The Unholy Trinity of Non-L Primes?

[spinworkxroy]

The question is not which lens to buy but which focal length you really need?
Granted, having the trinity L lense is alwasys a dream of almost everyone but i also know not everyone has the budget for it so it's good know know which focal length is the mostly used for yourself then you can make a better decision.

For myself, although many people swear by a 50mm lens, i actually find that my LEAST most used lens.
THe most used one is the 85 f1.8 because of what i shoot.
And when i'm out and about just shooting for fun, i usually use the 24-105 or 17-40. I almost never use the 50mm.

[wayno]

As far as IQ relative to cost goes, the Trinity would surely be:
50 1.4
85 1.8
100 macro non L
?

[ciao_chao]

Personally, I quite enjoy using the 28/85 combo. The 28 is a lovely length, and I do like the fastness of it, so it's not the best optically, but it's good. While I'll accept 85/1.8 is an ancient lens, it's a good one mainly because I find the 100mm length a bit neither here nor there.

Well, as to 135mm replacements, I have a CZJ Sonnar f3.5, now it's totally different to the f2L but it has some of that Zeiss magic that a lot of people talk about, and while I know many of you will be dubious, but so was I until I actually used it, and no it's not expensive either.

[dgan1]

Dont know about the perfect trinity but ive been quite impressed by all the non l primes ive used but the ones i own are the only ones i will comment on.

28 1.8 used at f2 and above is nice and sharp, well at least my copy is, very fast focussing too. Great "street" lens.

50 2.5 macro. Not a true macro, but focusses close, produces nice smooth out of focus areas, is razor sharp and very cheap, i got mine for $150 (considering its performance) second hand. But it does have possibly the slowest/hunting auto focus of any lens i have used, but i still love it as the image quality is just fantastic.

100 2.8 (non L) macro great lens sharp and i doubt you would notice any difference between it and the L macro (apart from build quality and IS) Ive owned both and kept the non L. Heres a gallery of my pics using the 100 2.8 and raynox dcr250 combo the 100 2.8 on its own is sharper again http://gippslandimages.com.au/p1056430360  the jumping spider on the white bground is taken with the 50 2.5 and manual extension tubes.

Cheers
Daniel

[Synomis192]

I own the 50mm f/1.4, the 85mm f/1.8, and the 35mm f/2 as part of my kit.  I use both a 5D MK2 body and a Canon 60D body.  I would have to say of those three lens that the 50mm f/1.4 is my least favorite.  The 85mm is a well known; a great lens that produces a similar effect/result (just not as pronounced) to the 135mm f/2L.

The 35mm f/2 is an interesting lens.  It is very sharp on a FF body even wide open.  It produces good color.  It is also buzzy in AF and can produce slightly busy bokeh for my tastes.  It is also somewhat prone to purple fringing, but fortunately the latest version of Lightroom makes that a non-issue these days, and from what I understand, the MK3 deals with that in body.  But one of its biggest plusses (besides a great focal length) is that is has great delineation.  You can have more in the frame but yet very nice separation of your subject from the background.  It also focuses much closer than the other two lens.

I wish that Canon would revisit the lens and update it with USM and perhaps a little smoother transition to ooF areas.  Of course, with Canon's revised pricing it would probably cost $800.  Right now it is a bargain.  Light.  Sharp.  An easy lens to throw in the pocket and as is sharper than either my 17-40mm f/4L or 24-105mm f/4L IS by f/2.8.  This shot was taken this week, wide open, with the 35mm f/2.  There is some small processing in Lightroom 4, but more to do with color/saturation than any kind of sharpness.

I was thinking about getting that combo too, but I feel like if I get the 35/50/85 I'll be missing some stuff on the wider end of the spectrum. Especially since I'm on an APS-C sensor right now. I'd probably have to pick up a Rokinon 14mm and add it to that collection. Thanks for giving your input about the 35mm f/2 though. I was always so curious about that little guy. He seems so promising, but some people don't like the lens at all for some reason. I'm just glad that Canon hasn't made a 35mm f/2.8 IS. That would just break the bank. They might as well just make an 85mm f/2.8 IS haha.

The question is not which lens to buy but which focal length you really need?
Granted, having the trinity L lense is alwasys a dream of almost everyone but i also know not everyone has the budget for it so it's good know know which focal length is the mostly used for yourself then you can make a better decision.

For myself, although many people swear by a 50mm lens, i actually find that my LEAST most used lens.
THe most used one is the 85 f1.8 because of what i shoot.
And when i'm out and about just shooting for fun, i usually use the 24-105 or 17-40. I almost never use the 50mm.

I understand what you mean about the whole focal length situation. My problem is that I have extreme days where I have my kit lens stuck at 18mm and I shot wide, or I have some days (like at the moment) where I slap on my 55-250 and keep it on. I don't know what my favorite focal lenght is so I'm just trying to decided what kind of "trinity" of primes I should build my collection from. Lightroom said that my most used focal lengths are 18mm, 28mm, 55mm. So should I try to build a collection from that data?

I've got the Samyang 35/1.4, 40/2.8 Pancake, Takumar 50/1.4, EF 50/1.8 II, FL 55/1.2, EF 85/1.8, EF 100/2.0.

Pick any of those and you've got your 'unholy non-L trinity' (my best suggestion would be the Samyang 35, FL55/1.2, EF 100/2.0, that's generally what's in my bag if there's only space for 3).
Lack of AF at the wider ends really doesn't bother me, there's always Live View and Katz Eye screens...

Edit: I just realised I've also got the 40 Pancake (it's so small I forget it's there sometimes). That can replace the Samyang 35 in some situations, but then nothing's really wide. So it could replace both the 35mm and 50/55mm lengths, then add in the Tokina 17/3.5 or Mir 20/2.5, or any number of 28/2.8s I seem to have to cover the wide end, and keep either the 85/1.8 or 100/2.0 (of course that will depend if i'm shooing crop or FFFilm)

Aren't interchangeable lenses great?

Yes, interchangeable lenses are amazing. My problem about getting Rokinon/FL mount lenses is that I'll be "upgrading" so to speak to a Canon 5Dc. My live view capabilties are going to go bye bye haha. I don't use live view anyways. It's a hassle and I like having quick AF.

I've got the 28/1.8, and have tested it against the 24-105L at 28mm and F/4.0.   The 28/1.8 is much better than the 24-105L at F/4.0.  And, you can let things suffer a little, and open it up 2-1/3 more stops if need be.

If I had three, and only three CANON lenses to pick... whew... tough choice. 

I'd go 100/2.8 macro, non-L over the 100/2.0

I'd go 50/1.4 but if I could find a version-I of the 50/1.8, I'd get it.

And,  28/1.8 easily for wide.

And thats IF my only choice was three.

People hate it, but the 20/2.8 is not a bad performer... especially when you have peripheral illumination correction.

I like that combo suggestion, interesting that you throw the 20mm into the fray. I've been thinking about purchasing that lens once I got FF because it seems like it'd be a good wide angle when I need it. A lot if people say that it performs well on a FF body.

[Sitting Elf]

My trio + 1
These are the only non L Primes I have.  Don't use them much, but occasional for walk-around.

15mm Fisheye
40mm 2.8 Pancake
50mm 1.8 Nifty Fifty
85mm 1.8 (Needs a nickname  )

I also have one additional non-L... but it's a specialty lens
MP-E 65mm 1-5X Macro

All the rest are "L's"

[robbymack]

the 100mm f2 is better then the 85mm f1.8.

i don´t know why everyone recommends the 85mm.
the purple fringing of that lens, even when fixable in post, is annoying.

It's not that bad if you stay away from high contrast areas and dont shoot wide open. plus the 100 f2 suffers much the same plight as its essentially exactly the same lens just 15mm longer. In any case I think the reason it gets recommended is two fold.  First price, relatively cheap. Second it's a good fl on both crop and ff. on crop 100mm could get a little long, and on ff you're probably more likely to buy the 135L than a 100. 

[Synomis192]

It's not that bad if you stay away from high contrast areas and dont shoot wide open. plus the 100 f2 suffers much the same plight as its essentially exactly the same lens just 15mm longer. In any case I think the reason it gets recommended is two fold.  First price, relatively cheap. Second it's a good fl on both crop and ff. on crop 100mm could get a little long, and on ff you're probably more likely to buy the 135L than a 100.

So what you're saying is that if I'm really considering getting a 100mm f/2, I'd be better off getting an 85mm f/1.8 and the 135mm f/2L? If that's the case, I think I'll try that combo one day when I'm older and more wiser about photography. (and when my budget allows some guilt less spending haha)

My trio + 1
These are the only non L Primes I have.  Don't use them much, but occasional for walk-around.

15mm Fisheye
40mm 2.8 Pancake
50mm 1.8 Nifty Fifty
85mm 1.8 (Needs a nickname  )

I also have one additional non-L... but it's a specialty lens
MP-E 65mm 1-5X Macro

All the rest are "L's"

What is the MP-E 65mm? Is that strictly a macro lens that is super special? haha

and for the nickname of the 85mm. How about the Sassy Glass? Seeing that DXOmarks show that the 85mm f/1.8 is one of the best canon prime lenses to have that's not an L glass? I dunno. It's 2:00am here. I need sleep. x]

[verysimplejason]

MP-E 65mm is the ultimate non-custom macro lens that exists in this known world. 

[ecka]

For FF:
EF 40/2.8 STM
EF 85/1.8 USM
Σ 150/2.8 HSM Macro

For crop:
EF 28/1.8 USM or Σ 30/1.4 HSM
Σ 50/1.4 HSM
EF 100/2.8USM Macro

[Synomis192]

For FF:
EF 40/2.8 STM
EF 85/1.8 USM
Σ 150/2.8 HSM Macro

For crop:
EF 28/1.8 USM or Σ 30/1.4 HSM
Σ 50/1.4 HSM
EF 100/2.8USM Macro

So, I'm guessing that you aren't recommending any prime wide angles on a FF camera  because they suck haha. I'd be better off getting an ultra-wide variable zoom (ex. 17-40mm or 12-24mm) and a collection of primes?

[ecka]

For FF:
EF 40/2.8 STM
EF 85/1.8 USM
Σ 150/2.8 HSM Macro

For crop:
EF 28/1.8 USM or Σ 30/1.4 HSM
Σ 50/1.4 HSM
EF 100/2.8USM Macro

So, I'm guessing that you aren't recommending any prime wide angles on a FF camera  because they suck haha. I'd be better off getting an ultra-wide variable zoom (ex. 17-40mm or 12-24mm) and a collection of primes?

That's not the case. I'd recommend Samyang 14/2.8UMC for FF, but we are talking about the trinity, which means 3 lenses, not 4
For crop - yes, get the zoom

[AvTvM]

my current non-L EF prime trinity is
EF 40/2.8 pancake ... super compact, great IQ, not so great AF
EF 50/1.4 ... and still waiting for a really great Mk. II
EF 100/2.0 ... simply an amazing lens

I wish there was a great and affordable 20/2.8 ... dont need IS and high price, just great image quality.

[AdamJ]

I believe I first used the 'unholy trinity' tag in relation to non-L primes so I'm claiming the right to define them. 

Actually, they define themselves as the poor man's holy trinity (35L, 50L, 85L), namely the 28mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8. They share the same mid-range external design theme and build quality, thus the cohesion to justify the 'trinity' description.

Please let this be agreed because it will give me small sense of achievement on this forum, which I badly need.   

[dr croubie]

EF 100/2.0 ... simply an amazing lens

Damn straight