under 400$ primes? - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

02/21/2008 02:28:08 PM · #1

any good or recomended primes i can go for which cost under 400$'s? i was thinking of a 50 1.8 and a 85 1.8. any segestions?

JenniferDavidGA

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

02/21/2008 02:32:23 PM · #2

Are you looking for the total cost to be under 400$?

What are you going to be using them for? Portraits, landscapes...

I have the 50 1.4 (LOVE IT!!!) and have tried out the 85 1.8 and the 28 1.8 and I am trying to decided between the 2 right now. Both are great lenses but for different situations.

02/21/2008 02:34:43 PM · #3

i dont really mind if i dumped the 400 in one lens. but id be shooting indoor sports portraits, and everything in between. some landscapes, n like a walkround lens

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

02/21/2008 02:39:08 PM · #4

I have owned and like very much:

canon 28mm 2.8
canon 35mm 2.0
canon 50mm 1.8
canon 85mm 1.8

You really can't go wrong with canon primes, there isn't really a crappy one to be bought.

Also, I'm currently wanting the canon ef-s 60mm 2.8 macro ... it's supposed to be awesome!

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

02/21/2008 03:27:29 PM · #5

The 50 1.4 is quite a bit better than the 1.8, depending on your camera and how much you plan on using it (and how)
Focuses a bit faster, better contrast, balances a heavy camera better.

The 85mm 1.8 is adorable.

ryand

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

02/21/2008 03:30:27 PM · #6

I'd go for the 50mm 1.4, I'll be getting one here shortly, as i continue my nikon to canon swap

rex

Canon PowerShot SD780

02/21/2008 03:38:26 PM · #7

The Canon 85mm 1.8 is probably the best lens in my bag. Sharp and fast. What ore can you ask for.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

02/21/2008 03:50:13 PM · #8

For a "walkaround" lens, I'd pick a wide-tele zoom.

If you want a "normal" lens, go for a 28mm or a 35mm lens. I have the 28mm f1.8 and it's a great lens, so I'd say get that one, but just because that one works the best for what I want it to do. The 50mm f1.8 and the 85mm f1.8 are good lenses too. Still others like the 35mm f2.

Retroesque

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

02/21/2008 03:56:34 PM · #9

The Canon 100mm 2.8 is SENSATIONAL! It may be a little above budget, but just think you'd get a macro & portrait lens for that price.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

02/21/2008 03:58:54 PM · #10

Originally posted by iamwoman:

The Canon 100mm 2.8 is SENSATIONAL! It may be a little above budget, but just think you'd get a macro & portrait lens for that price.

It is an awesome macro lens. I find it a bit slow for portraits though, the focus tends to hunt around a bit, even with the distance limiters switched on. Don't you find that annoying for portrait subjects ?

k4ffy

02/21/2008 04:31:05 PM · #11

Originally posted by jaimeDp:

any good or recomended primes i can go for which cost under 400$'s? i was thinking of a 50 1.8 and a 85 1.8. any segestions?

i have the 85 1.8 its fantastic.

Prof_Fate

02/21/2008 07:19:36 PM · #12

28 1.8, 50 1.4, 85 1.8 are all good.
I hear the 35 F2 is good, but it isn't USM, so that will be slower to focus.
The 135 2.8 Soft focus is also a very nice lens, but again, lacks USM.
In my experience the 50 1.8 sucks. Well, for $70 it's not bad, but compared to a real lens, it sucks - not sharp wide open, bad CA and slow focus.

XMountaineer

Canon EOS-40D

02/21/2008 07:23:20 PM · #13

just recently got the 85mm 1.8 and have really loved it so far. I took pics of a talent show that turned out much better than expected since it was low light.

JenniferDavidGA

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

02/21/2008 07:26:28 PM · #14

For indoor and outdoor portraits I would go with the 50 1.4. It is a great lens and is a good length for what you are looking for. I barley ever take it off my camera. It is a great walkaround lens.

As for the 50, I use to have the 1.8 version of it and the 1.4 is a major step up. Not just for the larger aperature but overall. The color and focus is much much better. The 1.8 is good if you are on a budget but for quality I would go with the 1.4.

efrazier

Sony Alpha a7R

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 (E-mount)

02/22/2008 01:29:29 AM · #15

I have the 85mm 1.8 and I love it although I will be getting something else (out of your stated budget) for a walk around lens (17-55mm EFS). Next one on the list is th 50mm 1.4!

Message edited by author 2008-02-22 01:29:51.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

02/22/2008 04:20:05 PM · #16

nice, well i think im convinced to get the 50 1.4 and save for the 85 1.8 then ill have my wide angle to mid accounted for. and for tele, already have the 100-400 savings bond started. only a matter of time(: thanxs alot

Message edited by author 2008-02-22 16:20:21.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

02/22/2008 04:53:51 PM · #17

Originally posted by jaimeDp:

nice, well i think im convinced to get the 50 1.4 and save for the 85 1.8 then ill have my wide angle to mid accounted for. and for tele, already have the 100-400 savings bond started. only a matter of time(: thanxs alot

50mm is not even close to wide angle, the 85mm even less so.

Message edited by author 2008-02-22 16:54:16.

k4ffy

02/22/2008 05:07:33 PM · #18

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by jaimeDp:
nice, well i think im convinced to get the 50 1.4 and save for the 85 1.8 then ill have my wide angle to mid accounted for. and for tele, already have the 100-400 savings bond started. only a matter of time(: thanxs alot

50mm is not even close to wide angle, the 85mm even less so.

ESPECIALLY on a 20D, which has a 1.6x conversion.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

02/22/2008 11:31:17 PM · #19

oh sorry, didnt mention already have 12-24 (: so a 50 n 85 will just fill in the gap perfect i think. thanxs

robs

Canon EOS R6 Mk II

02/22/2008 11:33:05 PM · #20

If you can use the 85f1.8 just buy it. I was far less impressed with the 50f1.4 then the 85.