I'm not looking for a definitive answer to this, but more just some discussion.
This is a term that I see tossed around in reviews, blogs, and fora. I use to think I had a clear idea of what it meant, but to me lately it's become a bit more a fuzzy term.
Lenses to me that have always been in the exotic category have been
1. Long, fast lenses, or sometimes things called "Supertelephotos." When I first got into photography, to me I'd have put anything big enough to have its own tripod foot in this. A little later on, my definition maybe slipped to 300mm f/2.8, 400 f/2.8, and so on out(500 f/4, 800 f/5.6, etc). For Nikons at least, I'd also include the 200mm f/2, as well as any other maker's lens in the ~200mm range that's faster than f/2.8. Lately I've been questioning if the 300mm f/2.8 belongs there, and I could make an argument either way(part of that comes down to exotic often has been "lenses I don't have"...and I do have a 300 f/2.8 now).
2. Super fast aperture lenses, especially older hand-ground asperpherical lenses like the Canon FD mount 55mm f/1.2 Asp./55mm f/1.2L and the Noct-NIKKOR 58mm f/1.2. The EF mount 50mm f/1.0L would definitely be there, as would the current Z mount Noct-NIKKOR f/.95. Note this isn't exhaustive, but just examples. I'd also put lenses like Canon's RF 50mm f/.95 there, even though it's a conventional spherical lens
3. Ultrawides in the past have been there, although that might be changing in the current climate, along with what's considered an ultrawide. Back in the manual focus era, even 20mm was an achievement on an SLR(Nikon's first F mount ultrawide was a repackaged 21mm rangefinder lens that sticks far enough back into the camera body that I'm not even sure it can clear the shutter on anything other than an F, F2, or F3) and needs an external finder. Fisheyes were probably there also in the past. Nikon making practical non-MLU 18mm and 15mm lenses was a big deal, and Canon came along somewhere in there with 14mm. Nikon's 13mm is still probably king in this category, not the least of which for the cost and that production is probably in the 3 digit range. Modern optics have made lenses in this range a LOT more attainable, and I have a hard time considering something like Nikon's 14-24mm f/2.8(whether F or Z mount) exotic...there again with the "I have one" rule. Mirrorless has changed this landscape some, although the designers still have to get creative because digital sensors do funky things with too steep of an angle of incident from the back of the lens, but a mount ~20mm away from the sensor with no mirror in the way frees the designers up a lot compared to 40+mm and a moving mirror. Now, too, there's even a sub-1K full frame 12mm that's supposed to be pretty darn good(and comes in both SLR and mirrorless mounts).
Back in the day, too, the "banded" lenses from Nikon and Canon probably would have all been in that category. Canon use to use green bands for both aspherical and fluorite, then combined both under the red "L" band. Nikon dug in and resisted fluorite until about 10 years ago, but stuck their claim on ED(extra low dispersion) glass instead and used an inlaid gold band for it. As technology progressed, asperhical became a lot more common(even most cheap kit lenses have at least one now) as the manufacturers moved to molding instead of hand-grinding and some other tricks. Nikon was able to make ED glass a lot less expensive and more accessible. Fluorite is probably more accessible than when Canon started using it in the 70s, but to me it's still a premium material and a fluorite element might still tip me to "exotic" even though, there again, it shows up now in the 70-200 f/2.8 from Canon and finally Nikon. Both Nikon and Canon have "cheapened" their gold band/red band a bit with lenses that probably shouldn't carry it(looking at suspects like the Nikon 24-120 f/4G VR-a perfectly serviceable lens but not one of their better optics).
There are definitely some zooms out there that are easily exotic. There again, going back 20 years ago, I would have said a 70/80-200 f/2.8 would fit there, but given how ubiquitous these lenses are, plus how good the newest ones are, it's hard for me to think that anymore. Going even bigger, the couple of 120-300mm f/2.8s are definitely there(and Nikon's version with a close to 5 figure price tag certain backs up that placement). The 180/200-400 f/4s are definitely there too, as well as some of the other slower lenses that still cover a big zoom range(200-500 f/5.6 for example).
So, what do you all think? What to you is an "exotic" lens in 2024? For me I might still go with the working definition of something I want(even if I can't articulate a practical use for it) and don't have
This is a term that I see tossed around in reviews, blogs, and fora. I use to think I had a clear idea of what it meant, but to me lately it's become a bit more a fuzzy term.
Lenses to me that have always been in the exotic category have been
1. Long, fast lenses, or sometimes things called "Supertelephotos." When I first got into photography, to me I'd have put anything big enough to have its own tripod foot in this. A little later on, my definition maybe slipped to 300mm f/2.8, 400 f/2.8, and so on out(500 f/4, 800 f/5.6, etc). For Nikons at least, I'd also include the 200mm f/2, as well as any other maker's lens in the ~200mm range that's faster than f/2.8. Lately I've been questioning if the 300mm f/2.8 belongs there, and I could make an argument either way(part of that comes down to exotic often has been "lenses I don't have"...and I do have a 300 f/2.8 now).
2. Super fast aperture lenses, especially older hand-ground asperpherical lenses like the Canon FD mount 55mm f/1.2 Asp./55mm f/1.2L and the Noct-NIKKOR 58mm f/1.2. The EF mount 50mm f/1.0L would definitely be there, as would the current Z mount Noct-NIKKOR f/.95. Note this isn't exhaustive, but just examples. I'd also put lenses like Canon's RF 50mm f/.95 there, even though it's a conventional spherical lens
3. Ultrawides in the past have been there, although that might be changing in the current climate, along with what's considered an ultrawide. Back in the manual focus era, even 20mm was an achievement on an SLR(Nikon's first F mount ultrawide was a repackaged 21mm rangefinder lens that sticks far enough back into the camera body that I'm not even sure it can clear the shutter on anything other than an F, F2, or F3) and needs an external finder. Fisheyes were probably there also in the past. Nikon making practical non-MLU 18mm and 15mm lenses was a big deal, and Canon came along somewhere in there with 14mm. Nikon's 13mm is still probably king in this category, not the least of which for the cost and that production is probably in the 3 digit range. Modern optics have made lenses in this range a LOT more attainable, and I have a hard time considering something like Nikon's 14-24mm f/2.8(whether F or Z mount) exotic...there again with the "I have one" rule. Mirrorless has changed this landscape some, although the designers still have to get creative because digital sensors do funky things with too steep of an angle of incident from the back of the lens, but a mount ~20mm away from the sensor with no mirror in the way frees the designers up a lot compared to 40+mm and a moving mirror. Now, too, there's even a sub-1K full frame 12mm that's supposed to be pretty darn good(and comes in both SLR and mirrorless mounts).
Back in the day, too, the "banded" lenses from Nikon and Canon probably would have all been in that category. Canon use to use green bands for both aspherical and fluorite, then combined both under the red "L" band. Nikon dug in and resisted fluorite until about 10 years ago, but stuck their claim on ED(extra low dispersion) glass instead and used an inlaid gold band for it. As technology progressed, asperhical became a lot more common(even most cheap kit lenses have at least one now) as the manufacturers moved to molding instead of hand-grinding and some other tricks. Nikon was able to make ED glass a lot less expensive and more accessible. Fluorite is probably more accessible than when Canon started using it in the 70s, but to me it's still a premium material and a fluorite element might still tip me to "exotic" even though, there again, it shows up now in the 70-200 f/2.8 from Canon and finally Nikon. Both Nikon and Canon have "cheapened" their gold band/red band a bit with lenses that probably shouldn't carry it(looking at suspects like the Nikon 24-120 f/4G VR-a perfectly serviceable lens but not one of their better optics).
There are definitely some zooms out there that are easily exotic. There again, going back 20 years ago, I would have said a 70/80-200 f/2.8 would fit there, but given how ubiquitous these lenses are, plus how good the newest ones are, it's hard for me to think that anymore. Going even bigger, the couple of 120-300mm f/2.8s are definitely there(and Nikon's version with a close to 5 figure price tag certain backs up that placement). The 180/200-400 f/4s are definitely there too, as well as some of the other slower lenses that still cover a big zoom range(200-500 f/5.6 for example).
So, what do you all think? What to you is an "exotic" lens in 2024? For me I might still go with the working definition of something I want(even if I can't articulate a practical use for it) and don't have
