| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/03/2007 10:36:50 AM · #26 |
I think it means "general purpose" lens, or "walkaround" as it is AKA.
I'm gonna vouch again for the Tamron 17-50. It's great.
I wonder how many people who ask for this kind of advice end up taking it... |
|
|
|
10/03/2007 10:38:44 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by hopper:
For me, the term "daily use" means nothing. The lens that I need/want depends on what I think I'm going to be shooting.
Are you going to take pictures of animals - you'll need a long lens
Are you going to take pictures indoors - you'll need a low light, medium to wide lens (most likely a prime)
Landscapes - wide
Nature - wide to medium zoom
Separate subject from background - fast prime
Close ups - Macro lens (or extension tubes)
Even at a family get together/just hanging out situation, the lens need will be vastly different depending on if it's outside/inside/evening/daytime |
I used to lug a bag of lenses around, for many of the reasons you describe. I've found more recently that 85mm 1.8 just seems to work for me, for most of these cases. I'll occasionally throw in a 17-40 for landscapes, or a 200-400 for sports/ animals, or a 100mm macro for well, macro, but that's about it. Usually then I have more intention/ planning behind the shoot, so I know beforehand that I'll need the other lenses. Otherwise I just make do.
I think Pedro mentioned his current daily use lens for 90% of his shooting is a lensbaby. The thing is to find the lens that lets you say what you want to say. Sometimes its actually better creatively to have fewer choices (to link back to another thread ;) ) that includes, for me, fewer lens or zoom choices - I have to walk places to get the shot I want. I know what the framing is going to look like before I bring the lens up to my eye. Several less things to think about (lazy)
Mind you, I'm thinking about picking up a 24-70 2.8L
Message edited by author 2007-10-03 10:46:52.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2007 11:00:18 AM · #28 |
The lens I seem to use more and more lately is my 28mm f1.8.
Admittedly, most of my shooting recently has been with my G7 and not my DSLR. |
|
|
|
10/03/2007 11:16:25 AM · #29 |
Chuck the zooms in the dustbin and get some real lenses:
Canon 85mm f/1.8
Canon 50mm f/1.4
You will not be disappointed. |
|
|
|
10/03/2007 11:18:41 AM · #30 |
I think this is my point. An 85 on a 1.3 sensor is 100mm. That's not long, nor is it wide by any stretch of the imagination ... some would even argue that you're kind of in no man's land with that length.
But you make it work cuz you love the lens (and you shoot a lot of portraits).
He asked for a general purpose ... for you that's an 85, for Mark_u_U it's a 35 ... who's right? of course, neither ... it all depends on your interests. So I'm saying there's no such thing as a general lens for everybody ... that's all.
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by hopper:
For me, the term "daily use" means nothing. The lens that I need/want depends on what I think I'm going to be shooting.
Are you going to take pictures of animals - you'll need a long lens
Are you going to take pictures indoors - you'll need a low light, medium to wide lens (most likely a prime)
Landscapes - wide
Nature - wide to medium zoom
Separate subject from background - fast prime
Close ups - Macro lens (or extension tubes)
Even at a family get together/just hanging out situation, the lens need will be vastly different depending on if it's outside/inside/evening/daytime |
I used to lug a bag of lenses around, for many of the reasons you describe. I've found more recently that 85mm 1.8 just seems to work for me, for most of these cases. I'll occasionally throw in a 17-40 for landscapes, or a 200-400 for sports/ animals, or a 100mm macro for well, macro, but that's about it. Usually then I have more intention/ planning behind the shoot, so I know beforehand that I'll need the other lenses. Otherwise I just make do.
I think Pedro mentioned his current daily use lens for 90% of his shooting is a lensbaby. The thing is to find the lens that lets you say what you want to say. Sometimes its actually better creatively to have fewer choices (to link back to another thread ;) ) that includes, for me, fewer lens or zoom choices - I have to walk places to get the shot I want. I know what the framing is going to look like before I bring the lens up to my eye. Several less things to think about (lazy)
Mind you, I'm thinking about picking up a 24-70 2.8L |
|
|
|
|
10/03/2007 11:19:56 AM · #31 |
that lens will be my Christmas present :)
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The lens I seem to use more and more lately is my 28mm f1.8. |
|
|
|
|
10/03/2007 11:25:14 AM · #32 |
Add the Canon 35mm f/2.0 to your list. It's a little noisy, but a great lens.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2007 11:26:00 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by hopper:
He asked for a general purpose ... for you that's an 85, for Mark_u_U it's a 35 ... who's right? of course, neither ... it all depends on your interests. So I'm saying there's no such thing as a general lens for everybody ... that's all.
|
I think you can agree that a fixed aperture zoom is going to be workable in a lot more situations than a prime. |
|
|
|
10/03/2007 11:37:52 AM · #34 |
for someone new to photography ... yes, probably ... but what's the one thing they're going to hate immediately?
the low light capabilities of a zoom are horrible, so for the newbie who doesn't know any better, they think they can't hold the lens steady cuz all the shots are blurry (cuz no one's explained aperature to them)
Had someone recommended a fast prime to them ... yes, they'd have to learn to zoom with their feet, but the images will be a 100% improvement
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by hopper:
He asked for a general purpose ... for you that's an 85, for Mark_u_U it's a 35 ... who's right? of course, neither ... it all depends on your interests. So I'm saying there's no such thing as a general lens for everybody ... that's all.
|
I think you can agree that a fixed aperture zoom is going to be workable in a lot more situations than a prime. |
|
|
|
|
10/03/2007 12:58:57 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by hopper:
Had someone recommended a fast prime to them ... yes, they'd have to learn to zoom with their feet, but the images will be a 100% improvement |
Mind you, the 50 1.8 gets recommended to a lot of starting photographers. What I generally see is that they dutifully buy it (being so cheap helps). Then they try it out. Maybe suffer from everything being 'out of focus' because the DoF is so narrow wide open, or that they cant get as close as they can with their zoom, or as wide as they can with their zoom and hence abandon it as a pointless waste of money.
Then about 5 years later, they'll realise why it was recommended as the best lens to start with or use all the time and then they'll start using it (or upgrade to a 1.4/ 1.2) or jump to some other prime lens (35mm, 20mm, 85mm)
So it seems like this is the sort of advice that only makes sense and actually only has value with hindsight. Anyone else found that ?
|
|
|
|
10/03/2007 01:05:11 PM · #36 |
yes, probably true, so what's the answer?
i'm sure i don't know
most people want a zoom, there's no doubt about it |
|
|
|
10/03/2007 01:33:53 PM · #37 |
I still recommend a fast prime whenever asked to give a lens recommendation. I know the recommendation is almost always ignored, but I still believe it's the right way to start in photography. If you look back at some of the best photographs ever created, you will see that many were captured with a standard prime. If these great photographers could do so much with a manual SLR and a standard lens, I would think it's certainly enough for most aspiring photographers to start with.
Message edited by author 2007-10-03 13:34:36.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2007 01:36:35 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by hopper:
Had someone recommended a fast prime to them ... yes, they'd have to learn to zoom with their feet, but the images will be a 100% improvement |
Mind you, the 50 1.8 gets recommended to a lot of starting photographers. What I generally see is that they dutifully buy it (being so cheap helps). Then they try it out. Maybe suffer from everything being 'out of focus' because the DoF is so narrow wide open, or that they cant get as close as they can with their zoom, or as wide as they can with their zoom and hence abandon it as a pointless waste of money.
Then about 5 years later, they'll realise why it was recommended as the best lens to start with or use all the time and then they'll start using it (or upgrade to a 1.4/ 1.2) or jump to some other prime lens (35mm, 20mm, 85mm)
So it seems like this is the sort of advice that only makes sense and actually only has value with hindsight. Anyone else found that ? |
Yes, people want easy and something they're familiar with. They're familiar with zooms, usually because of their PnS camera. It's only later after they discover the shortcomings of zoom lenses that they learn to appreciate primes.
In my case, I started with 2 lenses for my Canon FT, a 50mm f1.4 and a 135mm f3.5, so I learned on primes, grew to expect the things they offer and generally found zooms to be a disappointment in almost all ways, save the variable focal length. Zooms are much better now than they were in the 1970's, but primes still give better performance than zooms. |
|
|
|
10/03/2007 01:50:13 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by hopper:
for someone new to photography ... yes, probably ... but what's the one thing they're going to hate immediately?
the low light capabilities of a zoom are horrible, so for the newbie who doesn't know any better, they think they can't hold the lens steady cuz all the shots are blurry (cuz no one's explained aperature to them)
Had someone recommended a fast prime to them ... yes, they'd have to learn to zoom with their feet, but the images will be a 100% improvement
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by hopper:
He asked for a general purpose ... for you that's an 85, for Mark_u_U it's a 35 ... who's right? of course, neither ... it all depends on your interests. So I'm saying there's no such thing as a general lens for everybody ... that's all.
|
I think you can agree that a fixed aperture zoom is going to be workable in a lot more situations than a prime. |
|
thats kind of a general comment.. it depends what zoom your using in low light.. like 24-70/2.8 is great in low light as well as the 70-200/2.8( and IS version ) |
|
|
|
10/03/2007 01:51:35 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by noisemaker:
thats kind of a general comment.. it depends what zoom your using in low light.. like 24-70/2.8 is great in low light as well as the 70-200/2.8( and IS version ) |
but not as good as say a 50 1.4 which costs a whole lot less than either of those lenses. Point is I suppose, that if your daily shooting is in a bar or a nightclub, 2.8 is pretty much too slow to be usable.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2007 02:30:26 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by idnic:
Canon 17-55 F2.8. Not inexpensive... but one helluvalens!! :D |
I definitely agree, this has been a fantasic all-around lens. I had the 28-135 previously and think that's a great lens as well. The only problem I had with it was I didn't think it was wide enough. Its a great starter lens though. |
|
|
|
10/03/2007 03:27:59 PM · #42 |
Daily use...what do you shoot or want to shoot?
What's you budget?
What have you been shooting?
The 40D can be had in a kit with the 28-135 IS lens - not a bad lens and for $200 (1299 body only, 1499 w/ lens in the kit) it's a bargain and you can sell the lens for more than it costs you if you don't like it.
the 17-85 is a good lens. Both it and the 28-135 are mid-grade lenses and not constant aperture lenses, but they both have IS.
The 17-40 is a fine lens, an L lens even. But is NOT a portrait lens. You need a mild tele for potrait work - telephotos compress the the image and that makes people look better. Event with the 1.6 crop factor the 17-40 never hits the tele class at the long end.
85 1.8, 100 2.8, 135 2.8 soft focus are all excellent portrait lenses. The 50 1.4 can be used too but you gotta be pretty close for decent framing.
the 70-200 2.8 IS is the one lens most every pro has and uses for 1 or 2 people portraiture, and it's good for sports, weddings, and a lot more. The non IS is good as well. The F4 version is lighter and cheaper, but one stop slower also means one stop more DOF and you want to be able to have shallow DOF for portraiture.
The grain was added, but the BG is 'there' but not detracting from the subject. (70-200 2.8 IS lens @90mm F3.2 and 1/60 handheld (IS is great!))
|
|
|
|
10/03/2007 03:30:12 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by hopper:
Had someone recommended a fast prime to them ... yes, they'd have to learn to zoom with their feet, but the images will be a 100% improvement |
Mind you, the 50 1.8 gets recommended to a lot of starting photographers. What I generally see is that they dutifully buy it (being so cheap helps). Then they try it out. Maybe suffer from everything being 'out of focus' because the DoF is so narrow wide open, or that they cant get as close as they can with their zoom, or as wide as they can with their zoom and hence abandon it as a pointless waste of money.
Then about 5 years later, they'll realise why it was recommended as the best lens to start with or use all the time and then they'll start using it (or upgrade to a 1.4/ 1.2) or jump to some other prime lens (35mm, 20mm, 85mm)
So it seems like this is the sort of advice that only makes sense and actually only has value with hindsight. Anyone else found that ? |
Yes.
However, I don't recomend the 50 1.8 - it's a $70 lens for a reason. Spend a bit more on the 28 1.8 or 85 1.8 and the USM and better glass make for a much better experience with a prime lens IMO.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2007 03:42:18 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Yes.
However, I don't recomend the 50 1.8 - it's a $70 lens for a reason. Spend a bit more on the 28 1.8 or 85 1.8 and the USM and better glass make for a much better experience with a prime lens IMO. |
I was actually trying to say something different. I think these days you possibly have to go through zooms to get to realise what a prime lens may or may not give you. But all the people that have gone through that process recommend prime lenses. I'm not convinced any more that you can short-cut the experience and jump straight to primes. You have to use the zooms to find out if they work for you or not.
Years ago, when primes were great and zooms were mediocre perhaps it was easier to justify a prime as a starter or walk about lens. Now it takes a while to realise the inadequacies of zooms and depending on your style and needs, zooms might never be inadequate.
Mostly its a $70 lens because the design is a simple double Gauss.
Message edited by author 2007-10-03 15:44:41.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2007 03:51:55 PM · #45 |
Noone's mentioned the Tamron 17-50mm. That's my standard lens, ...sharp as a tack, versatile on both the wide and the "long standard" ends.
Best of all, it costs < $400.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2007 04:28:13 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Years ago, when primes were great and zooms were mediocre perhaps it was easier to justify a prime as a starter or walk about lens. |
Years ago, zooms weren't just mediocre, they were also expensive. |
|
|
|
10/03/2007 04:33:32 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Years ago, zooms weren't just mediocre, they were also expensive. |
Good zooms aren't exactly cheap now either. But they are not also mediocre, which is what's changed ;)
|
|
|
|
10/03/2007 04:42:15 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Years ago, zooms weren't just mediocre, they were also expensive. |
Good zooms aren't exactly cheap now either. But they are not also mediocre, which is what's changed ;) |
And today's mediocre zooms are now cheap.
I'd also venture to say that the mediocre zooms of today are much better than the best early zooms. |
|
|
|
10/03/2007 04:50:09 PM · #49 |
The AF on the 50mm 1.8 sucks compared to other Canon primes, but otherwise the lens is a gem.
I'm a prime guy myself, always have been partial to them, just for the fact that I can get faster and sharper for less. I don't mind walking :-)
Currently I have 3 lenses that I use. 28mm 2.8 50mm 1.8 (soon to be replaced by the 1.4) and 85mm 1.8. My favorite for general work is the 28mm, because I do a lot of full body portraits and it just works for that.
I don't see myself buying any zoom lenses in the foreseeable future (perhaps a superwide) because the primes just work so much better for me.
Now, that said, I recommend the newbie get either a "normal" prime or a zoom that covers "normal".
The 24-70mm zooms do quite well for this. Throw in a 10-20 (12-24) later if you think you want to go wide or a 70-200 if you want to go telephoto.
The point is, you don't need a LOT of lenses, just need to understand why you are using which focal lengths. It's not just a matter of which one fills the frame with subject, because any lens can do that. It's a matter of perspective and artistic style. It's a matter of lighting conditions and subject speed.
All in all, start in the middle and decide what ya need from there. FWIW, I've never really lost much money selling glass, I ended up getting rid of.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2007 05:34:50 PM · #50 |
| Primes are good, but for the average person, it is not smart to get one. it will most likely be his only lens. having only 1 prime would severly limit you! |
|
