| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/27/2005 02:40:23 AM · #26 |
I'll have a prime for any shot that I have time to think about the picture. I.e most photography I like to do.
A prime is a fixed focal length lens (cant zoom in or out at all)
i have the 50 mm 1.8
and the 10.5 mm 2.8 fisheye
I'd like a 14mm, 28mm, 85 mm, a 200 mm and a 400 or 600 for surf shots if I could get out to some nice surf locations to shoot.
Message edited by author 2005-04-27 02:42:40. |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 02:43:46 AM · #27 |
| Thanks, I guess it doesn't matter to me with my current camera. |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 04:06:51 AM · #28 |
Unlimited cash?
Rangefinder with the best primes available.
Better yet, I'd let Nikon build me my own camera. :)
|
|
|
|
04/27/2005 04:10:33 AM · #29 |
1) Both
2) I use an 85mm f/1.8 prime as my primary portrait, flower, and staged shot lens. If money were no object, I'd be tempted to go for the f/1.4 L series version, but it's also twice as heavy, and I often have to carry all of my gear long distances, so I'm very weight-conscious. Having one prime just for the sake of learning to frame using a prime has been good for me, as a photographer, and it's my highest quality lens so far.
3) In addition to the prime, I carry a 17-85 (which can do macro) and a 75-300 and I use the entire range. Sometimes I borrow a 10-22 from a friend, and I find use for that too, though not as often, and I've had situations where I really wanted a bit more reach, but didn't have it. I'd like to get the Sigma 80-400 at some point, which, in addition to having the extra reach, is supposed to be sharper than my 75-300.
If I had an L series 24-80 at f/2.8 or faster (ideally f/2.0) that could macro and where the quality was roughly as good at 80 as my 85 prime is, I would be tempted to carry a 10-22, the 24-80, the 80-400, and no prime. Using f/1.8 at 85mm is actually kind of dangerous for portrait shots anyway, particularly if you have two people, since your depth of field is just *barely* enough to cover a head, but since you often want to stop down a half stop for sharpness, this is just about the perfect lens. A variant of this might be to carry a high quality but non-macro 24-80ish zoom, the 80-400, and then get a 100mm prime f/2.8 or faster macro lens to cover that one situation alone and just do photostitching for wider views. Three lenses is my maximum comfortable carrying capacity, though, and I use the word comfortable somewhat loosely.
My objective is to cover the maximum number of shooting situations with just three lenses, balancing quality against weight. The reasoning is that a less than perfect shot that actually gets taken beats the shot you were too tired or completely unable to take every single time. |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 04:35:04 AM · #30 |
| Both. Although I only have and use zooms so far (18-300, split on 18-70 and 70-300), all the lenses on my wishlist are primes (10.5 wideangle, 50 standard, and 105 micro-nikkor). |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 04:51:28 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by kyebosh:
A mix...
70-200mmL IS, 16-35mm 2.8L, 24-70mm 2.8L (has to be a good copy), 15mm Fisheye, 35mm 1.4L, 50mm 1.4 ( not the 1.0 ), 85mm 1.2L, 135mm 2.0L, 180mm Macro L, 200mm 1.8L, 300L 2.8 IS, 400, 500, 600 IS versions. 2x Teleconverter. |
What kyebosh said to go with my 1ds Mark II and 1d Mark II bodies.
|
|
|
|
04/27/2005 07:12:51 AM · #32 |
On the ZOOM side, my wish list:
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM
Canon EF 24-70 f2.8L USM*
Canon EF 70-200 f2.8L IS USM
And on the PRIME wish list would be:
Canon MP-E65mm f2.8 1-5X Macro
Canon EF 85mm f1.2L USM
Canon EF 200mm f2.8L II USM
Canon EF 300mm f4.0L IS USM*
Canon EF 600mm f4.0L IS USM
* These I now own. It's a start!
|
|
|
|
04/27/2005 08:14:13 AM · #33 |
I currently have the 16-35, 80-200 and 50mm f/1.8.
I've decided that on the long end, the zoom is really valuable (70-200, 100-400, whatever). In the future, though, I can see myself selling my 16-35 for a 24, 35 and also picking up an 85.
|
|
|
|
04/27/2005 08:31:07 AM · #34 |
I'd get mostly very fast primes, and the very best mid range zoom money could buy for those snapshot times and vacations when I couldn't bring all my primes.
24mm 1.4L
35mm 1.4L
50mm 1.0L
50mm 1.4
85mm 1.2L
100mm 2.8 macro USM
135mm 2.0L
200mm 1.8L (used)
300 and 400 2.8 L IS
1.4 and 2x extender
I currently have ... uhmmm, let's see ... yeah, NONE of these :) |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 08:58:53 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by TooCool:
If money is no object:
1) Zooms or primes?
Zooms. I've had too many situations in the field where I can't reposition myself due to obstacles. A high quality zoom is every bit as good as primes these days, and affords me extra flexibility.
3) If you said zooms, do you actually use your zoom lens' entire range or do you use primarily one focal length? |
Yes, with one exception... My 70-300 is used heavily at the 300mm length, so I wouldn't argue that a prime might be wiser (but less affordable at that focal length!). I use it at all lengths, but 300 is definitely the primary setting for me.
|
|
|
|
04/27/2005 09:21:52 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
I currently have the 16-35, 80-200 and 50mm f/1.8.
I've decided that on the long end, the zoom is really valuable (70-200, 100-400, whatever). In the future, though, I can see myself selling my 16-35 for a 24, 35 and also picking up an 85. |
I have similar stuff atm. The 50 and the 80-200L (while not in mint) are pretty sweet, but i have the tamron 17-35 instead of the L. |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 09:41:46 AM · #37 |
My 80-200 is so unbelievable...I love it. I brought it to a concert on Saturday and handheld 200mm shots at 1/125 and they are beautiful.
My 50mm f/1.8 MkI is another beauty...I love this thing, so much fun getting available light photos where none should exist!
As for the 16-35...I like the functionality but I'm not 100% sold on it quite yet. I find that it's low light focusing is nothing like the 80-200 although it's incredibly fast and quiet when it focuses. It's good to have but I could see myself selling it for a few primes next year.
And it's sooo expensive! If I hadn't gotten a good deal on it I wouldn't have even thought about it at this point...we'll see.
Message edited by author 2005-04-27 09:45:03.
|
|
|
|
04/27/2005 11:01:18 AM · #38 |
I like zooms...
i have a 28-80, a 50 and a 135. I use the zoom most of the time.
my next lenses will be a 70-300, 12-24 or similar. Both zooms. then i plan to replac the 28-80 with a faster/better zoom of the same range.
io use the entire range.
i have thought about an 80-200 as i might not use the 200-300 range very often, but since i have not bought the lens yet anything is possible.
|
|
|
|
04/27/2005 11:48:40 AM · #39 |
Ideally:
8mm Fisheye
15mm Fisheye I had the fish on a Nikon 990 and used both settings quite often)
50mm 1.0
50mm 1.4 don't want to carry the 1.0 everywhere :-)
300 L IS
600 L IS
1200 L IS (think I would settle for a used one)
100mm macro
10-22 zoom only way to go wide
18-55 'cause I have it already
70-200 2.8L IS
1.4x TC
2x TC -- wonder if you can stack these on that 1200 :-)
now back to reality!
|
|
|
|
04/27/2005 11:49:43 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Zooms
entire length.
Too much bother to carry around 10 primes on a walk when I can carry 2 zooms. Right now my range is 17-300 (27-480 digital) in three lenses. Add a 2X and I can get to 960.
d |
yup. zooms, entire length. |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 12:02:12 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
My 80-200 is so unbelievable...I love it. I brought it to a concert on Saturday and handheld 200mm shots at 1/125 and they are beautiful.
My 50mm f/1.8 MkI is another beauty...I love this thing, so much fun getting available light photos where none should exist!
As for the 16-35...I like the functionality but I'm not 100% sold on it quite yet. I find that it's low light focusing is nothing like the 80-200 although it's incredibly fast and quiet when it focuses. It's good to have but I could see myself selling it for a few primes next year.
And it's sooo expensive! If I hadn't gotten a good deal on it I wouldn't have even thought about it at this point...we'll see. |
I recently shot a show, and I found that I never used the 50mm! The 80-200 on a tripod worked great for 1/80 and iso 800. The 17-35 Tamron produced great results too! |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 12:05:43 PM · #42 |
If money were no object I would just get all the Canon lenses and play with them. I might also consider buying a body for each just so I wouldn't have to waste time switching lenses. Of course I'd hire a sherpa or two to follow me around with the hundreds of pounds of photo equipment.
Is there such a thing as a photo caddy? Somebody to stand quietly by my side ready to hand me cameras. I say, "what do ya think?" and he says, "that's a rough one, try the 600mm f4 IS" then pulls it out of the bag for me.
Perhaps its thoughts like these that make my SO want to be in charge of the money. |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 12:24:17 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by NathanW:
OOookay... What the heck are Primes? |
This might help NathanW
Zooms vs Primes |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 12:46:02 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
Is there such a thing as a photo caddy? |
Well, those people are called photo bitches. You see, photographers aren't as polite as golfers...
|
|
|
|
04/27/2005 12:49:00 PM · #45 |
| I favor zooms (even if I have a 14mm 2.8L), a lens like the 70-200L 2.8 IS USM is sharp enough throughout the range and offers more versatility for what I do... in the end it has to do with application. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/17/2025 06:43:15 PM EDT.
