Whats your favorite lens and why?

My lens that is growing on me the most is the Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8 G. I love the creativity and possibilties it opens up. The canon 35L holds a special place in my heart as well, how about you?

I have a 85mm 1.4 that is my favorite. For being a amateur photographer, I like how fast this lens is and how crisp the images are.

KZAM wrote: I have a 85mm 1.4 that is my favorite. For being a amateur photographer, I like how fast this lens is and how crisp the images are.

The nikkor 84d or g?

Since I'm into macro, my old Lester A Dine 105mm F2.8 stays on my camera more often than not. When it isn't, it's likely to be a 50mm F1.4 Nikkor

Screamin Scott wrote: Since I'm into macro, my old Lester A Dine 105mm F2.8 stays on my camera more often than not. When it isn't, it's likely to be a 50mm F1.4 Nikkor

Macro has always interested me. I had a chance to try out a canon mp-e 65 lens, and it was a lot harder than I thought it would be.

Scotty wrote:

Screamin Scott wrote: Since I'm into macro, my old Lester A Dine 105mm F2.8 stays on my camera more often than not. When it isn't, it's likely to be a 50mm F1.4 Nikkor

Macro has always interested me. I had a chance to try out a canon mp-e 65 lens, and it was a lot harder than I thought it would be.

I noticed you mention above the 14-24mm f/2.8, do you shoot Canon also?

As for me my 105mm f/2.8 is my favorite also, recently I've been spending more time with macro photography, and what isn't there to love about the 105mm, it's a quick lens, great detail and over all great lens.

Fugler wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Screamin Scott wrote: Since I'm into macro, my old Lester A Dine 105mm F2.8 stays on my camera more often than not. When it isn't, it's likely to be a 50mm F1.4 Nikkor

Macro has always interested me. I had a chance to try out a canon mp-e 65 lens, and it was a lot harder than I thought it would be.

I noticed you mention above the 14-24mm f/2.8, do you shoot Canon also?

I used to shoot canon, but switched to nikon. Glad I did.

Scotty wrote:

Screamin Scott wrote: Since I'm into macro, my old Lester A Dine 105mm F2.8 stays on my camera more often than not. When it isn't, it's likely to be a 50mm F1.4 Nikkor

Macro has always interested me. I had a chance to try out a canon mp-e 65 lens, and it was a lot harder than I thought it would be.

The higher the magnification, the harder it becomes to get good shots...The MPE-65 goes to 5x life size I believe & as such that is difficult to use unless you have had lots of practice ( & lots of light !). Proper macro shooting techniques increase your keeper rate & those are learned after time & practice...It's like the old saying "nothing worthwhile is easy"...I personally love macro as it opens up a whole new world of photographic opportunities...

My favorite .... Canon 500mm IS f/4L .... Of course I shoot mostly wildlife. I have a couple of other favorites ... Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 and the Canon 50mm f/1.4

bhowdy wrote: My favorite .... Canon 500mm IS f/4L .... Of course I shoot mostly wildlife. I have a couple of other favorites ... Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 and the Canon 50mm f/1.4

You like it more than the 600 f/4?

Scotty wrote: [quote=You like it more than the 600 f/4?

The image quality for the 500 and the 600 is pretty much the same. The major difference for me is the weight of the 600mm lens. You can hand hold the 500 just fine, for those times when the shot is there and you have to take it quickly. The 600 will wear most folks out in a hurry when trying to hand hold it much.

I typically tell folks that the 500mm lens is hand hold = relatively easily (with practice) but always better with a tripod --- The 600mm lens is a lens that needs to be on a tripod

600mm = 12 lbs (almost 11lbs-13oz)
500mm = 8.5 lbs

My favorite lens is my Nikon 80-200mm f 2.8 . But my close second is my 300mm f 4 ED. Both are great for shooting hockey and the 300 isn't as bulky or heavy as a 300 2.8 . the 80-200 gets great images hand held or on the monopod.

bhowdy wrote:

Scotty wrote: [quote=You like it more than the 600 f/4?

The image quality for the 500 and the 600 is pretty much the same. The major difference for me is the weight of the 600mm lens. You can hand hold the 500 just fine, for those times when the shot is there and you have to take it quickly. The 600 will wear most folks out in a hurry when trying to hand hold it much.

I typically tell folks that the 500mm lens is hand hold = relatively easily (with practice) but always better with a tripod --- The 600mm lens is a lens that needs to be on a tripod

600mm = 12 lbs (almost 11lbs-13oz)
500mm = 8.5 lbs

I could see that. I rented a 400 f/2.8 before, and i think that was 11 pounds. JUst too much.

Well I dont have one favorite my 10.5 fish is on most of the time and, my 80-400VR is my baby when it comes to wildlife.