Reading mode: Light Dark

That one lens you always wanted...

Go to last post
John Crowe said:
At least my EF 500/4.5 L is handholdable and works very well with EF 1.4x III. My 800mm is the FD 800mm f5.6 L. It has CA but is still sharper than the 500 and 1.4x combo. Focus trapping works well at 10fps.

An EF 600/4 L IS original is really the only alternative that I can possibly justify. With a 1.4x it should beat the 800. I often use the 800 and 1.4x for motorsports, hence the desire for a 1200mm lens. The 600/4 with 2x could be the ticket.

Seems silly, but I'd have to keep the 500/4.5 for a "light" lens! It didn't cost me much so I'd risk the loss of focus.
Click to expand...
WoW, I hear where you're coming from. From way back in my film days I still have my FD 600mm! It's a beast. I do have adapters for both dslr and ML. For dslr I have an Ed Mika adapter and a typical adapter for ML. I've taken it four spin on my ML and it's not to hard to use with focus peaking. I find the biggest problem with all that really high-end glass is not that it's not sharp because is but the amount of fringe they have in bright light! Of course post can mitigate most of that. But the EF 500 with a 1.4 is just flat out better!!!

That FD 800 must be a REAL BEAST!? my 600 weighs eight pounds with no IS or AF!!!

John
 
Not really TBH, I mean I've been jealous of certain lenses on other mounts at times for sure, I don't think any mount has a perfect catalog... But twice now I've picked the mount with the most variety of options (first M4/3, then E mount) and that has paid dividends down the line.

I was a little jelly of the cheapo Nikon Z 40/2, then the TTA 40/2 came out heh. Still a little envious of their 26/2.8 & 14-30/4, but not nearly enough to give up a bunch of other primes and Tamron zooms on E mount. Canon's cheap 100-400 f5.6-8 is more interesting to me than the xx-300s.

That's probably the shortlist as it stands... I'm actually more jealous of small vintage 135s and I wish there was a modern AF alternative. I've already adapted a Canon FD 135/3.5 (holds up great but no AF), I own a SY 135/1.8 (great IQ, twice as heavy), and I still use an Oly 75/1.8 on a GX850 sometimes.

My Tamron zooms cover a really ideal range and there's more prime options on E than I have time to try, but that compact AF 135 (or 120 or 150, I'm not picky) still eludes me on FF.
 
Last edited:
In the past I did really well on eBay. Two of the best deals were from Adorwin, Adorama's eBay site.

Two were from keh.com.

Recently I have done really well with kijiji for local buys. I don't think that I have used Facebook Marketplace much for photography yet, but actively watch it.

Local camera shops have improved their used inventory over the past few years and have gotten more competitive.
 
I'd love to own the 58 Nikkor Z Noct .95. But realistically, I just don't use the 50-58mm range anywhere enough to justify the price of that monster (and I already have the 50 Voigtlander apo lanthar and Nikkor 50/1.2S to cover when I do need a 50). Still, the powerball ticket hits, and then I'll find out :)
 
Here it is with the EF 1.4x III. I have a thin adapter with no glass. I get focus out to about 600 feet.
Here it is with the EF 1.4x III. I have a thin adapter with no glass. I get focus out to about 600 feet.



It's only about a pound more than the 600/4.5. It's a lightweight compared to the almost 12 pound FD 400/2.8 L and Nikon 400/2.8 AI-S that I had.

Here it is out in the wild...

This is one of the corners a 1200mm focal length would be handy.
This is one of the corners a 1200mm focal length would be handy.

0a9466ac2fdf46f4abe66d63bf4c3300.jpg

Here I only need 800mm.
Here I only need 800mm.
 
Last edited:
Satyaa said:
Do you have a lens that you always wanted (for whatever reason) but did not buy because it meant adding another mount/system, or it was too expensive?
Click to expand...
I did at one time - several, actually - but now I know that they'd just sit on a shelf with some others that I own. It's not even about the expense; I could get them now for quite a bit less than I could in the past. There's just no sensible reason to do so.
 
Last edited:
Biogon 28 ZM. Too expensive and no camera to support it ATM. Pictures from that lens are just 👌. The build quality completes it.

Leica/Schneider Kreuznnach 21, 3.4 or 4, don't remember. Not really for the performance, since it's quite old and doesn't play well on digital, more for the looks. Looks precious, like a classic bare metal finish of the 50s/60s. Same reasons as above.

Maybe one of those unicorn-rare ultra-achromats from Pentax and Hasselblad.

And then every lens of the Mamiya RB67 system. The considerations of that system scratch my brain on the perfect spot. Also expensive to get, but also right now and for me, ridiculously expensive to shoot.
 
Last edited:
When I shot Pentax APS C DSLR, it was the A*85 f1.4 and A*135 f1.8. Unfortunately, I was never able to get either.

After 2010, I went to Nikon DSLR and the only lens I really lusted after I got and that was the 400 f2.8E FL VR - what a lens!

Now I am with Nikon ML Z8/Z9, I would love a 58mm f0.95 but I just cannot justify the price and the fact I wouldn't use it enough.

As I am a birder, I do now have the Z 600 f4 TC that I was able to afford because I got a unbelievable trade-in deal with the 400 f2.8E FL VR which went a long way for me to be able to afford the Z 600 f4 TC. :-D
 
Where to begin!

Maybe a better statement is where to end!

I use Nikon

14mm prime Z mount

I'd love the 35 and 85 f 1.2 primes but too expensive
 
The lens I have always wanted and probably never will get because of physics, is a 12-250/f1,8 at a bargain prices and also very light and small.

Yeah, good luck with that
 
A proper macro zoom. Actually it won't be real macro, but decent close up would hit the spot. Fuji's 70-300 largely hits the spot but you need to use a long focal length to get "close" enough. Nikon's Z 70-180mm f/2.8 would hit the spot though the old F mount Micro Nikkor 70-180 wasn't startlingly good. Were I looking to buy a whole new setup the new 70-180 might be a key consideration.
 
tclune said:
For me, the Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF was too rich for my blood until people started dumping them when they went mirrorless. I've had the lens for coming up on two years now and it is wonderful -- fast as a barn swallow, sharp as a tack, and light as a feather (by birding standards.)
Click to expand...
Yup. I have thought about getting a long Z mount lens, such as the 600mm. But a few days ago I put the FTZii and the 1.4 iii F-mount TC on my 500 PF and got 700mm of excellent birding lens. So I guess I will just stick with the 500 PF.

7ba85ebd9547455a928549a8c99d8949.jpg

798b5914327249e1b369a760e4f0cc80.jpg

be07f036713b41ea9382b7987e589e9e.jpg

d422cb7ef258415b816efce30b0f10f7.jpg
 
Last edited:
Years ago when this lens came out I saw it at my local camera store. I don’t know why, but I honestly fell in love with it. The lenses they had was so light and compact with a different looking design as well. But I do remember that what blew my socks away was the super snappy AF. I already had a Nikon 70-200 F4 for my DSLR, but this Canon lens is just nicer 👌

At the time I couldn’t afford it because yes it was a completely different system and for sure Canon did not have any other affordable lenses I could use. But now since I lost all my gear recently I jumped into this opportunity and now own it in fact it was the first lens I bought with my R3, and I’m thankful for this now 🙏
 
Last edited:
Not one lens: when I first had an SLR I wanted a set. 25mm, 50mm, 100mm, 200mm, 400mm.

I did get them all, but not exactly (105mm instead of 100mm), and I don't think I ever had them all at the same time.

The thing is to be able to visualize the image you want before you lift the camera to your eye.

Never liked zoom lenses.
 
yardcoyote said:
The one lens I have always wanted is a modern technology replacement for my deeply loved Pentax 85mm f/2. It was just a little lightweight street lens, but it was my original "pointed stick", and it was stuck to my K 1000 SE for years at a time.

I may have found a spiritual successor to that camera in my Nikon Zf, but the lens just isn't there-- there are several 85mm options, but they all are way too big and fancy or require the use of adapters. The recently announced Viltrox 85mm f/2 EVO has me hoping for the first time in a while. It's just for Sony E to start with, but Viltrox has a pretty good record for supplying their lenses in Z mount eventually.
Click to expand...
 
yardcoyote said:
I have the TT 75mm as well (dandy lens), but 75 is 75 and 85 is 85 and I would have zero problem with having and using both. I always figure since I have no interest in wide angles or big fast portrait primes, that gives me extra slots to spend on a nice variety of modestly priced "small slows" in the 40-90mm range where I do most of my shooting. Not sure I would get a 90 if I had a 75 and an 85 in the same system, though. That might be too much.

(I just got the TT 40mm f/2 today and I am liking it a ton on the Zf.)

--

Instagram: @yardcoyote
Click to expand...
Oops, hadn't seen this comment before I made the other one... I'm surprised you find the much difference between 75 & 85, I've been agonizing over whether to add a small 90/2.8 next to my 75/2 and whether there's really any room for it between 75 and my 135s... The TTA 40/2 is fun to use, it has it's flaws (more so than the 75/2) but none are too severe IMO.
 
Impulses said:
Not really TBH, I mean I've been jealous of certain lenses on other mounts at times for sure, I don't think any mount has a perfect catalog... But twice now I've picked the mount with the most variety of options (first M4/3, then E mount) and that has paid dividends down the line.

I was a little jelly of the cheapo Nikon Z 40/2, then the TTA 40/2 came out heh. Still a little envious of their 26/2.8 & 14-30/4, but not nearly enough to give up a bunch of other primes and Tamron zooms on E mount. Canon's cheap 100-400 f5.6-8 is more interesting to me than the xx-300s.

That's probably the shortlist as it stands... I'm actually more jealous of small vintage 135s and I wish there was a modern AF alternative. I've already adapted a Canon FD 135/3.5 (holds up great but no AF), I own a SY 135/1.8 (great IQ, twice as heavy), and I still use an Oly 75/1.8 on a GX850 sometimes.

My Tamron zooms cover a really ideal range and there's more prime options on E than I have time to try, but that compact AF 135 (or 120 or 150, I'm not picky) still eludes me on FF.
Click to expand...
I take this back, partially, it's not a lens on another mount but I wish I'd bought a new Voigtlander 50/1.2 Nokton SE when they were available. You can still buy the non-SE but the lighter version was discontinued. I should look for a used one... I did manage to score a deal on a new 21/3.5 Color-Skopar quite a while after it had been discontinued, bought on a whim, now it's a fave.

Actually some of the lenses I've bought the quickest without doing an obscene amount of research have turned out to be some of my favorites (tho I was pretty familiar with them already), it's also lenses I had initially dismissed as somewhat impractical but I find them a lot of fun... There's that CV21, and also the Olympus 75/1.8 I bought at their refurb outlet.

In fact I could be happy with those two and a good 35 or 50... (which abound)
 
Last edited:
thayes15 said:
Where to begin!

Maybe a better statement is where to end!

I use Nikon

14mm prime Z mount
Click to expand...
Viltrox 14/4 Air? It's far better than it has any right to be.
 
Yes. If you read my post above, you' ll.know that I have the TT 75mm and think it's a great lens. I learned to love the 75mm field of view shooting with 50mm lenses on aps-c cameras. It's a really interesting field of view for walkaround, sort of like an 85mm took a step back and relaxed a little. But sometimes I want that formality, that added emphasis on a subject as opposed to a scene. I actively want to take that step forward. From.behind the camera, in the frame, they are very different things, just like 35mm and 40mm are different things, or 28 and 35, or 40 and 50.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
thinking about getting the nikon 70-200mm Z
2
Replies
20
Views
707
dacrema
dacrema
Satyaa
Opinions on 400mm zooms for Z7ii ??
2
Replies
21
Views
181
olyflyer
olyflyer
J
So what exactly is a Tamron G2 lens.
Replies
10
Views
162
Impulses
I
R
Tamron 70-300 Z-Mount Test
Replies
15
Views
25
monte12345
M
R
Tamron x Nikon WA zooms: compatibility etc
Replies
14
Views
15
rhlpetrus
R

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top