown away by the good set-up you had and realized that with the fantastic new Sony (Konica Minolta) lenses, there was a really good option for natural life photography, to be able to shift from tele to at least normal range very fast.

Will Thompson has the Canon 28-300 and calls it a paparazzi lens as it can cover the red carpet from brushing distance to a distant grab-shot as she's trying to maneuver out of her car seat or slipping into a restaurant across the road.

Asher

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Asher,

Will Thompson has the Canon 28-300 and calls it a paparazzi lens as it can cover the red carpet from brushing distance to a distant grab-shot as she's trying to maneuver out of her car seat or slipping into a restaurant across the road.

And in that case, the push-pull zoom control seems very apt, if not from a human factors standpoint certainly from a metaphorical standpoint!

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Charles L Webster]

Hi, Charles,


Is that a lovely thing or what!

Best regards,

Doug

Indeed. The EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro is one of the sharpest lenses I've ever used, not to mention light-weight and fast focusing (when I use AF).

 

[StuartRae]

The EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro is one of the sharpest lenses I've ever used.....

I'll second that.

Returning to zooms, I'd like to put in a word for the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS.

My favourite though is the 70-200 f/4 L IS, which is light enough to carry round all day and is a joy to use.

Regards,

Stuart

 

[Asher Kelman]

My favourite though is the 70-200 f/4 L IS, which is light enough to carry round all day and is a joy to use.

Stuart,

That's a remarkable lens! I have the older non-IS version for travel. It fits n my pants pocket and is so light. I get some looks when I take it out!

Asher

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Asher,

That's a remarkable lens! I have the older non-IS version for travel. It fits in my pants pocket and is so light. I get some looks when I take it out!

Yes, there are times I wish I had the 70-200mm f/4L IS rather than the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS.

The practical reality is that for much of my shooting I use the Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS, and put up with the IQ deficiencies. When I feel improved IQ is worth the effort, I switch to the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS, the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, or the latter plus the Canon 2x focal length converter. (And does that latter rig take care of the girl in the seat in front at the rodeo or football game who jumps up just as the action starts to get exciting!)

In fact I'm just now loading my bag for tomorrow's rodeo.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[fahim mohammed]

I have had 2 zoomers since I was born. I acquired a lens few years back. The 50mm summilux aspherical.
With these two, I have no limits, except the boundaries of my mind and the type of work I want and do do.. and my age!
The ichiban zooms or otherwise are just pretenders, giving their users a false macho sense of being wannabe weight lifters.

Flame on!

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Fahim,

I have had 2 zoomers since I was born. I acquired a lens few years back. The 50mm summilux aspherical.
With these two, I have no limits, except the boundaries of my mind and the type of work I want and do do.. and my age!
The ichiban zooms or otherwise are just pretenders, giving their users a false macho sense of being wannabe weight lifters.

Flame on!

I'm not sure I follow.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[StuartRae]

giving their users a false macho sense of being wannabe weight lifters

I think Fahim is trying to tell us that large zooms are very heavy

Regards,

Stuart

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Stuart,

I think Fahim is trying to tell us that large zooms are very heavy

Indeed! I schlepped my Canon EF 70-200mm f.2.8L IS USM to the Fort Worth Rodeo yesterday, and when I was done, I was pooped!.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Mike Shimwell]

I carried my 5D with 24-105 across the corridor tonight to grab a picture of the youngest - I was quyite shocked at how heavy it is. Just got used to the Ikon I suppose, but even the 1Ds3 with 50/1.4 feels light in comparison!

Mike

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Mike,

I carried my 5D with 24-105 across the corridor tonight to grab a picture of the youngest - I was quyite shocked at how heavy it is. Just got used to the Ikon I suppose, but even the 1Ds3 with 50/1.4 feels light in comparison!

Probably we old guys should pay more attention to the Four Thirds movement.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[An Pham]

The fact of the matter is that the exact focal length is not important as getting somewhere near "very wide" and "tele" very quickly is what the tool can do. In all this rapid change, (as we all know), the perspective is not changed but the amount of pixels assigned to the subject of interest.