October 22, 2014, 11:53:25 AM

Author Topic: The Unholy Trinity of Non-L Primes?  (Read 14109 times)

grey4

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 22
  • 7D
    • View Profile
    • flickr
Re: The Unholy Trinity of Non-L Primes?
« Reply #30 on: October 10, 2012, 10:15:33 PM »
I'm currently using an unholy trinity with my 7d.

20mm f/2.8
50mm f/1.4
85mm f/1.8

The USM AF on the 7d is excellent. It's not a huge hit on the wallet either.
7D, EF 85mm f/1.8 USM, EF 28mm f/1.8 USM, EF-s 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

canon rumors FORUM

Re: The Unholy Trinity of Non-L Primes?
« Reply #30 on: October 10, 2012, 10:15:33 PM »

Synomis192

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 111
    • View Profile
    • Tumblr/Photoblog
Re: The Unholy Trinity of Non-L Primes?
« Reply #31 on: October 10, 2012, 11:15:19 PM »
I'm currently using an unholy trinity with my 7d.

20mm f/2.8
50mm f/1.4
85mm f/1.8

The USM AF on the 7d is excellent. It's not a huge hit on the wallet either.

ooooh, how well does the 20mm perform on your 7D? I'm pretty interested in that lens haha
Canon 5D - Fine Art/Workhorse
Canon T1i - Modded for Video!
Canon 1DmkII - Sports/Wildlife

drmikeinpdx

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
  • Celebrating 20 years of naughty photography!
    • View Profile
    • Beyond Boudoir Photo
Re: The Unholy Trinity of Non-L Primes?
« Reply #32 on: October 12, 2012, 02:41:48 PM »
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.

I have both of these lenses and found something interesting when I was doing focus calibration with my new 5D Mark III.

Both have substantial and virtually identical color fringing just in front of the point of focus.  This is at the center, not in the corners. 

I plan to do more testing when I have time.  I did not use these lenses much with my 5D classic, since the autofocus system wasn't accurate enough to use them wide open.  The Mark III is a huge improvement in focus accuracy and I am really looking forward to playing around with these two primes.
Current bodies:  5D3, 7D, 550D, S100
Favorite lenses: 135 f/2.0 L, 85 f/1.8 200 f/2.8 L, 50 f1.4 Sigma, 40mm pancake, 24-105 L.
blog:   http://www.BeyondBoudoirPhoto.com

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14716
    • View Profile
Re: The Unholy Trinity of Non-L Primes?
« Reply #33 on: October 12, 2012, 02:46:17 PM »
Both have substantial and virtually identical color fringing just in front of the point of focus.  This is at the center, not in the corners.

That's longitudinal CA.  Lateral CA occurs at the edges, longitudinal CA anywhere in the frame.  Pretty much all fast primes have it, to some degree.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

crasher8

  • Guest
Re: The Unholy Trinity of Non-L Primes?
« Reply #34 on: October 12, 2012, 06:29:39 PM »
How's the CA on the 100 2.8 macro? Negligible? I have one on the way and it will be my main macro lens but double as a portrait too.

peederj

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 285
    • View Profile
Re: The Unholy Trinity of Non-L Primes?
« Reply #35 on: October 13, 2012, 07:50:16 PM »
The 50/1.4 and 100/2.8 Macro are my picks for non-L primes in the Canon lineup. I ended up liking the 40 shorty a lot and have it as my body cap and shoot more with it than I should. On the wide end, potentially the new 24 or 28 IS versions are good, but I haven't tried them. I have the Zeiss 25/2 in that range, which makes sense as I do a lot of video. With stills I am usually using zooms (Canon 16-35 II, 10-22) on the wide end, fast apertures aren't so very crucial there but proper framing is (want to maximize resolution).

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3507
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: The Unholy Trinity of Non-L Primes?
« Reply #36 on: October 13, 2012, 11:00:31 PM »
I've always heard photographers that praise a photographer for collecting either a 35/50/85 or 24/50/135 lens collection. Those are really really great lens and I've only got to spend 30 minutes with a 50 f/1.2 and I ultimately fell in love with it.

Is there a non-L prime trinity out there that offers the best images?

Like this is what I'm thinking, if I were to get the non-L versions of the 35/50/135 lens is that a good enough prime collection?

As the owner of the 24/50/135L prime trinity, I can say its the most practical setup I've ever used.

But if you don't have the cash, I would do this setup

5Dc

28mm 1.8
50mm 1.4
100mm F/2

I can do 90% of all my work with those 3 lenses.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: The Unholy Trinity of Non-L Primes?
« Reply #36 on: October 13, 2012, 11:00:31 PM »

Synomis192

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 111
    • View Profile
    • Tumblr/Photoblog
Re: The Unholy Trinity of Non-L Primes?
« Reply #37 on: October 14, 2012, 05:56:22 AM »
As the owner of the 24/50/135L prime trinity, I can say its the most practical setup I've ever used.

But if you don't have the cash, I would do this setup

5Dc

28mm 1.8
50mm 1.4
100mm F/2

I can do 90% of all my work with those 3 lenses.

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll just start saving now to reach a combo that is worthy of being unholy haha. Is the jump from 50mm to 100mm going to make me miss some shots?
Canon 5D - Fine Art/Workhorse
Canon T1i - Modded for Video!
Canon 1DmkII - Sports/Wildlife

joshmurrah

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 117
    • View Profile
Re: The Unholy Trinity of Non-L Primes?
« Reply #38 on: October 15, 2012, 11:02:21 AM »

So question for the experts here...

I see the 100mm f/2 get recommended over the 85 1.8 a lot.

Why (with a limited budget keeping you out of the L lenses) would you have this lens over the non-L 100 macro?

Does it come down to the larger-than f/2.8, and faster (I'm guessing here) focus, versus having the macro capability?

Seems like if you needed macro, you'd do maybe the 85 plus the 100 macro.
gripped 5DIII, 70-200 f/2.8L II, 24-70 f/2.8L II, 16-35 f/2.8L II, 8-15 f/4L, 50 f/1.2L, 85 f/1.2L II, 2x III, 3x 600EX-RT, ST-E3-RT

AvTvM

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1020
    • View Profile
Re: The Unholy Trinity of Non-L Primes?
« Reply #39 on: October 15, 2012, 12:22:34 PM »
I see the 100mm f/2 get recommended over the 85 1.8 a lot.
Why (with a limited budget keeping you out of the L lenses) would you have this lens over the non-L 100 macro?
Does it come down to the larger-than f/2.8, and faster (I'm guessing here) focus, versus having the macro capability?
Seems like if you needed macro, you'd do maybe the 85 plus the 100 macro.

if you need a macro.. you need a macro - yes.  The 100/2.0 is a different beast .. i love it for street, concerts and some events, and occasionally for indoor sports. It is 1 full stop faster than the 100 Macro Non IS, has more background blur - especially on APS-C - and the AF is way faster. I would not want to exchange it for the non-IS 100 Macro.

And for me 85mm and 100mm are too close to bother having both focal lengths in primes.

However, I have been toying with the idea to sell both my EF-S 60 Macro and the 100/2.0 ... to get the 100/2.8 Macro L IS ... only 1 lens, FF capable, IS ... but then, I need f/2.0 miore than IS, becaus my subjects are often not static but in motion and in rather low light.

KyleSTL

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 419
    • View Profile
Re: The Unholy Trinity of Non-L Primes?
« Reply #40 on: October 15, 2012, 12:25:57 PM »
I've always heard photographers that praise a photographer for collecting either a 35/50/85 or 24/50/135 lens collection.
Point of order - the phrase 'holy trinity of primes' usually refers to the 35-85-135 combo.
I always thought it was 24-50-85 for the Holy Trinity.  In reality, any three of 24, 35, 50, 85, 135 could be considered, IMO.

I like the idea of 28 f/1.8, 50 f/1.4, and 100 f/2.  I like my 35 f/2, but IQ is not nearly as good as the 50 I, or 85.  Additionally, focusing is a joke compared to the 85 (similar speed to 50 I).  I had the 28 2.8 for a while, and it's focusing speed was surprizingly fast for non-USM (likely due to the really short travel of MFD->inf) and noticably quicker than the 35 2.

I think 20 f/2.8, 35 f/2 (EDIT: or 40mm f/2.8 STM) and 85 f/1.8 could be a good set as well.  I would not count the 24 and 28 IS lenses in with the unholy trinity, due to their near-L cost (even if their IQ is up there with current L lenses).
« Last Edit: October 15, 2012, 12:40:47 PM by KyleSTL »
Canon EOS 5D | Tamron 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5 | 24-105mm f/4L IS USM | 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM | 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM
15mm f/2.8 Fisheye | 28mm f/1.8 USM | 50mm f/1.4 USM | 85mm f/1.8 USM | 3x 420EX | ST-E2 | Canon S90 | SD600 w/ WP-DC4

joshmurrah

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 117
    • View Profile
Re: The Unholy Trinity of Non-L Primes?
« Reply #41 on: October 15, 2012, 01:11:10 PM »
I thought I'd also put in my 2c here, and say that I believe the "holy trinity" of lenses for cheaper non-L lenses, would be the 28 f/1.8, 50 f/1.4 and 85/1.8... these three lenses have the largest apertures and cheapest prices, while still having USM "full time manual" focus features.  I could easily see the 100 f/2.0 being substitued also.

Choice and differing opinions are what keeps our lives interesting, I'm glad to see all the discussion that's happening.

Oh, and "AvTvM"  that's a great forum name, took me a few minutes to catch that!
gripped 5DIII, 70-200 f/2.8L II, 24-70 f/2.8L II, 16-35 f/2.8L II, 8-15 f/4L, 50 f/1.2L, 85 f/1.2L II, 2x III, 3x 600EX-RT, ST-E3-RT

sawsedge

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 97
    • View Profile
Re: The Unholy Trinity of Non-L Primes?
« Reply #42 on: October 15, 2012, 01:11:16 PM »
The 100mm f/2.8 USM macro is a fantastic lens.  I can't see myself giving it up... great macros and landscapes.  However, it is very slow focusing, and sometimes struggles to focus at all in low light.  It definitely can't keep up with my kids when they run around.   For portraits, I plan to pick up an 85 f/1.8 or the 100 f/2.

I have the 50mm f/1.4.  Great lens overall.

I'm still trying to decide what to do for a wide.  I've considered the Samyang 14mm, Canon 20 or 24 f/2.8, Olympus 21mm, Nikon AI-S 20 or 24, or the Voigtlander 20mm.  In the end, I feel probably the 17-40 has a better bang-for-buck than any of the primes.  Of course that will mess up the trinity thing and ends up being somewhat larger...

canon rumors FORUM

Re: The Unholy Trinity of Non-L Primes?
« Reply #42 on: October 15, 2012, 01:11:16 PM »

crasher8

  • Guest
Here's my sacrilegious prime factors
« Reply #43 on: October 15, 2012, 04:11:50 PM »
40 Pancake
(missing lens)
100 2.8 Macro

or is it…


(missing lens)
40 Pancake
100 2.8 Macro

??????????

ecka

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 663
  • Size matters ;)
    • View Profile
    • flickr
Re: Here's my sacrilegious prime factors
« Reply #44 on: October 16, 2012, 05:18:34 AM »
40 Pancake
(missing lens)
100 2.8 Macro

or is it…


(missing lens)
40 Pancake
100 2.8 Macro

??????????

It depends on sensor size. You need something wider than 40mm for APS-C.
FF + primes !

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Here's my sacrilegious prime factors
« Reply #44 on: October 16, 2012, 05:18:34 AM »