| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/20/2008 04:52:14 AM · #1 |
Actually, I just got questions if getting a prime lens is needed.
I am a canon user, I saw from manycanon users in DPC that Canon EF 50mm f/1.8II
but the Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L is also good.
Why not just get the zoom lens and forgo the prime lens?
|
|
|
|
03/20/2008 04:59:21 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by danielcheong1974:
Actually, I just got questions if getting a prime lens is needed.
I am a canon user, I saw from manycanon users in DPC that Canon EF 50mm f/1.8II
but the Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L is also good.
Why not just get the zoom lens and forgo the prime lens? |
it depends on your use. If you can live with the prime, then you should get one - it is by design sharper than any lens with moving parts could be. (prime has moving parts, but they don't move as much:-)
Zoom lenses are absolutely necessary for shooting deep photos, where the angle means everything. There are some photos primes can't help you with. |
|
|
|
03/20/2008 05:19:36 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
Zoom lenses are absolutely necessary for shooting deep photos, where the angle means everything. There are some photos primes can't help you with. |
Don't follow the logic of this - surely it is the focal length that would be the issue, a prime of the correct focal length to achieve the effect you are after would be (somewhat) superior to a zoom moved to that focal length? |
|
|
|
03/20/2008 06:08:26 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
There are some photos primes can't help you with. |
The only one I can think of is where you zoom in or out during exposure time.
It depends on what you want. A lens has three properties: price, quality and flexibility. Primes have a wonderfull price and quality, but no flexibility whatsoever. Increase flexibility (using a zoom), and you'll either pay more or loose quality. This goes on: zooms with larger ranges are either more expensive or of lower quality. What you use depends on your preferences, your style and the type of shoots you do.
Apart from that, working with primes is different. I can't explain, you'll have to try.
Whetever you like best, go get that 50/1.8. It costs next to nothing and gives you the great opportunity to get to know primes.
btw, I am biased. I have sold all my zoom lenses and use primes only. [still one or two zooms on my wishlist though]
Message edited by author 2008-03-20 06:08:51.
|
|
|
|
03/20/2008 07:16:20 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by danielcheong1974:
Actually, I just got questions if getting a prime lens is needed.
I am a canon user, I saw from manycanon users in DPC that Canon EF 50mm f/1.8II
but the Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L is also good.
Why not just get the zoom lens and forgo the prime lens? |
I would pose the question - \"Is getting a zoom lens needed?\"
I like primes lenses myself for general work. Cost is an important consideration, Primes are generally less expensive, but most important primes - have higher, faster, sharper and just plain better optical characteristics than zooms; primes are faster to operate.
For Zooms, which I also use, (and I consider a luxury accessory, considering the usually higher cost)
the shorter range zoom lens, such as a Canon 10-22mm, are often proven to be better optically than a zoom which may attempt an extreme range of length.
I notice that three of your four top challenge photos are made with a prime.
|
|
|
|
03/20/2008 08:27:37 AM · #6 |
This isn't what you asked, but I think you want to be asking how aperture works. If you had a clear picture of that, then you wouldn't have asked the question you've asked.
wiki info
Originally posted by danielcheong1974:
Actually, I just got questions if getting a prime lens is needed.
I am a canon user, I saw from manycanon users in DPC that Canon EF 50mm f/1.8II
but the Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L is also good.
Why not just get the zoom lens and forgo the prime lens? |
|
|
|
|
03/20/2008 09:30:24 AM · #7 |
I've had a 100mm 2.8 prime for a long time. I used to use it often, and really enjoyed it, but more recently bought the Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L. Sadly, the 100mm hasn't been on my camera since. I'm waiting for the spring blooms to come out to see if I might start using it again, otherwise I'll be thinking about selling it, or setting it aside with my spare body as a lens for my wife to use if she ever gets more interested in photography.
I've got the cheapo 50mm 1.8, which I still enjoy on a different level than the Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L, for its aperture. They are very different lenses, IMO.
I've had the Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L for nearly six months, but the romance isn't over.
Not really an answer to any questions, oh well. :-/
|
|
|
|
03/20/2008 09:33:27 AM · #8 |
| That 50mm F1.8 is the next thing I plan on getting. I've heard almost nothing but good about it. |
|
|
|
03/20/2008 09:43:44 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by yospiff:
That 50mm F1.8 is the next thing I plan on getting. I've heard almost nothing but good about it. |
I tend to get a yellow colour-cast in low light. It feels cheap & plasticy. Sometimes it has trouble focusing and sounds like it's about to explode.... :-)
|
|
|
|
03/20/2008 09:47:43 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by yospiff:
That 50mm F1.8 is the next thing I plan on getting. I've heard almost nothing but good about it. |
I tend to get a yellow colour-cast in low light. It feels cheap & plasticy. Sometimes it has trouble focusing and sounds like it's about to explode.... :-) |
I have problems focusing even with the 100mm 2.8 macro. Anyone has the same thing? is it normal?
I also have the 50mm 1.8 and I love it, even with focusing problems :) maybe go for the f1.4, which is better build?
As for zooms, they have their role, it depends on what you want to photograph (do you need the flexibility the zoom lens gives?)
Message edited by author 2008-03-20 09:48:31. |
|
|
|
03/20/2008 09:57:56 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by anotherday:
I have problems focusing even with the 100mm 2.8 macro. Anyone has the same thing? is it normal? |
Mine hasn't given me any problems, it's very fast and accurate in focus. :-/ I usually use just the centre focus point in 'one-shot' mode. Sometimes in servo.
|
|
|
|
03/20/2008 10:00:44 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by anotherday:
I have problems focusing even with the 100mm 2.8 macro. Anyone has the same thing? is it normal? |
Mine hasn't given me any problems, it's very fast and accurate in focus. :-/ I usually use just the centre focus point in 'one-shot' mode. Sometimes in servo. |
hmmmm ... do you think I have a problem with the lens? I just boght it and I have the feeling it's acting like the 50mm :(
I have to get to manual focus, when the autofocus is not working and is pretty frustrating. I'm also using the center focus point |
|
|
|
03/20/2008 10:01:51 AM · #13 |
Primes are sharper, lens for lens usually cheaper but to cover the same focal range you'll spend more. Primes can be faster (larger aperture) and are sharper, but unless you using the cheapest zooms out there you'll not see the difference in most prints.
The 50 1.8 costs $70 for a reason - it's cheaply made and lacks features, coatings, etc. Compared to the $100 kit lens it's sharper, but compared to any mid range or better lens you'll see it's shortcomings (bad CA, not sharp wide open, slow to focus, noisy to focus).
The 50 1.4 is more money, but it is also a LOT more lens. The 50 1.2 is 4 times the money of the 1.4 and for most uses there is not much advantage to it. The reason you buy a fast lens is so you can shoot it wide open. If all you want to do is shoot at F5.6 then don't bother spending the money on a super fast prime.
Zooms are a compromise, but the better ones ( like the 24-70 L mentioned) can only be bettered by the L primes.
|
|
|
|
03/20/2008 10:13:03 AM · #14 |
versatility is the bonus of zooms, but some of them suffer from a drop in sharpness compared to their fixed focal length couterparts.
Basically, get a mix of the two and you'll be all set. I like zooms when i go on a shoot or an outing because they cn cover a lot of eventualities without faffing around as you can go from landscape to isolated element in the flick of a wrist. I have 2 primes and 3 zooms and i'm happy. |
|
|
|
03/20/2008 10:15:51 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by anotherday:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by anotherday:
I have problems focusing even with the 100mm 2.8 macro. Anyone has the same thing? is it normal? |
Mine hasn't given me any problems, it's very fast and accurate in focus. :-/ I usually use just the centre focus point in 'one-shot' mode. Sometimes in servo. |
hmmmm ... do you think I have a problem with the lens? I just boght it and I have the feeling it's acting like the 50mm :(
I have to get to manual focus, when the autofocus is not working and is pretty frustrating. I'm also using the center focus point |
I think there's a switch on the lens to let it know whether you're focusing in close or further away. I assume you have that flipped to the appropriate side? Otherwise you may have a problem. I'm never forced to use manual.
Also, make sure the metal contacts between you lens & camera are clean.
Message edited by author 2008-03-20 10:17:05.
|
|
|
|
03/20/2008 10:17:34 AM · #16 |
I agree with Prof_Fate The 1.4 would be better than the 1.8 If the canon versions are like the Nikon versions, the 1.8 is made quite cheap, pretty much all plastic, the 1.4 is much more solid and is not plastic. Better glass in the 1.4 also. I wish had more suggestions for you, But I am not a Canon guru apart from what I hear from the DPC guys I eat breakfast with once in awhile. And fwiw, those guys are talking with a mouth full of bacon and eggs so who knows what they are saying, lol
If you go for the 50mm prime lens spend the extra coin and get the 1.4 better for dark places and could probably survive a short fall. |
|
|
|
03/20/2008 10:24:59 AM · #17 |
There is a lot more to a lens than just the focal length. The design, quality of glass and quality of coatings all have an impact on the final image. You may have encountered photoshop actions or filters that claim to provide a 'Leica' like feel to your images. In most cases these actions or filters increase the local contrast to duplicate the output produced by some legendary Leica glass. This might be an extreme example, but even within the same line, Canon EF lenses in this case, the lenses will have different characteristics. I now have a 24-70 f2.8L and use it when I need the flexibility of quickly changing focal length without switching lenses, but I prefer the output of my 50mm 1.4 when I can use it. I also believe the 85mm f1.8 to produces better output than the 70-200 2.8L when you can work without the additional flexibility of the zoom. You may not notice the difference in a majority of your images, but when I zoom a portrait to 100% and look at the details in key points, like the eyes, I see a difference.
|
|
|
|
03/20/2008 10:32:43 AM · #18 |
the choice between prime or zooms isn't just a question of focal lengths or sharpness. There's quite a few other factors going on too, size, advantages and disadvantages of restrictions, weight, cost, personal shooting preferences, ability to learn the lens characteristics, airy fairy purist notions, intimidation of subjects, imposition, filter size, focus speed, flare, flair, contrast, pretension, personal bias, weather sealing, low light scenarios, dynamic subjects, all wrap up into which lens is 'best' for a particular application.
Some people 'have' to have L lenses, just for the respect the red ring gets. Others need the features. Some maybe have money burning a hole in their pocket. Others push the lenses to the limit, some never take them out of a studio.
It isn't an easy question to answer - basically it depends a lot on what you want to do.
I've got a several canon L lenses. 17-40, 70-200. Several prime lenses too, that overlap with those focal lengths.
99% of the time my camera has a non-L 85mm f1.8 on it. Even though I've got the 70-200 L in the same range.
I don't have the 85mm f1.2L though I've tried it and went back to the cheaper and faster focusing, lighter and just as usefully sharp f1.8. The 1.2 was heavy, slow and uncomfortable (for me). There's that personal bias thing.
The 70-200 that covers the 85mm range is a lovely lens too. But I wanted more restrictions - I didn't want the option of being able to zoom back to 70, or tight in to 200. I wanted to not have those options - even though they are there in my bag. So that's a choice to not have as much choice - as a result I know what the scene will look like when I look through the lens. I've used it enough to know what the framing will be without looking through the camera. With a zoom I think it is a lot harder to learn the lens in that way. I find that useful.
So zooms give you lots more options. That might be a good thing. Might not. You wont find most of these issues on an MTF chart.
Message edited by author 2008-03-20 10:34:47. |
|
|
|
03/20/2008 10:41:57 AM · #19 |
Hi All,
Thanks for your comments, really eye opener to learn about everyone's point of view.
Appreciate this!
|
|
|
|
03/21/2008 11:09:15 AM · #20 |
I had to post here one more time and maybe support at bit of what Gordon said in his post.
I purchased a 24-70 f2.8L in December because it seems like a perfect fit for portraits on a 1.6 crop camera. I didn't like interrupting the flow of a session to switch lenses and I felt this one be the perfect solution. I've used the lens on a number of shoots now and have to admit that I find myself wanting to use the primes. In the past I selected a lens to support the perspective I wanted and then moved myself to frame the image. With the new lens I tend to zoom to frame the image but this can mess up the perspective if I don't force myself to select the focal length first and then position myself. This lens might be critical is I shot weddings and had to move faster. But with portraits I need a few great images and the optical quality and shooting discipline that I get with primes just works better for me. That 24-70 2.8L may actually hit ebay so the investment can be put towards lighting or some pocket wizards.
Main point to all this chatter... don't get caught up in simple match to ensure you've covered a broad range of focal lengths.
|
|
|
|
03/21/2008 11:18:07 AM · #21 |
I invested a lot of time and money and eventually worked to get the 24-70 as well. I have to admit I tend to feel the same way. I seem to enjoy shooting with primes more (or at least as much). Still, I'm not ready to part with this lens ... it's simply awesome. I'm afraid the day I switch from the 24-70 to the 35L is the day I'm going to need the flexibility for some reason or another and I'm going to be pissed.
:)
Originally posted by Nusbaum:
I had to post here one more time and maybe support at bit of what Gordon said in his post.
I purchased a 24-70 f2.8L in December because it seems like a perfect fit for portraits on a 1.6 crop camera. I didn't like interrupting the flow of a session to switch lenses and I felt this one be the perfect solution. I've used the lens on a number of shoots now and have to admit that I find myself wanting to use the primes. In the past I selected a lens to support the perspective I wanted and then moved myself to frame the image. With the new lens I tend to zoom to frame the image but this can mess up the perspective if I don't force myself to select the focal length first and then position myself. This lens might be critical is I shot weddings and had to move faster. But with portraits I need a few great images and the optical quality and shooting discipline that I get with primes just works better for me. That 24-70 2.8L may actually hit ebay so the investment can be put towards lighting or some pocket wizards.
Main point to all this chatter... don't get caught up in simple match to ensure you've covered a broad range of focal lengths. |
|
|
|
|
04/01/2008 02:03:16 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by SaraR:
Don't follow the logic of this - surely it is the focal length that would be the issue, a prime of the correct focal length to achieve the effect you are after would be (somewhat) superior to a zoom moved to that focal length? |
Coming back to this thread... I realize that this has been beaten by now, but I obviously meant that you may need a specific focal length. If you have enough primes to cover all focal lengths you may want to use, then by all means, you do not need a zoom lens. I do not have but 2 prime lenses, so I am in need of zoom lenses to cover my range.
The use case I was thinking of is taking a picture of two fixed objects separated in space at different depth, and wanting to have them in a specific relation.
For example, take my experiment with SRV statue in AusTX, and the Frost Bank building behind it. Both are very hard to move, so I had to work with what I had. I wanted more of a building in frame... Here are some of the shots I found by googling (I posted links to original images, so credits should be easily located), and my shot with a longer lens:
SRV1
and mine:
This is what I meant by 'you need a zoom'. Do not mistake this with inability to capture this image with a prime. Having a 200mm prime would have done the same thing. I just do not have enough space in my bag to store all the primes that I may want to use.
|
|
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: 12/28/2025 12:51:28 PM EST.
