What is your most artistic lens?

What lens do you find consistently gives you the best artistic results and why?

Is your most artistic lens also your optically best lens?

You cant really say a picture is artistic because of the lens. That is like when people say, that's a nice picture, you must have a good camera. Might as well of asked Van Gogh which of his paint brushes was most artistic.

Depth of field can change between lenses along with the quality of the bokeh. Compression can change between focal lengths. But the artistic aspect of the end result is the product of what is behind the viewfinder.

So none of your lenses support your "artistic approach" more than the others?

n1as wrote in post #16509104
So none of your lenses support your "artistic approach" more than the others?

I don't. For me, every lens has a different purpose. It is a tool, so I just have to pick the correct tool for the job. The artistic approach involves understanding the look I am going for and picking a lens that will get me that look, or at least close to it.

Landscape : 17mm TS-e
Portrait : 85mm 1.2
Wildlife and still photography 70-200 2.0

my 28 f1.8

In general, my primes.

n1as wrote in post #16509070
What lens do you find consistently gives you the best artistic results and why?

Is your most artistic lens also your optically best lens?

You're possibly taking seriously the Sigma sales gimmick where their wide-to-normal lenses are being named "art lenses."

While some people would be overjoyed if lenses were designated for a single purpose, that's not realistic, considering the equipment's versatility. Camera and lens systems are limited only by a photographer' s experience and vision.

Example: the same 70-200mm f/2.8 lens that can produce pleasant head-and-shoulder portraits can also be used to capture sports action. A 500mm lens can catch a bird or a football player with equal effect. The definition of "art" depends on the person behind the viewfinder and not on the glass on the lens mount.

DC Fan wrote in post #16509159
You're possibly taking seriously the Sigma sales gimmick where their wide-to-normal lenses are being named "art lenses."

While some people would be overjoyed if lenses were designated for a single purpose, that's not realistic, considering the equipment's versatility. Camera and lens systems are limited only by a photographer' s experience and vision.

Example: the same 70-200mm f/2.8 lens that can produce pleasant head-and-shoulder portraits can also be used to capture sports action. A 500mm lens can catch a bird or a football player with equal effect. The definition of "art" depends on the person behind the viewfinder and not on the glass on the lens mount.

Exactly!

n1as wrote in post #16509070
What lens do you find consistently gives you the best artistic results and why?

Is your most artistic lens also your optically best lens?

I must be weird; I like this question. Making, defining and appreciating art is totally subjective and individualistic. Most (98.3%) of my photography is not art. I am, for the most part, a snap-shooter capturing grandkids, nephews, nieces and such living life. Plays, sports, birthday parties and such. I am lucky enough to be able to afford some decent hardware with which to do that.

The most artistic lens I have is the Canon EFs 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. That lens makes, and allows, me to think outside the 'snapshot' box. The perspective and DOF of that lens permits me to do things I would never consider otherwise. With it I can experiment and be creative in a way that never crosses my mind with 'normal' lenses. I think of it as creating art. I've never thought that way with any other lens.

Ratjack wrote in post #16509098
You cant really say a picture is artistic because of the lens. That is like when people say, that's a nice picture, you must have a good camera. Might as well of asked Van Gogh which of his paint brushes was most artistic.

Depth of field can change between lenses along with the quality of the bokeh. Compression can change between focal lengths. But the artistic aspect of the end result is the product of what is behind the viewfinder.

I really disagree with your sentiment. There are only a few ways to artfully impact a photo. Assuming equal lighting and composition are you really implying that the gear a photographer uses doesn't matter as long as the photographer is skilled?

taking your analogy, you would argue with Van Gogh that he should be able to make art with 1 brush, because all that matters is how skilled the painter is, not the stroke the brush makes?

DC Fan wrote in post #16509159
You're possibly taking seriously the Sigma sales gimmick where their wide-to-normal lenses are being named "art lenses."

While some people would be overjoyed if lenses were designated for a single purpose, that's not realistic, considering the equipment's versatility. Camera and lens systems are limited only by a photographer' s experience and vision.

Example: the same 70-200mm f/2.8 lens that can produce pleasant head-and-shoulder portraits can also be used to capture sports action. A 500mm lens can catch a bird or a football player with equal effect. The definition of "art" depends on the person behind the viewfinder and not on the glass on the lens mount.

OP asked what lenses render in artistic ways and never implied lenses were only capable of being used in a specific way.

don't know where you got the impression he was implying that a 70-200 could only be used for 1 type of shot.

Ratjack wrote in post #16509111
I don't. For me, every lens has a different purpose. It is a tool, so I just have to pick the correct tool for the job. The artistic approach involves understanding the look I am going for and picking a lens that will get me that look, or at least close to it.

So, your lenses don't give you a specific artistic look, but when you are going for a specific look, you pick a specific lens?

come again?

n1as wrote in post #16509070
What lens do you find consistently gives you the best artistic results and why?

Is your most artistic lens also your optically best lens?

currently I'd say my super tak 50 1.4 gives me some unique images. they sort of have this vintage feel to them straight out of the camera.

also, sorry I should have combined all my posts into 1, but I didn't expect to reply to all of them :P

helios 44-2 and sigma 85/1.4

OP here. Here's my list.

Zeiss 35 f/2 - Because of the shallow DOF and the often 3D rendering.

Any UWA - Because the extreme perspective possibilities put me in the "art" mood.

Ironically I use my many telephoto lenses only for capturing action and I rarely use them for art shots. That is a shame. I need to start thinking about artistic composition with the longer focal lengths (135 & 200 primes). I have room to grow.

I also find that I gravitate toward shallow DOF when doing most things. For this reason I'm gravitating from zooms to fast primes.