DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Sell my zooms to buy a prime, good/bad?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 14 of 14, (reverse)
AuthorThread
07/09/2005 12:02:14 PM · #1
I am considering selling of my two zoom lenses I own to buy a new prime for my Rebel. I want to sell my Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM and my Tamron AF 28-105mm f/4.0-5.6 IF for Canon.
I will still have my 50mm f/1.8 prime and I want to buy a wide angle prime. I bought my 50mm a few months ago and have taken much better photos when restricted to one length. Is a canon or sigma 24mm prime worth getting rid of my other two lenses for? I think so, but I would like some other opinions before I go through with this, or other suggestions for good wide zooms around the 300-400 price range.
07/09/2005 12:15:35 PM · #2
What kind of photography are you intending to concentrate on? Having only a 50mm and a wider prime will give you very limited capabilities no matter how high the quality of your two lenses.
07/09/2005 12:22:07 PM · #3
I think this type of question is one you can only answer for yourself:

What type of photos do you like to take? What is your skill level? If you had a different lens, how do you think it would modify the way you look at the world?

In any case, it sounds to me like you already answered your own question. However, one thing you might consider:

300-400 is a relateively small amount. I've no idea of your overall budget and don't want to peer into your personal business, but is it financially possible for you to just keep what you have and save up until you can afford the new lens you want? It's always nice to have more tools in your toolbox, and you might find yourself missing the telephoto capability later on.
07/09/2005 12:55:32 PM · #4
If you are looking to improve on picture quality, then changing to primes maybe a good idea. But zooms are much more convenient. You don't have to change lens as often, change shooting positions as often. You may find yourself in the position of wanting to a different lens and not having time to change. So you will be trading convenience for a small improvement in qualty. I suggest selling only one of your zooms for now and seeing if useing prime fit your shooting style.
07/09/2005 01:06:21 PM · #5
Primes are definitely nice lenses to have. They are optically better than most average zoom lenses. I would never discourage buying primes, but at the same time, I would discourage getting rid of zoom lenses until you have a full range of prime lenses. Some compositions will become uncomfortable without the ability to zoom. You may find yourself having to crop to make the final composition, which just throws away pixels unnecessarily in many cases.

I like my zoom lenses. When I do have the flexibility of moving into any position I choose for a composition, I normally set myself up so I can shoot at the approximate mid point of my focal length, where the zoom lenses work best. With a good zoom lens, shooting at the mid point of the focal length and an aperture setting two stops short of wide open produces some incredible images (when depth of field is not of concern).

In a nutshell, it's better to have gear you aren't using rather than not have gear you could be using.
07/09/2005 01:06:33 PM · #6
tamron 17-35 is quite nice! The new 30mm sigma 1.4 is fabulous too for about $400.

Only you can decide if you want primes vs zooms.
07/09/2005 01:16:35 PM · #7
I think if you invested in a decent zoom lens, you'd be quite happy with the results as well. I was never really all that pleased with my 18-55...and certainly not impressed with my 75-300 f/4-5.6 (although I managed).

Doesn't Canon make a 28-200 f/2.8 or something around there/
07/09/2005 01:24:47 PM · #8
Originally posted by deapee:

I think if you invested in a decent zoom lens, you'd be quite happy with the results as well. I was never really all that pleased with my 18-55...and certainly not impressed with my 75-300 f/4-5.6 (although I managed).

Doesn't Canon make a 28-200 f/2.8 or something around there/

28-300L and a 35-350L but they are not near this price range.

there is a EF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

Message edited by author 2005-07-09 13:26:16.
01/24/2006 07:47:01 PM · #9
oops

Message edited by author 2006-01-24 19:48:41.
01/24/2006 09:04:34 PM · #10
I think you all missed the point of the OP. Not the convenience or the optical quality, but the discipline. There is something to be said for being able to look anywhere you turn your head and having the ability to visualize everything you see as if you were already looking through the viewfinder. Working with one or two good primes can give you that.

I read these threads I see posted how someone wants to buy new lenses to fill a void in their focal length lineup. "I could get this lens and this one, but then I would be missing from 55 to 70". So what? Most people only shoot at a favored focal length for the majority of their best images no matter how many zooms they own. I found that out in my work over the years and have since limited myself to what I shoot best with and am most comfortable with artistically. My 85 and my 20 are really the only lenses I ever use, or used, even when I did have boxes of lenses laying around.

I understand this won't work for everyone. Different people think in different ways and have different needs, both professionally and artistically. All I am saying is that you all need to keep an open mind to the different avenues to be taken in this we call Photography.

Message edited by author 2006-01-24 21:05:47.
01/24/2006 09:31:13 PM · #11
I agree.

I only shoot primes between the 16mm and 100mm focal lengths. If you already move around a subject to see it from different angles then moving a step forward or backward is no trouble either.

I use a zoom for longer focal lengths but funnily enough I use it mostly as if it were a 200mm f2.8 prime.

bazz.
01/24/2006 10:13:26 PM · #12
It's worth noting, however, that for a LOT of landscape photography the "moving around" option is very limited. For example, if you're working a beach or a cliff edge, or are on a platform of some sort, or a nature trail, you get the idea. Zooms are VERY useful for landscape work, counterintuitive as that might sound.

Neverhteless, I agree it's good discipline for "general photography" to learn to "see" with a couple primes.

R.
01/24/2006 10:30:25 PM · #13
Originally posted by troylox:

Is a canon or sigma 24mm prime worth getting rid of my other two lenses for?


Unless the Sigma 24 has improved tremendously in the last four years I would rate the AF at slow and noisy. My son still uses it on his Nikon, but I can tell what lens he is using from 100 feet without looking. The Canon 20mm works well for me. It focuses fast and is almost silent.
01/24/2006 10:36:04 PM · #14
Thinking about the same nowadays... I will only add primes and then specifically a 8mm/10mm/12mm, a 300mm/400mm/500mm/600mm BUT only after one more zoooooooom... Canon 70-200 2.8L :-)

Message edited by author 2006-01-24 22:37:30.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 06/20/2025 07:27:00 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 06/20/2025 07:27:00 PM EDT.