The Most Popular and Favorite DSLR Lenses – According to Our Readers
10 days ago I asked readers to answer the question – What is your favorite Lens?
Today I spent a few hours collating the 233 responses to the question in the hope that it might turn out to be useful information for those in the market for a new lens.
Overwhelmingly the most popular brand of lenses mentioned were Canon and Nikon. Of the 302 lenses mentioned 52% were Canon, 24% were Nikon, 12% were Sigma and the rest were a mixture of Pentax, Olympus, Tamron, Tokina, Minolta and a couple of others.
As a result of the makeup of these results I’ve decided to give you some overall winners and then drill down a little further into three categories of Canon, Nikon and ‘Other’. I could have drilled down into the ‘other’ section more but there were just not enough lenses for each manufacturer.
Overall Most Popular Lenses
- Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Telephoto Zoom Lens (pictured right)
- Nikon 50mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor Lens
- Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens
- Canon EF 50mm f1.4 USM Standard & Medium Telephoto Lens
- Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Standard Zoom Lens
I was quite surprised by the the first place winner because by no means is it a cheap lens but the result was extremely clear – 22 of the 302 lens mentions were for the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS lens. Of course following it up are the ‘nifty 50′ lenses which are always popular.
Of course the question of this reader survey was asking about favorite lenses – and the winner is a worthy one as it is fast, has image stabilization, has a great focal range for all kinds of applications and is superbly sharp.
Now lets drill down further and look at manufacturer specific lists.
Popular Canon Lenses
You’ve already seen the top 4 – so let me give you the top 10. I’ve included a few comments on each which I’ve taken from the comments left in the previous post as well as my own experience as a Canon user with many of these in my bag.
- Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Telephoto Zoom Lens – fast, great for portraits, weddings, sports, versatile focal length. Quite a heavy lens and not cheap.
- Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens – for its price perhaps the best value lens in terms of the quality of output.
- Canon EF 50mm f1.4 USM Standard & Medium Telephoto Lens – a step up from the f/1.8 in terms of build quality and results but more expensive.
- Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Standard Zoom Lens (pictured right) – a great walk around lens. Faster than the 24-105 but no image stabilization.
- Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens – often compared with the 24-70mm this lens is not as fast but has image stabilization and an extra 35mm reach. A worthy contender for a great walk around lens.
- Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Telephoto Zoom Lens – not as fast as the 70-200mm f2.8 and without image stabilization but still a very sharp lens, a considerably cheaper option and lighter too. Note: between these two lenses is also a 70-200 f2.8 lens without image stabilization (this lens came in at #11).
- Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens – another alternative for a walk around lens if you take wide angle shots. A fast lens and loved by many.
- Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Telephoto Lens – a prime lens that gets great reviews. Also check out the f/1.2 version which is super fast but pricey.
- Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens – I love this lens. It’s not as fast as some but has been great for landscapes.
- Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Lens – another of my personal favorites. If you want to take Macro shots this is well worth considering. Interestingly it also takes great portraits.
Popular Nikon Lenses
I’m going to keep this list to a top 8 rather than a 10 – simply because there were less Nikon lenses mentioned and a few less clear favorites. Please excuse my comments on each lens – I’m not a Nikon user and so have relied upon the comments of others more.
- Nikon 50mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor Lens - Nikons ‘nifty 50′ is a much loved lens and similar to the Canon version – for its price and quality it is a must have in your bag.
- Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED-IF AF-S VR DX Lens - this lens makes a great option for everyday shooting with a fantastic focal range which gives both a reasonably wide angle and reach. The vibration reduction makes it particularly attractive and it is a reasonably affordable lens.
- Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom Nikkor Lens - this lens has had some great reviews and is renowned for being a high quality camera. Again it has vibration reduction, is relatively fast and is great for portraits, weddings, sports. It’s not cheap though.
- Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF Zoom Nikkor Lens - lenses in this focal range featured heavily in both the Canon and Nikon lens and it is no wonder – its a really handy focal range. This one is quite a bit cheaper than the previous 70-200 but you lose Vibration reduction. Those mentioning it in our survey raved about it.
- Nikon 105mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor Lens - it is interesting that Macro lenses feature on both Nikon and Canon lists. This one however has vibration reduction making its fast aperture even more useful.
- Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX Nikkor Zoom Lens - another fast zoom lens with wide angles yet a little length – making it a good choice for every day use if you don’t need lots of reach. On Amazon this lens has 52 reviews and only 3 of them didn’t give it a perfect score of 5 stars (and two of those gave it 4 stars). I guess it isn’t just DPS readers who love this lens.
- Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Nikkor Wide Angle Zoom Lens - another zoom with a 2.8 aperture and a reasonable focal range. Those recommending it say its sharp, fast focusing and a joy to use.
- Nikon 10.5mm f/2.8G ED AF DX Fisheye Nikkor Lens - rounding out the Nikon list is a fisheye lens which looks like being a lot of fun.
Other Popular Lenses
A few other lenses were mentioned multiple times and in while most of them (with the exception of one) were not as popular as the above lenses I thought I’d mention a few:
- Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM Lens (Nikon) (also for Canon) – this lens was actually mentioned quite a few times – so many that it only just missed the overall winners list! It looks like a fun wide angle lens to have in your camera bag.
- Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG APO Macro Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon – (also for Nikon) – this lens certainly has a wide focal range and is certainly on the more economical end of the spectrum of lenses in this category.
- Pentax SMCP-FA 50mm f/1.4 Lens – again the 50mm lenses pop up.
- Pentax-m 50mm 1:1.7″ (Asahi) – the Pentax nifty fifty.
- Olympus 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 Zuiko ED Digital SLR Lens – The winning Olympus lens with 3 people recommending it.
By no means are any of the above lenses complete. There were many other lenses mentioned – but these were the ones which kept coming up again and again in the comments left on the previous post. I hope you find them interesting and useful as you think about your next lens purchase.


64 Responses to “The Most Popular and Favorite DSLR Lenses – According to Our Readers” - Add Yours
December 11th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
I am amazed that the 28-200 Sigma (Canon) lens does not feature. It is light compared to other lenses with the same spec and fits both mnual & digital SLRs. Also it is the ideal to lens to travel with as it acts both as a wide angle & zoom lens without the need to keep changing lens.
With my Canon 350D this is an ideal lens for travelling and backpacking and takes high quality photos.
December 11th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Finally some Pentax gear in here. The system is not as popular as Canikon but the glass is top quality, specially the primes.
December 11th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Those results are not particularly surprising, although there is a big price range in the top 5, ranging from the expensive 70-200 f/2.8L IS to the cheap 50mm f/1.8.
I have two out of the top five lenses (#3 and #5), although I’d love to upgrade from #3 to #4, and upgrade from my 70-200 f/4L to #1 ;-)
December 11th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
My new Canon EFS 18-200 lens, purchased with a Canon D50, does not say ‘made in Japan’. Does this say by default, ‘made in China’? What is the quality difference if it is Chinese?
Sincerely
Steve
December 11th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
Great summary. and all my lenses are listed as the top 10 among all Nikon’s fav lenses.
#1. Nikon 50mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor Lens
- My 1st lens if I count off my D70 kit lens. I have been Using it for over 4 years, and still using it now.
#3. Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom Nikkor Lens
- I just got one of these tele lens(finally) after so long time admiring it.
#5. Nikon 105mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Micro
- Being using it for less than a year, I just love the AF-S compared with the previous model.
#6. Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX Nikkor
- Being using it for over 2 years. I hardly use other lenses when i got this lens.
My next upgrade will be a D300 body (maybe end of next year, my D70 is too old) then followed by 300mm F2.8 VR (I am not too optimistic about when i can afford that)
December 11th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
My husband and I have invested in Sony, and are having trouble deciding on our next lens. I was hoping there would be something listed here! So far, we only have the kit lens, and the 50mm f2.8 macro. We are not yet able to invest in the serious zoom lenses. Any advice?
December 12th, 2008 at 12:15 am
Re: Canon 70-200mm f/4 L: there IS an IS version–I have one. It produces slightly better images than the f/2.8L IS and is a lot lighter (1.6 lb vs 3.5 lb) and $600 or so cheaper. (The f/4L IS actually costs less than the non-IS f/2.8L.)
For Ian Reynolds: Sigma doesn’t make a 28-200mm lens. It makes a 18-200mm and a 28-300mm. I don’t know anything about the 18-200mm, but I have the 28-300mm. I bought it to go with the used 30D I bought on eBay, which came just with the 18-55mm kit lens. I had older (but EF) Sigma 28-80mm and 70-300mm lenses (HEAVY!), so I thought that the 28-300mm would be a good substitute. How wrong I was. That lens is in its box, ready to sell on eBay. Here are some reasons:
- slow–f/3.5-6.3, right at the hairy edge of being able to autofocus with Canon consumer/prosumer cameras; it also makes taking action shots at long FL problematic.
- cheaply made
- no image stabilization, which makes that slow aperture even worse
- no full-time manual focus–the focussing ring turns, which can be disconcerting if you touch the ring and hear the motor grind, and that’s easy to do
- odd filter size (62mm), not used by any Canon lens that I know of, only Sigma & Tamron, so one needs to buy another CPL filter
- hard to manually focus at 300mm because it’s so dim
- images are soft above 100mm (not all that great below 100mm, either)
- not really “wide angle” on my 30D or your Rebel 350D. The 1.6 FOV factor makes it equivalent to a 45-480mm lens. If you’re talking about the 18-200mm, that’s equivalent to 29-320mm, so that lens is “wide angle.”
For traveling, it may be OK, I guess, but I was so disappointed with the photos that I’d really look for something better, perhaps the new Canon 18-200mm IS–or just take my S3 IS (36-432mm equivalent).
My “normal” lens now is the Canon EF-S 17-85mm IS, which is not the best (a 24-70mm f/2.8L would be better from an image standpoint), but it does have IS, USM (full-time manual focussing), uses a 67mm filter (it shares that with my 70-200mm f/4L IS), and is a lot sturdier. My other zooms go on both ends: Sigma 10-20mm, Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS, and Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS. The difference in image quality between the two L lenses and the Sigma 28-300mm can be startling, especially the 70-200mm f/4L IS. The IS lets me handhold the 100-400mm at 400mm down to 1/100, consistently. The 70-200mm f/4L IS is even better, about 3 stops: I have good images handheld at 200mm and 1/25 and some at 1/15.
For low-light work, I have Canon primes: 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2 (equivalent to a “normal” lens on the 30D), 50mm f/1.8 II, 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2, and 135mm f/2.8. (The last is a “soft focus” lens, but is quite sharp in its normal mode.) I also have the 100mm f/2.8 Macro lens. If I get the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, I’ll get rid of the 135mm. I often shoot equestrian events in indoor arenas with terrible lighting, so the 35mm, 50mm, & 100mm f/2 all come in very handy to push up the shutter speed. I’d keep those even if I got a Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L. There’s a BIG difference between 1/200 and 1/100 in shooting galloping horses.
December 12th, 2008 at 12:32 am
wait… “M” 50mm f1.7?
are you serious? Are there that many M users out there, and why not the F2. that was kit for the K1000
though the FA50 F1.4.. love much :D
December 12th, 2008 at 12:35 am
very useful and educative.your comments on technical lenses like mico,tilt &shift are solicited
December 12th, 2008 at 1:10 am
Great little list. Technical reviews are great to read, but it’s always good to see what the popular vote is for lenses. Especially now – I’m expecting some gift cards for christmas and I’m looking for a new lens.
December 12th, 2008 at 1:14 am
“Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom Nikkor Lens – this lens has had some great reviews and is renowned for being a high quality camera.”
The lens takes pictures too?!!@ AWESOME! :-p
http://www.ryanhollowayphotography.com
December 12th, 2008 at 2:32 am
As a somewhat newcomer to Digital SLR photography this listing of lenses was very interesting. I purchase a 2nd hand Sigma 28-300mm Macro from a member of my local Camera club. To be quite honest I’ve not taken it off since as it covers everything I want to take. It was especially useful while on holiday in Alicante this year with my family & Grandson.
December 12th, 2008 at 2:40 am
Great list.
Nice to see I’ve got 3 out of the 5 of the most popular list. And I totaly agree! :)
December 12th, 2008 at 3:10 am
I like my 12-24 Tokina the best. Sharp.
Rosh
December 12th, 2008 at 3:30 am
For me, the lens that I love most is nikon 50mm 1.8 lens. the lens can shoot a nicely sharp image. Besides that the autofocus is very quick and the most important is the price is cheap. So all of these combination makes this lens as my favorite lens. The other lens that I love using is Nikon 18-200 mm lens. It allows me to take almost 90% of the subject without changing the lens. great for travel and street photography…
http://www.photomakers.net
December 12th, 2008 at 5:22 am
HI
I just bought a used Tamron 24-105 F/2.8.
The lens is so much clearer than the canon lens that came with my camera. It’s fast and clear. It is heavy but it’s worth the extra weight.
Diana
December 12th, 2008 at 5:39 am
Thanks for doing this. While not a comprehensive list (don’t know why people say such and such should be there or what about such and such), it is a very interesting exercise and should be taken as a list of lenses to consider if one meets your needs. And remember, only 302 people responded.
I’ve got #1, #5 and #10 on the canon list and don’t regret any of them (although the price of the 70-200 IS slowed the purchase of the next one).
I had a sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX DG HSM but it had troubles communicating with the camera (50D) and kept floating through front focus amounts requiring constant (hourly sometimes) adjustment with micro focus adjustment in camera. So away it went traded in on the Canon 70-200 IS. Henry’s is an excellent company/store. They have treated me well above my expectations.
December 12th, 2008 at 5:46 am
#1 shows how many pros read your mailing list. I will get myself a 50mm (Canon) tomorrow (#3)the first lens after my kit one, just starting out and do not have much money to dump into this as I’d like yet. Does getting a Canon EF 2X II Extender make the 50mm a automatic 100mm or 140-400 in the case of #1 on your list? Just thinking my way to getting good results with what I have to generate more funds for items on this list. Awesome list anyways!
December 12th, 2008 at 9:16 am
Good list but as someone else mentioned above the results aren’t really that surprising.
1. Canon is far more popular than Nikon (I use Nikon so no, I’m not singing the praises of one over the other). Just look at the numbers.
2. Naturally the fast 2.8 Canon/Nikon lenses are going to be the favourites – there simply isn’t anything that can match them (I used to have a Canon 24-70mm f2.8L and it is still my favourite lens despite changing to Nikon kit this year).
The best part of this list is finding out what the focal ranges are on peoples’ lenses – that info is very useful.
December 12th, 2008 at 9:42 am
I’m supprised the sigma 30mm F1.4 did not make the list. For everyone shooting a cropped sensor camera this is the perfect prime lens. I guess being new it is still early days, and it is not the cheapest lens out there. I have recently purchased it and am sellng my canon o nifty fifty (F1.8) which is a great lens but with the cropped sensor is just not wide enough for indoor work.
December 12th, 2008 at 10:53 am
I’m a paparazzi, I’d have to say the 70-200 2.8 and the 16-35 2.8 are my favorites. The 16-35 isn’t to widely used by us, Only maybe 10 out of a few hundred use it. But the 70-200 is used by every well established paparazzi I come across.
I love them both though. The image quality is fantastic and it increases the value of my pictures. The lenses have already paid for themselves.
December 12th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
i’ve only got 2 lenses and its the no.1 and no.2 top lenses for nikon!!!! really love them both!!! and i’m planning to get another lens the no.3
December 12th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
I dream about Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS but it is too expensive for me :( So I am looking at Sigma 70-200 f/2.8.
December 12th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Well, it’s seems there’s no Olympus user around because there are some Olympus lenses that I would have mentioned because they are extraordinary.
1. Olympus ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 7-14mm 1:4.0:
this is an amazing ultra wide angle zoom lens that stands on it’s own. Disadvantage: the price is pretty oh oh but’s it’s worth every single $ or €
2. Olympus ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 50mm 1:2.0 Makro:
This is an unbelievable sharp makro lens which is also perfect for portrait photography. It’s sharpness outraces the actual (Olympus) sensors. DPreview votes this as one of the best lenses that is available at all and I can agree.
3.Olympus ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 12-60 mm 1:2.8-4.0 SWD:
Also amazing 5x zoom lens which is quick and sharp. This was also voted as one of the best standard zooms currently available.
Regards
December 12th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
A nice list indeed… Totally up for a 70-200 f2.8 for music shooting – one day!!..
December 13th, 2008 at 12:40 am
Iam not a papa razi.But I am a lens addict.I have got Nikon top zoom lens in F.2.8 scale from70-200mm,14-24mm,28-70mm
28-105mm Sigma-50-150mm,Tamron200-5oomm.This apart I have Micro Nikor lense-200mm,Sigma 150mm,Tokina100mm,Nikor60mmAfs.
Prime lenses Nikor-50mm,35mm,20mm,10.5mm Fish eye ,Nikon T.S,Micro85mm.All lenses have specific utility.Reviews by your photographers are interesting.
December 13th, 2008 at 1:05 am
This is kinda stupid. Why both with the manufacturer of the lens? A 70-200 IS or VR or whatever is still going to be at the same “popularity” level no matter the maker of the camera body.
It’s interesting… but dumb at the same time.
December 13th, 2008 at 4:20 am
I just got the tokina 11-16mm f2.8 for my dx camera nikon d300 and it is absolutely fantastic. Had to order it and it took 3 months to come in but it was worth the wait.
December 13th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
It is interesting that there is a Pentax M series lens in the list (that lens went out of production in 1984).
December 14th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Lucas: i’ve got a huge suggestion of Olympus lenses that are pin sharp.
Old school OM film primes. Laugh, but because of a whole bunch of Canon shooters (only Canon and Four Thirds for technical reasons. won’t mount on any other mounts without losing infinity), the prices for Olympus OM Primes have gone up.
Brett: by the same token, the M 50 1.7 is a nice cheap and sharp prime loved by the same alternative crowd that loves them Zuiko Film primes. Not to mention that f1.4s are a little bit more expensive (and you might as well get the FA prime. Exactly the same optical formula, with auto aperture and Auto focus), and the F2s aren’t as fast
Even better that it works perfectly out of the box on brand spanking new Pentax DSLRs without adapters.
While i’m suprised that the M50 F2 isn’t listed. i’m also suprised that a Super Takumar 50mm M42 mount isn’t listed. the alterative guys love them too
December 14th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
and i agree… should be looking more at what focal lengths, rather than what specific lenses. though, with nikon’s being very good, Sigma and Tamron having it for multiple mounts, and canon having 4 of them (F4, F4 IS, F2.8, and F2.8 IS), i reckon the 70-200 would give the ubiquitous 18-55 Kit a run for it’s money
December 15th, 2008 at 6:46 am
I’m just a rookie and got the nikkor 50 mm f/1.8 and the results were amazing. potraits and candids of my young kids turn out soooooooo crisp. the best $ 100 ive spent.
December 22nd, 2008 at 5:27 am
I’d add Minolta 80-200 f/2.8 G HS which was surpassing any other lense in these categories when it was launched, and the Minolta 28-70 f/2.8 G which is providing fantastic sharp pictures with nice colour cast. The 10-20mm is so versatile it rocks a lot!
January 13th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
thanks, i got my first d60 and try to figure how to make this stuff useful
January 14th, 2009 at 4:24 am
Since U have completely discarded the Tamron 18 – 250 f 3.5 – 6.3 Di II has the topclass review by so many Long Time proffessionals & U have given a place for the Sigma wide lens I don’t know what to say. It is better I skip Ur articals before my brain gets damaged. I wish to say that I was a stanch Sigma freak, used to hate Tamron. In the process I had all that fungus problems within no time, mainly it is nowhere sharper than Tamro lenses & that made me a so so photographer in my community & friends circle. I still have my Tamron 70 – 300 LD (not very good or the best) that I had used in my Nikon F100 with good results. But it is much better than the Sigma equalent.
Now I have a Nikon D 80 & the New Tamron 18 -270. It certainly has some small con points like Zoom creep. The focal ring movement is a little un even. It is cheaper than Nikon 18 -200 & the result is almost nikon Sharp. So I feel the verdict is in correct. Thank U.
January 19th, 2009 at 11:53 am
I like the Nikon 50mm 1.8 lens, but it is a problem focusing, especially in the dark, if you have a D40, which can’t autofocus with this lens. The “green dot” that guides the focus really does not work that well. I have “focused” the lens up and down a fair amount and the green dot stay lit. Thus using the green dot to focus is rather inexact. A wide variety of focuses are “correct”, according to the green dot. I had a Nikon film camera with a similar lens with a split lens focus. All you had to do was to find a straight line in the scene you were focusing on, then match one half of the line to the other half, and you were perfectly focused. No guessing! Why did Nikon give this up in favor of multiple guess focusing?? Anyone know?
January 29th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
I concur. I posess three of the top five: #’s 1,4, & 5 and six of the top ten Canon’s: #’s 1,3,4,5,8 & 10. Looking to purchase the 16-35mm f/2.8 II to complete my wedding/event gear bag. I think the fisheye would be a great addition as well.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:03 am
I am looking for a wide angle lens for my Canon 40D any suggestions? This will be my first wide angle lens and I don’t know what to look for!
January 30th, 2009 at 6:35 am
For cubsfan7: It will very much depend upon what you want to do and how much you want to spend. A lens that goes down to 17-18mm would be a “wide angle” on your 40D, like my 30D, the equivalent of about 28mm on a 35mm or full-frame camera. The 18-55mm kit lens is actually pretty good, though not very fast. If you want to go a step up from that, you have to decide if you want to go to the expense (and weight!) of the fast lenses, including the “L” lenses, want something wider (shorter focal length), with image stabilization, and/or a wider zoom range. Here are some suggestions. Instead of giving a description, I’ve included links to Bryan Carnathan’s reviews where I could.
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5(ultra-wide)
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS (fast, IS, about “L” quality, but heavy and expensive)
Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4.5-5.6 IS (wide zoom range, not too bulky, but slow)
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L (L quality & a bit faster, but narrow zoom range, expensive)
Canon EF 16-45mm f/2.8 L (L quality & fast, but narrow zoom range, very expensive, and very heavy)
Another possibility for an “ultra-wide” lens would be the Sigma 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM lens, which I have. It’s a bit cheaper than the Canon 10-22mm and acceptable. The main advantage of the Canon lens has less barrel distortion at the short focal lengths. (It is also a slight bit faster.) That distortion could be annoying if you do a lot of architectural photos. (Vertical edges of buildings will seem to bow out in the middle.) It’s much less a problem if you do nature photography, for example, as I do. You can correct some of the distortion with software.
Also, consider WHY you want a wide-angle lens, especially an ultra-wide angle. True, they can get in a lot more scenery, but that is usually a DISadvantage, rather than an advantage, unless you’re trying to get a photo of the Grand Canyon. One problem is that they will also get a LOT of sky and foreground–the “parking lot effect,” I think Ken Rockwell calls it. That de-emphasizes the image you probably want. Instead of using an ultra-wide angle, learn to do panoramic shots and stitch them together. (Canon provides a bit of software to do just this.)
Very wide-angle lenses are also problematic if you’re taking photos of people, other than big crowds. In order to “fill the frame” with a person, you’ll have to get VERY close, which is a perspective that we’re not used to seeing. (The focal length of a lens does NOT affect the perspective; that’s a function only of the relative location of the camera and subject.) This can result in huge-appearing noses and a “looming” feeling. Even indoors, it’s best not to use a lens much wider than a 50mm equivalent–for the 40D, that would be 31mm, so 28-35mm would work.
Were ultra-wide lenses come into their own are architectural shots and getting “up close and personal” with a subject, where you actually WANT the very “round” perspective. (I’m not talking about macro photography, which magnifies the image. Ultra-wides actually reduce the size of the image.) Architectural images (interior or exerior) would require a low-distortion lens and/or a “tilt-shift” lens, which can be quite expensive (and does not autofocus).
Did your 40D come with the 24-105mm f/4 L IS lens or one of the less-expensive EF-S lenses (e.g., 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS or 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS or perhaps the 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS)? If the latter, here’s a suggestion. Try experimenting with that lens at the widest (shortest) setting–17mm or 18mm. That is actually within the range of the ultra-wide lenses. Try getting up close to subjects and checking the perspective (not by looking through the lens, but taking a picture; our brains interpret a flat, 2-D image differently than even a one-eye image). If that intrigues you and you want to go further, consider the Canon 10-22mm (especially if you want to do architectural shots) or Sigma 10-20mm. It can be fun to experiment.
Here’s what I have in that range:
Sigma 10-22mm
Canon 17-85mmm IS (my “walking-around lens,” unless I’m shooting wildlife.)
Canon 24mm f/2.8
Canon 35mm f/2
Canon 50mm f/1.8 II (a good lens to get, in any case, as it’s fast, VERY cheap, and actually pretty good. It’s sometimes called the “Nifty Fifty.” On the 1.6x cameras, it’s equivalent to 80mm, the low end of the “portrait” lengths.)
I have the prime (fixed focal length) lenses because they are faster than the zooms–and actually cheaper. (The three primes cost, used, less than the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens does new.) I have considered getting the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens and selling the 24mm.
January 31st, 2009 at 2:46 pm
I’m surprised the Nikon faithful haven’t been pimpin’ the 85mm 1.4 D, it seems every Nikon shooter drools over it.
I’d vote to add the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8. It’s so lusted after that the folks over at http://16-9.net/ have a neat article of mounting that lens on a 1Ds Mk III. I’m saving up to get one myself, for landscape shots.
February 1st, 2009 at 5:51 am
To add a bit to my earlier (long!) post: Another aspect of super-wide angle (short focal length) lenses is long depth of focus at the same distance and aperture. That can come in handy or it can be a curse. This is why it’s often difficult to get good “blurring” of the background with point-and-shoot cameras, which have very short focal lengths.
Here’s an example of an “up-close-and-personal” shot with a super-wide-angle (Sigma 10-22mm, set at 10mm). You can see the rounded perspective, which came from being only a few inches from the foreground object (a rotting apple) and the relatively long depth of focus. To get the same framing with a 50mm lens, I would have had to be 5 times as far away–2+ feet, instead of 4-6 inches. With a 200mm lens, it would be 20 times as far, about 7 feet. The images would be the SAME size (that’s what “same framing” means), but the perspective would be much shallower. (I would have also had to elevate the camera a bit, as it was pointing slightly down.) One of these days, I’ll do that sort of comparison.
February 22nd, 2009 at 7:17 pm
I thought the Tamron 28-75mm F/2.8 would be on the list…
March 2nd, 2009 at 8:55 am
I have read many very positive reviews on the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and the Tamron 70-200 macro, the guy in the camerashop where I bought the first also said it was a very good choice. I’m surprised not to see it in the list of others, but at the other hand, just over 300 responses is not that much. Interesting list though!
March 24th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
My daughter is a photojournalism student currently shooting with a Canon XTi. She will be upgrading to a Canon 40D this summer. We would like to suprise her with a new lens but I am not sure what to get. She is most interested in sports photography and advertising photography. We would like to get her something that works in either or both of these fields. While it would be great to be able to get her a top of the line lens, tuition payments preclude that. But advice on all lenses would be appreciated, we might be able to help her with those higher priced ones after graduation! Thanks in advance for any help.
March 24th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
For drtcbt:
It would probably be best to ask her what lens she would like. She probably has some experience and can draw on the experiences of her teachers and other students. It would be all too likely for you to get a lens that she wouldn’t have chosen. I would suggest that you give her money, instead, or let her chose a lens within your budget
The two uses you cite could be diametrically opposite, depending upon what sort of “advertising” photography she would be doing: people, action, products, etc., and could have very different requirements. The “right” sports lens would depend upon what sort of sports she would be doing–indoor (hockey, basketball) vs outdoor (baseball, football); field (where the players and action move significant distances) vs relatively fixed (e.g., golf, tennis); fast (a tennis racquet moves very fast) vs slow (golf, . If she’s doing baskeball from up close, she might need a 24-70mm f/2.8, whereas, if she’s shooting football, she’d need a much longer lens–70-200mm, minimum.
Advertising photography could also require a fast lens, mostly for the “background blurring” effect of shallow depth of focus, but it would also depend upon the precise sort of photography she would be doing. She would be the best judge of that.
As for getting a cheap lens, with the idea of moving up, that can work, but it will be more expensive in the long run. Canon L lenses hold their value well–check them on eBay to see this, but the cheaper lenses do not. Also, “cheap” usually means “slow,” especially in zoom lenses, which could seriously limit their usefulness. She might even be better off with a couple of fast primes, rather than a slow zoom, like the 35mm f/2; 50mm f/1.8 (which she should have, in any case, as it’s really cheap); 85mm f/1.8 or 100mm f/2–or even the 100mm f/2.8 Macro (which, though a stop slower, would open up many other aspects); 135mm f/2.8; or 200mm f/2.8. The 100mm f/2.8 Macro is under $500, the 200mm f/2.8L is about $700, but the others are all $400 or less.
Again, she would probably be the best judge of what to get.
I’d recommend that you check out Bryan Carnathan’s reviews of lenses. Bryan understands sports photography quite well. I’d also strongly recommend Harry How’s videos on YouTube. (There are three parts to the series.) How is a well-known sports photographer. In the videos, he goes over the equipment he uses and some tips for aspiring sports photographers.
March 24th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
For George Slusher,
Thanks so much for the advice. The websites you recommended will be of tremendous help to me and to my daughter. Currently she does most of her shooting outdoors, but that is really due to her lack of good equipment. Her real interests lie in hockey and advertising (including people, products, studio and location). We have already purchased a flash and the 50mm f/1.8 but I do think that I will talk to her about what she thinks that she will need the most. There is always the next holiday for the next lens! Thanks again!
April 9th, 2009 at 6:23 am
Funny thing that Sony didn’t make it up to the top. I use the 16-105mm f3.5-5.6. It’s not specialy fast but is an excelent lens for every day use. On the other hand I have a Minolta 50mm f1.7, a lovely piece of glass when there’s not enough light and you still want a sharp portrait without a tripod.
April 9th, 2009 at 7:22 am
For peter k:
Perhaps that’s because Sony is ‘way behind Canon & Nikon (and probably others) in sales of SLRs. This survey was, after all, of the most POPULAR lenses, so it would be natural that most are for Canon or Nikon cameras.
One thing that I’ve noted in reading the missives here is that many of us think that OUR favorite lens must, perforce, be everyone’s favorite, too. We may forget that other people have different interests that will influence their choice.
For example, if you use a Canon camera and shoot a lot of field sports (soccer, football, baseball, etc), you’re probably not going to put the Canon 10-22mm lens near the top of your list. Instead, you’ll want the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L and 70-200mm f/2.8L (probably the IS version), plus, if you’re really serious, the Canon 300mm f/2.8L IS or 400mm f/2.8L IS. (Serious, because those are $4100 & $6800, respectively.)
If you’re a bird photographer and can’t afford the gorgeous Canon 500mm f/4L IS ($5800), you may settle for the Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS ($1460) or one of the Sigma supertele zooms (e.g., 150-500mm f/5-6.3 OS, $879, or 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 OS, $749), plus a 1.4x teleconverter. It’s slow, and, with the teleconverter, you lose autofocus on all but 1-series cameras, but it’s a lot less than $5800.
On the other hand, if you shoot landscapes, you can get by with slower (also cheaper & lighter) but sharp lenses like the Canon 70-200mm f/4L.
If you hike a lot, you may appreciate a fairly lightweight “all-in-one” lens with image stabilization (e.g., Canon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, Tamron 18-270mm VC), even though it may not be as high quality or as fast as heavier lenses.
For “walking around,” with a 1.6x (APS-C) camera (Digital Rebels, 20D-50D), you may like the 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS, 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, or others in that range. If you’re on a strict budget, the IS version of the 18-55mm lens ($140) can work out really well.
It goes on and on like that. For Canons, with the possible exception of the “Nifty Fifty” (50mm f/1.8 II), which sells for $90 or so, there’s no such thing as a “lens for everyone.” (The Nifty Fifty is a good addition to anyone’s kit, unless they have a faster/better quality lens in that range, like the Canon 50mm f/1.4, for the same reasons that peter k gave for the Minolta 50mm f/1.7.)
April 20th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
I cannot believe the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L didn’t make the cut. IT eclipses the 17-40mm in almost every aspect. For those wishing to purchase Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L, don’t get carried away by the result, it is one of the best landscape lenses I’ve used so far (apart from Tilt shifts).
April 21st, 2009 at 6:08 am
david h wrote: “I cannot believe the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L didn’t make the cut.”
Perhaps because it’s not as popular.
“IT eclipses the 17-40mm in almost every aspect.”
It sure does, including in weight (22.6 oz vs 17.5 oz), size (4.4″L x 3.5″D vs 3.8″L x 3.3″D), filter size (82mm vs 77mm) and especially price ($1450 vs $700). The 82mm filter size adds to the cost difference, as well. For example, using Hoya HMC filters, UV + CPL filters would be $49 + $170 = $219 for 77mm, $63 + $262 = $325 for 82mm. (Other brands/types will give different numbers, but in the same order.) Yes, the 16-35mm has better quality, but, is it worth more than twice the price? For some people, yes, but not for many of us.
For the great majority of Canon DSLR owners who have 1.6x cameras, there’s also the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS for $1030. It’s about the same size and weight as the 16-35mm f/2.8L, has a wider range and has IS. It doesn’t have as good build quality nor quite as good image quality, but, for what I do, it’s a better choice.
Cost is probably a factor in the list. Here are the top 10 Canon lenses with B&H “USA” prices:
70-200mm f/2.8L IS $1699
50mm f/1.8 II $90
50mm f/1.4 $325
24-70mm f/2.8L $1190
24-105mm f/4L IS $1059
70-200m f/4L $600
17-55mm f/2.8 IS $1030
85mm f/1.8 $355
17-40mm f/4L $700
100mm f/2.8 Macro $490
Note that only one is more expensive than the 16-35 f/2.8L–the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, which is one of the most popular Canon zooms, period, for sports, wildlife, etc. I was at a horse show a few weeks ago and saw 8 people using that lens (or, perhaps, the non-IS version–I wasn’t always able to get close enough to tell). I had one on my Canon 30D, as well. (I have 6 of those 10–all but the 50mm f/1.4, 24-70mm, 24-105mm, and 17-40mm, though my 70-200mm f/4L is the IS version.)
May 18th, 2009 at 5:11 am
I’m new in DSRL photography. Most doing family events, vacations and ect. So I’m looking upgrade my Cannon lens that was come with the camera. So now a lot Ritz camera stores are closing and I have seen there Quantaray 18-200 mm DC 3.5-6.3 Lens f/Canon DSLR can get for $150. So What is your opinion?
Thank you,
July 22nd, 2009 at 10:00 am
I was able to buy and have had a great deal of satisfaction with a new Canon 17 – 85mm lense. I was particularly interested in the wide angle option for panorama photos while traveling in Peru and Cambodia.
Greatdeal toooooooo.!
July 24th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
ok, now i’m confused. i’m looking to upgrade my ‘kit’ 18-55mm on my 350D, and initially reckoned the Canon EFS 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM (ZAR 6,200) would be a good bet. but i’ve noticed mixed feelings about this lens – some love it, while others reckon it is rubbish.
i could go for the Canon 17-40mm f4.0 L USM (ZAR 9,300), or even Canon EFS 17-55 mm f 2.8 IS USM
(ZAR 11,800), which seems to be the undisputed king – but these are pushing my financial boundaries a bit.
would i – as a (hobby) photographer – given that i was reasonably happy with the kit 18-55mm, but often looked longingly at other “seriously clear, sharp” photo’s – be happy with the “17-85mm” – i.e. is it a worthwhile upgrade to the kit lens (will i notice a huge improvement in my photo’s), or should i rather push for one of the other two? (landscapes are my thing)
apologies – this “kit” upgrade question has been asked so many times – but i’m just more confused than ever :-)
kind regards
bruce
August 1st, 2009 at 6:30 pm
i am using SONY a-200 DSLR model which is the best telephoto zoom lences
i wanna buy
August 28th, 2009 at 7:29 am
I have the Sigma 10-20 and it is a great lens. I also have a cheap Sigma 70-300 f4/5.6 DL Macro Super II and it is as sharp as any 70-300 I’ve seen. I originally bought it for my wife’s 35mm SLR, but it works so good on my Sony a100 that I won’t give it back to her.
August 28th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
@batman:
You raise a good question. Go to The-Digital-Picture.Com and read Bryan Carnathan’s reviews of each lens. He also has a section with recommendations for various uses. Read the article on Canon General Purpose Lens Recommendations.
My own thoughts:
The 17-85mm lens is a great general-purpose lens for a xxD or Rebel (xxxD) camera. It’s roughly equivalent to a 28-135mm lens for a full-frame camera. That’s one of the more popular (and useful!) zoom ranges. It has a good IS (not the latest, but quite good), full-time manual focusing, and isn’t all that expensive nor heavy. it would replace your kit lens, not supplement it. (In fact, it was often an optional “kit” lens with the 30D.)
The 17-85mm can take very good photos, within its limits. (It’s NOT a good “low-light” lens, of course, nor does it have the “bokeh” of the wider-aperture 17-55mm f/2.8 IS.) Bryan’s site will give you “lab data,” plus Bryan’s shots. I’ve put some examples of my own on my iDisk. Look for “Canon 17-85mm Examples.” They include 800 x 533 (or 533 x 800) scaled shots plus 100% crops (100pc). In one case, the 100% is from the side, not the center or focus point. Most of those were taken at the long end (85mm). The EXIF data will show the exposure information. (It doesn’t show the lens–that gets dropped when you scale or crop the image.)
I’ve also uploaded some examples with the 17-55mm f2.8 IS of similar topics (nature). I don’t have the 17-40mm f/4L, so I can’t give examples with it.
Why do I have both lenses? Good question. The answer is the same as for why I have both the 70-200mm f/4L IS and the 70-200 f/2.8L IS, plus a slew of fairly-fast primes (Canon 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, and 100mm f/2, plus Sigma 30mm f/1.4). I mostly do two types of photos: horses and equestrian events on one hand and nature (flowers, plants, birds, insects, etc) on the other. These are not very compatible in requirements.
Photographing horse shows (often in indoor arenas) requires fast shutter speeds, so faster lenses are a necessity. I usually carry the two f/2.8 zooms, one or two primes (e.g., 35mm & 85mm) and a camcorder. I started with the 17-85mm & 70-200mm f/4L IS, but they just didn’t work. I first got the primes, then the f/2.8 zooms.
When I’m photographing “close-by” nature–e.g., flowers in my yard or someone’s garden, when I can work out of my car–I go for the sharpest lenses I have, like the 70-200mm f/4L IS and 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, plus Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro and/or Sigma 180mm f/3.5 Macro. (The macro lenses are faster and focus closer, but the lack of IS makes them harder to use handheld.)
When I’m walking through the woods, I don’t want to carry 118 lbs of gear, plus I may shoot more distant and/or smaller subjects (e.g., birds), so I carry the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS behemoth, 17-85mm (a better match than the 17-55mm in focal length) and often the 100mm macro and/or Sigma 10-20m f/4-5.6, plus 1.4x extender and 12mm extension tube. To lighten the load, I carry the 70-200mm f/4L IS instead of the 100-400mm and a Canon 250D close-up lens instead of the macro lens. That limits distant shots, but it can work, especially with the extender and extension tube.
Do I need all those lenses? Of course not. I could do just fine with the two f/2.8 zooms, 100-400mm, 100mm macro, and probably the 85mm f/1.8 (the prime I use the most at horse shows). However, I accumulated the lenses along the way. Someday, I may pare down, but, for now, all those lenses are useful.
October 1st, 2009 at 9:52 am
I’ll have one of those 70-300mm canons thanks. Just post it to my home address. cheers dps!
October 1st, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Jonathan wrote, “I’ll have one of those 70-300mm canons thanks.”
Canon does make a 70-300mm lens. If you’d like one, use this link to go to B&H. They’ll be glad to send you one for $549 with free shipping. This lens repaced Canon’s 75-300mm lens, which I’ve read was the first Canon lens to have image stabilization.
However, the references above were all to a *SIGMA* lens, not the Canon lens. Sigma makes 3 versions:
70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG Macro – $159
70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro – $209 – the one mentioned above
70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG OS LENS $399, which has OS – optical stabilization
If you’re serious photographer, avoid the first (cheapest) one. Spend another $50 and get the second, at least. It’s much better quality. The first lens is the successor to the cheap one got with a Rebel 2000 9 years ago, though I probably paid more for it than I should have. It often came, as mine did, packaged with a Sigma 28-70mm 28-80mm lens. That was a good range for 35mm film cameras, but wouldn’t be really “wide” for most Canon DSLRs (Rebels, xxD, 7D).
October 20th, 2009 at 6:45 am
I found it quite surprising to find that many lenses from the L/Pro/ED league on a list of favourites of this site, which is aimed at the “semi experienced” camera owner.
October 20th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
noratus:
These were the most popular lenses, not necessarily the most widely-owned. As evidence, note that none of the usual “kit” lenses included with consumer, even “prosumer” Canon cameras is included. (I know nothing about Nikon gear.) The Rebels (xxxD) usually come with the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS. The 50D can come with the 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS, 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS or 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS. The new 7D can come with the 28-135mm lens. Only the full-frame 5D might come with one of the top Canon lenses, the 24-105mm f/4L IS, but that package is $3500, decidedly NON-consumer.
It’s possible that some of the 233 readers who voted (a small sample) may not even own a lens they voted for. The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, for example, is a workhorse for sports photographers and others and is probably on the “wish list” for many people, especially those struggling along with mid-to-tele zooms that are f/5.6-6.3 at the top end. The same can be said of the 24-70mm f/2.8L, probably the favorite lens for wedding photographers who use Canon cameras, plus an adjunct for sports photographers, another that’s probably on a lot of wish lists.
The #3 most popular lens, the Canon 50mm f/1.8 II, is also Canon’s cheapest lens ($110 at B&H for the “USA” version). Many people call it the “Nifty Fifty,” as it has a wide range of uses, even on Canon’s 1.6x bodies (Rebels, XXD, & 7D), where it has the same framing as an 80mm lens on a full-frame/35mm camera. It’s usually the first or second “extra” lens I’d recommend, depending upon what the person starts with. For example, if he/she got the 18-55mm kit lens, then a decent mid-tele zoom with IS would be in order, which one depending upon the person’s budget. For example, the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS is $255, the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM (better quality) is $390. Second would be a fast mid-length prime, like the Nifty Fifty or the 50mm f/1.4 ($400) if one can afford it, unless the person will be shooting a lot of indoor available light shots of groups, where the venerable Canon 35mm f/.2 ($320) or the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 ($439) might be better.
October 30th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
@noratus
I’m a pro and use L glass, but I’m also seeing more and more amateurs using L glass.
I think that most people when they start getting more involved in photography start to lust after such lumps on their camera (and the white ones especially have that extra ‘ooh’ factor) :D
Yes, some of them can be expensive, but the 70-200 f2.8 L IS isn’t THAT much when you consider it will outlast the body it’s attached to by a long way.
Personally I still enjoy using my 70-200 F4 L which is a lot lighter and still can give me nice Bokeh. I don’t need the extra stops, but if it were for a hobby I would go for the 2.8
Make of that what you will :D
November 2nd, 2009 at 3:29 am
Has anyone tryed the nwe sigma 10-20 mm lens . Wondering how it would be in low light concert setings.
November 2nd, 2009 at 3:31 am
Bad spelling its new not nwe sorry.
November 4th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
hello!!! can anyone tell me that which camera i should buy for studio and outdoor work my budget is 500/600 $. which camera is best. Model or whatever thanks..!!!
Leave a Reply