Reminiscing How it Started - what lenses did you start out with?

[bobpal]

My first camera was a 1971 Sears TLS camera made by Ricoh. It came with a 50mm f1.7 lens. My father worked for Sears so I got the employee discount of 10% off. I shot a lot of my high school events with the camera and lens. I didn't have another lens until I graduated to a used Nikon Fan which with 50mm and 135mm lenses.

 

[mcoren]

My journey started in 1981 when I was 14 years old. All I could afford was a used Canon AV-1, FD 50mm f/1.8, and SpeedLite 155A flash.

In 1992, I was living in Scotland and doing a lot of travelling when the AV-1 died. I replaced it with an EOS 100 (Elan in the US) and 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM. A few months later, I added an EF 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 USM. I had a lot of fun travelling around with that kit!

My first DSLR was an EOS 20D, with its EF-S 17-85mm kit lens, in 2004. The lens was so-so, but fine for snapshots of my young kids. We had actually tried a compact all-in-one digital first, a good one (Olympus C-5050), but the contrast detect AF was just too slow for toddlers in motion.

When I got back into "hobby" photography in 2012, I started with a Canon Rebel T2i (550D), followed quickly by 70D, 7D (second body for the 2017 eclipse), 7DII, M5 (for travel), Sony a6400, and EOS R7.

And a revolving door of lenses over the past ten years, including Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 (both non-Contemporary and Contemporary), EF 70-200 f/4.0L IS USM, EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 (both v1 and L versions), Sigma 100-400 f/5-6.3|C, Canon EF-S 55-250 STM, EF-S 24 f/2.8, EF-M and RF-S 18-150, EF-S and RF-S 10-18, RF 100-400, and RF 800mm f/11.

I went through some serious GAS for a while there, but I like to think I've finally arrived at a set of gear that I enjoy using and get gratifying results from. I've also learned--the hard way!--that the biggest limitation on my photography is the doofus behind the camera. I loved my 70D, but sold it to buy a 7DII in pursuit of some unquantified promise of "better performance" and was never happy with the results. I don't mean the results weren't dramatically better, I mean the results were never as good as the 70D. Similarly, my main action tele lens now is the RF 100-400, and I love the results I get from it with the R7. Even if I had a spare $2600 burning a hole in my pocket, I don't think I would run out and buy an RF 100-500L.

 

[Dillan_K]

My first lens was an EF 28-105mm f/4.5-5.6 USM II. Try saying that 3 times fast! It wasn't bad.

This was taken with this lens on my first trip to Indonesia. 2006 maybe? It's on Fuji Velvia 50 slide film. The camera was my trusty Canon Elan 7.
balisunset by Dillan K, on Flickr

 

[Mr Roboto (View_Finder)]

My first camera was a 1971 Sears TLS camera made by Ricoh. It came with a 50mm f1.7 lens. My father worked for Sears so I got the employee discount of 10% off. I shot a lot of my high school events with the camera and lens. I didn't have another lens until I graduated to a used Nikon Fan which with 50mm and 135mm lenses.

Just curious, what made you switch to Canon? Not knocking either Ricoh or Nikon - just wondering.

 

[Mr Roboto (View_Finder)]

My journey started in 1981 when I was 14 years old. All I could afford was a used Canon AV-1, FD 50mm f/1.8, and SpeedLite 155A flash.

In 1992, I was living in Scotland and doing a lot of travelling when the AV-1 died. I replaced it with an EOS 100 (Elan in the US) and 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM. A few months later, I added an EF 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 USM. I had a lot of fun travelling around with that kit!

My first DSLR was an EOS 20D, with its EF-S 17-85mm kit lens, in 2004. The lens was so-so, but fine for snapshots of my young kids. We had actually tried a compact all-in-one digital first, a good one (Olympus C-5050), but the contrast detect AF was just too slow for toddlers in motion.

When I got back into "hobby" photography in 2012, I started with a Canon Rebel T2i (550D), followed quickly by 70D, 7D (second body for the 2017 eclipse), 7DII, M5 (for travel), Sony a6400, and EOS R7.

And a revolving door of lenses over the past ten years, including Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 (both non-Contemporary and Contemporary), EF 70-200 f/4.0L IS USM, EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 (both v1 and L versions), Sigma 100-400 f/5-6.3|C, Canon EF-S 55-250 STM, EF-S 24 f/2.8, EF-M and RF-S 18-150, EF-S and RF-S 10-18, RF 100-400, and RF 800mm f/11.

I went through some serious GAS for a while there, but I like to think I've finally arrived at a set of gear that I enjoy using and get gratifying results from. I've also learned--the hard way!--that the biggest limitation on my photography is the doofus behind the camera. I loved my 70D, but sold it to buy a 7DII in pursuit of some unquantified promise of "better performance" and was never happy with the results. I don't mean the results weren't dramatically better, I mean the results were never as good as the 70D. Similarly, my main action tele lens now is the RF 100-400, and I love the results I get from it with the R7. Even if I had a spare $2600 burning a hole in my pocket, I don't think I would run out and buy an RF 100-500L.

Isn't it nice/odd that Canon came out with some spectacularly expensive/exotic lenses while, at the very same time, they came out with very reasonably priced pieces that are still extremely high performing? Other than the RF100 f/2.8L, all my RF purchases have been non-L and I don't feel at all "deprived". Actually feel good - less cost, less weight, less worry that something might get stolen.

 

[Mr Roboto (View_Finder)]

My first lens was an EF 28-105mm f/4.5-5.6 USM II. Try saying that 3 times fast! It wasn't bad.

This was taken with this lens on my first trip to Indonesia. 2006 maybe? It's on Fuji Velvia 50 slide film. The camera was my trusty Canon Elan 7.
balisuns by Dillan K, on Flickr

Nice!

"Velvia"??!! Remember all the press coverage when the Velvia line was launched? I remember entire magazine articles dedicated to comparing the crystalline structure of the grain (same with Kodak's TMax series).

Remember all the controversy from people saying that the colors from Velvia were too saturated?

Good times.
Old times.

 

[MakisM1]

Nice!

"Velvia"??!! Remember all the press coverage when the Velvia line was launched? I remember entire magazine articles dedicated to comparing the crystalline structure of the grain (same with Kodak's TMax series).

Remember all the controversy from people saying that the colors from Velvia were too saturated?

Good times.
Old times.

I use Darktable instead of LR. It has a pre-set called Velvia, and yes, it will saturate the heck out of everything at 50% or above...

 

[bobpal]

Just curious, what made you switch to Canon? Not knocking either Ricoh or Nikon - just wondering.

I kind of left photography for a while. When I decided to get back into it the Canon 5DII had just come out and people were raving about it for both photography and video work. I had a friend at work who bought one and raved about it. I guess I drank that Koolaid and went with a 5DII and 24-105 L lens. I am happy I did. I have enjoyed using Canon equipment for the last 15 or 16 years and have owned quite a few Canon camera bodies and lenses.

 

[Dillan_K]

Nice!

"Velvia"??!! Remember all the press coverage when the Velvia line was launched? I remember entire magazine articles dedicated to comparing the crystalline structure of the grain (same with Kodak's TMax series).

Remember all the controversy from people saying that the colors from Velvia were too saturated?

Good times.
Old times.

I loved Velvia 50. Slide film in general was magical to me. I just loved looking at my back-lit slides. I still miss it. I was firmly in the Fujifilm camp.

 

[mcoren]

I loved Velvia 50. Slide film in general was magical to me. I just loved looking at my back-lit slides. I still miss it. I was firmly in the Fujifilm camp.

Fujifilm's cameras have a lot of "film simulation" modes built in (for Fuji's films, obviously). Worth considering if you do that a lot in post.

 

[Ltdave]

i mentioned all of the FD lenses i got as i became more serious but my first 'real' camera and lens i guess was the Kodak Signet 40 my mom found at a garage sale with the flash attachment. i shot with it a lot until i got my AE-1 the summer before 12th grade.

i never changed the battery in the flash attachment (15v i think, in an N cell) and i went through a lot of bulbs. i got some decent images with it too. i still have it but had to replace it because the shutter cocking spring went wonky and i havent torn into it to see if its repairable...

 

[Mr Roboto (View_Finder)]

I loved Velvia 50. Slide film in general was magical to me. I just loved looking at my back-lit slides. I still miss it. I was firmly in the Fujifilm camp.

I shot K64 exclusively. I had a large (2’ x 3’) light table and it was always so much fun to throw a batch of new slides onto it to see “what I got”.

Would use my Agfa loupe to “pixel peep”

 

[Mr Roboto (View_Finder)]

i mentioned all of the FD lenses i got as i became more serious but my first 'real' camera and lens i guess was the Kodak Signet 40 my mom found at a garage sale with the flash attachment. i shot with it a lot until i got my AE-1 the summer before 12th grade.

i never changed the battery in the flash attachment (15v i think, in an N cell) and i went through a lot of bulbs. i got some decent images with it too. i still have it but had to replace it because the shutter cocking spring went wonky and i havent torn into it to see if its repairable...

My first camera was a Kodak pocket Instamatic that my parents bought at Kmart when I was in the 3rd grade.

It used disposable flash cartridges - 4 pops, flip over and 4 more pops, dispose, repeat

 

[Dillan_K]

Fujifilm's cameras have a lot of "film simulation" modes built in (for Fuji's films, obviously). Worth considering if you do that a lot in post.

That has occurred to me, and it does appeal to me, but it would mean adopting a new camera system. No can do right now, unfortunately, but it does tempt me.

Really it was the slide media itself. It was beautiful! It had depth. I loved slide film.

 

[Wilt]

My first SLR came in the days when a vendor's selection of lenses offered were perhaps a bit over a half dozen single FL. A system might have

• 28mm
• 35mm
• 50mm
• 100mm
• 135mm
• 200mm

...a really complete system might offer one dozen and a half FL choices. My first SLR was an entry-level offering with only five FL to choose from. I started with a normal and 135mm.

 

[Tim Easterday]

First time using a camera with interchangeable lenses was using a Canon "Nifty Fifty" 50mm f/1.8 with my first DSLR, a Canon 30D.

 

[RDKirk]

I had the FD 80-200 L, which was my main lens. Also FD 28 f2.8, 50 f/1.8, and 85 f.1.8. Back in those days, if a pj had those lenses, he was set. I did lust for the F/2.8 300mm, though, for indoor sports. Two F-1n bodies and an MF motor drive. Over the course of time, an AE-1 and an A-1 fell into the mix.

 

[Ltdave]

I had the FD 80-200 L, which was my main lens. Also FD 28 f2.8, 50 f/1.8, and 85 f.1.8. Back in those days, if a pj had those lenses, he was set. I did lust for the F/2.8 300mm, though, for indoor sports. Two F-1n bodies and an MF motor drive. Over the course of time, an AE-1 and an A-1 fell into the mix.

never had a zoom lens until digital. i tried out a 35-70 fsomething by Sigma but didnt like that it focused backward from FD lenses.

of those lenses listed i had a 24 f2 and a 35 f2 in addition to the 50 and 85. then i also had the 200 f2.8. in fact i still have all of them. only one F-1new, but an AE-1 with the 2fps winder filled up my Domke f-2

 

[RDKirk]

never had a zoom lens until digital. i tried out a 35-70 fsomething by Sigma but didnt like that it focused backward from FD lenses.

of those lenses listed i had a 24 f2 and a 35 f2 in addition to the 50 and 85. then i also had the 200 f2.8. in fact i still have all of them. only one F-1new, but an AE-1 with the 2fps winder filled up my Domke f-2

Back when I bought that FD zoom, zooms were for the most part pretty lousy. Even Canon's other zooms were lousy. I don't think I bought another zoom until going digital myself. But that includes a substantial period that I was boycotting Canon after they went to the EF mount and I was shooting nearly all medium format and some 4x5. I still kept and shot 35mm with my FD equipment until the late 90s. When I finally went to Canon EF (and that was only because Nikon hadn't fully gotten their own autofocus act together yet), I didn't pick up a zoom lens for a while.

 

[Mr Roboto (View_Finder)]

never had a zoom lens until digital. i tried out a 35-70 fsomething by Sigma but didnt like that it focused backward from FD lenses.

of those lenses listed i had a 24 f2 and a 35 f2 in addition to the 50 and 85. then i also had the 200 f2.8. in fact i still have all of them. only one F-1new, but an AE-1 with the 2fps winder filled up my Domke f-2

Dave, if you do go mirrorless, these FD lenses would be nice to use (via adapter of course). The in-viewfinder magnification feature allows pin-point manual focusing and the exposure simulation prevents screen darkening when manually adjusting the aperture.