Affordable, non-L, Prime Lenses from this century please!

[kubelik]

Overall, I guess it's horses for courses. Pick what you want (on either system) if it suits your needs.

Now, someone tell me why did I bother going through all that?...

you're pretty much on the money with your observation. the systems aren't really directly comparable in terms of lens choice (not to mention functionality, with the whole do-you-want-a-viewfinder/compact body/smaller image sensor/etc. issues). in the long run, canon's family of lenses is pretty much the most comprehensive set of lenses in the market, without even taking into account third-party offerings from sigma, zeiss, tokina, and tamron.

I'd have to add to this that, when we look at gaps in the EF-S lineup, we should actually account for Sigma glass. although Sigma produces lenses for pretty much everyone, this actually allows Canon to treat sigma as a budget-minded lineup to help fill in its gaps, and to then focus on higher-end lenses before they get back around to redesigning their older pieces. so canon's actually got a 30mm f/1.4, 20mm f/1.8, 24mm f/1.8, and 28mm f/1.8 lenses ... they're just developed and made by Sigma. it's a smart and mutually beneficial relationship; sigma is allowed to compete against canon's older lineup and canon agrees not to hammer them on price, while canon buyers have access to certain focal lengths and price points that aren't directly available through canon's portfolio, making the overall canon system's options even more numerous.

 

[drummstikk]

Kubelik NAILS why there will most likely not be any non-L fixed lenses (sorry, I refuse to call them "primes") in the foreseeable future, if ever. I would only add the the only reason the fixed lenses introduced in the late 80's-early 90's exist at all is the the lens market was totally different then. In the early '90's, the typical pro shooter's bag was filled with five or six fixed lenses at any given time. There may have been two or three more locked up in the cabinet for special purposes (macro, fisheye, long tele). My employer at the time then got each photographer on the staff a Nikon 80-200mm 2.8 AF ED zoom. This was literally the first zoom lens that was worth having for professional use (even though the autofocus was pretty slow, jerky and useless - Canon was first-to-market with AF that WORKED).

From there, the slow migration was on until today, when I do 90% of my photography with two zoom lenses (24-105 and 70-200). I have a Tamron 10-24 for my infrequent extreme wide work, and a 400mm 5.6 for extra reach. Anything else I rent as needed.

I was a Nikon shooter for about 10 years (until about 1992), and the Nikon line had multiple lenses at every focal length (i.e. 35mm 2.8, 35mm 2.0, 35mm 1.4). Canon was about the same with their FD line. Once Canon and Nikon could get quality zooms embraced by pros and serious amateurs, the market could be defragmented. That means better lenses for photographers and more profits for the manufacturers. That's a win-win that you won't likely see compromised by the introduction of mid-range fixed lenses.

With the market for fixed lenses thus limited, there is only room for one lens per focal length, and you can be assured that one lens will be the best, most premium piece of glass they can muster (at a commensurate price, of course).

I still hold out some micro-hope we may see lenses like the 85mm 1.8 and 100mm 2.0 upgraded with better focusing motors, though I would't expect an optical re-design. But I will continue normal respiration until and if that ever happens.

 

[te4o]

I sold off my 17-55 2.8 and the 10-20 Sigma a few months ago (kept the 70-200 4IS) and changed over to Zeiss. Since then my "needs replacement"-40D hasn't spent much time in the bag... The fun of photography is back - it's like sticking a SSD into a Mac.
Before 'Zeiss' I often didn't even try some shots because I thought they wouldn't look well (lighting, detail, color etc). Now I must say almost everything, even a 'simple walk in the park', turns into a photo-tour. I know that everyone is fond of what he's got on the desk and I think it's just fine - I go more for landscape, portrait, macro than for journalism and sports (AF no big deal). But even action is possible there, if you know how to operate the lens. The other day I acceptably focused 3/4 of some 200 shots with the ZE 100 at f2 of buggy-boarding family members in on-coming ocean waves - you know how fast they go. I did another 200 with the 70-200 on sports-AF. Yes, the 70-200 focused more shots correctly, but I wouldn't keep as many of them... So, don't be put off by lack of AF (I used AF -good or bad- for 20 yrs on different Canons) and try out a Zeiss.
Zeiss ZE primes can't be called affordable but I payed 1620 AUD for the 17-55 3 yrs ago and 1580 for the 70-200 - so not quite cheap either. Can there be an 'affordable' & good prime lens?
I think there should be more affordable ones though too, so that more people start using them. I don't miss the two zooms at all. Primes and 'walk-zooming' taught me putting much more thought into framing.
And for a fast prime - there's the 35 f1.4 coming in March. The flickr-prototype samples look very impressive. Unfortunately, not quite affordable - but look, inflation is everywhere...
Anyway, just wanted to share my opinion.

 

[lol]

I still hold out some micro-hope we may see lenses like the 85mm 1.8 and 100mm 2.0 upgraded with better focusing motors, though I would't expect an optical re-design. But I will continue normal respiration until and if that ever happens.

I'm the other way around on the 85mm f/1.8. The AF on it is one of if not the fastest of any Canon lens I have, but I really wish it was less prone to purple fringing and had smoother reaction to point sources of light.


@te4o, when I did a side by side comparison of the Zeiss makro-planar 2/50 and the cheapo Canon 50mm f/1.8, I was surprised to find very little difference between them at equivalent focus distances and aperture. No observable colour differences, bokeh was similar where the aperture blades don't limit. Tiny variation in sharpness only detectable in extreme pixel peeping. Of course, they do have different abilities once you get outside the common ground, but to me Zeiss wasn't any magic image producer.

 

[drummstikk]

I still hold out some micro-hope we may see lenses like the 85mm 1.8 and 100mm 2.0 upgraded with better focusing motors, though I would't expect an optical re-design. But I will continue normal respiration until and if that ever happens.

I'm the other way around on the 85mm f/1.8. The AF on it is one of if not the fastest of any Canon lens I have, but I really wish it was less prone to purple fringing and had smoother reaction to point sources of light.

I never had a problem with the focusing speed. I had a recurring problem with the 100mm 2.0, and to a lesser extent with the 50mm 1.4 (since I used it less, probably) where the manual focus would become sticky and gritty. CPS would fix it for about 60 bucks, and the lens would be fine for 12-15 months when the problem would crop up again. My employer at the time paid all my repair bills, but when I got out on my own, I sold the 100mm rather than leave myself open to that recurring expense.

I never owned an 85mm 1.8. Can someone tell me what kind of USM it has? I assumed micromotor (which seemed to be part of the cause of the problem with the 100mm I refer above), but Amazon.com's product page for the 85m 1.8 indictates "Ring type USM," while Amazon lists "Micro Ultrasonic Motor" for the 100mm 2.0. I do not consider Amazon authoritative for Canon gear, but this has me wondering

So, can anyone tell me. . . what kind of USM does the 85mm 1.8 have? Canon lists "Rear focusing system with USM" for both lenses, which is kind of vague. If the 85mm does not have the same system as the 100mm 2.0, I could put that on my short list of lenses to buy next.

 

[Fleetie]

I still hold out some micro-hope we may see lenses like the 85mm 1.8 and 100mm 2.0 upgraded with better focusing motors, though I would't expect an optical re-design. But I will continue normal respiration until and if that ever happens.

I'm the other way around on the 85mm f/1.8. The AF on it is one of if not the fastest of any Canon lens I have, but I really wish it was less prone to purple fringing and had smoother reaction to point sources of light.

I never had a problem with the focusing speed. I had a recurring problem with the 100mm 2.0, and to a lesser extent with the 50mm 1.4 (since I used it less, probably) where the manual focus would become sticky and gritty. CPS would fix it for about 60 bucks, and the lens would be fine for 12-15 months when the problem would crop up again. My employer at the time paid all my repair bills, but when I got out on my own, I sold the 100mm rather than leave myself open to that recurring expense.

I never owned an 85mm 1.8. Can someone tell me what kind of USM it has? I assumed micromotor (which seemed to be part of the cause of the problem with the 100mm I refer above), but Amazon.com's product page for the 85m 1.8 indictates "Ring type USM," while Amazon lists "Micro Ultrasonic Motor" for the 100mm 2.0. I do not consider Amazon authoritative for Canon gear, but this has me wondering

So, can anyone tell me. . . what kind of USM does the 85mm 1.8 have? Canon lists "Rear focusing system with USM" for both lenses, which is kind of vague. If the 85mm does not have the same system as the 100mm 2.0, I could put that on my short list of lenses to buy next.

No, the 80/1.8 does NOT have a "micro USM" motor; it has the full USM motor.

I have never had a problem with the AF speed on it; indeed I have seen the speed praised in some reviews of this lens.

It feels nice enough to use, not that I use manual focussing on it. But the AF "feels" just fine.


Martin

 

[drummstikk]

No, the 80/1.8 does NOT have a "micro USM" motor; it has the full USM motor.

I have never had a problem with the AF speed on it; indeed I have seen the speed praised in some reviews of this lens.

It feels nice enough to use, not that I use manual focussing on it. But the AF "feels" just fine.


Martin

Thanks for that info. As I recall, the 100mm 2.0 was released about a year before the 85mm 1.8 and they look very much alike, so for about the last two decades I always assumed they had the same focus motor. Good to know that's not the case.

I just rented a 135mm 2.0 to use on my old 5D last weekend. I could have gotten about the same result with an 85mm 1.8 on my 7D without the rental cost, and the 85mm would be a much more useful all-around lens for me to own.

 

[unruled]

I still hold out some micro-hope we may see lenses like the 85mm 1.8 and 100mm 2.0 upgraded with better focusing motors, though I would't expect an optical re-design. But I will continue normal respiration until and if that ever happens.

I'm the other way around on the 85mm f/1.8. The AF on it is one of if not the fastest of any Canon lens I have, but I really wish it was less prone to purple fringing and had smoother reaction to point sources of light.

I never had a problem with the focusing speed. I had a recurring problem with the 100mm 2.0, and to a lesser extent with the 50mm 1.4 (since I used it less, probably) where the manual focus would become sticky and gritty. CPS would fix it for about 60 bucks, and the lens would be fine for 12-15 months when the problem would crop up again. My employer at the time paid all my repair bills, but when I got out on my own, I sold the 100mm rather than leave myself open to that recurring expense.

I never owned an 85mm 1.8. Can someone tell me what kind of USM it has? I assumed micromotor (which seemed to be part of the cause of the problem with the 100mm I refer above), but Amazon.com's product page for the 85m 1.8 indictates "Ring type USM," while Amazon lists "Micro Ultrasonic Motor" for the 100mm 2.0. I do not consider Amazon authoritative for Canon gear, but this has me wondering

So, can anyone tell me. . . what kind of USM does the 85mm 1.8 have? Canon lists "Rear focusing system with USM" for both lenses, which is kind of vague. If the 85mm does not have the same system as the 100mm 2.0, I could put that on my short list of lenses to buy next.

No, the 80/1.8 does NOT have a "micro USM" motor; it has the full USM motor.

I have never had a problem with the AF speed on it; indeed I have seen the speed praised in some reviews of this lens.

It feels nice enough to use, not that I use manual focussing on it. But the AF "feels" just fine.


Martin

i guess you mean the 85 1.8. It has 'proper' USM. In fact, it is one of the lenses with the fastest AF that canon makes. FTM is also nice.

 

[Fleetie]

I still hold out some micro-hope we may see lenses like the 85mm 1.8 and 100mm 2.0 upgraded with better focusing motors, though I would't expect an optical re-design. But I will continue normal respiration until and if that ever happens.

I'm the other way around on the 85mm f/1.8. The AF on it is one of if not the fastest of any Canon lens I have, but I really wish it was less prone to purple fringing and had smoother reaction to point sources of light.

I never had a problem with the focusing speed. I had a recurring problem with the 100mm 2.0, and to a lesser extent with the 50mm 1.4 (since I used it less, probably) where the manual focus would become sticky and gritty. CPS would fix it for about 60 bucks, and the lens would be fine for 12-15 months when the problem would crop up again. My employer at the time paid all my repair bills, but when I got out on my own, I sold the 100mm rather than leave myself open to that recurring expense.

I never owned an 85mm 1.8. Can someone tell me what kind of USM it has? I assumed micromotor (which seemed to be part of the cause of the problem with the 100mm I refer above), but Amazon.com's product page for the 85m 1.8 indictates "Ring type USM," while Amazon lists "Micro Ultrasonic Motor" for the 100mm 2.0. I do not consider Amazon authoritative for Canon gear, but this has me wondering

So, can anyone tell me. . . what kind of USM does the 85mm 1.8 have? Canon lists "Rear focusing system with USM" for both lenses, which is kind of vague. If the 85mm does not have the same system as the 100mm 2.0, I could put that on my short list of lenses to buy next.

No, the 80/1.8 does NOT have a "micro USM" motor; it has the full USM motor.

I have never had a problem with the AF speed on it; indeed I have seen the speed praised in some reviews of this lens.

It feels nice enough to use, not that I use manual focussing on it. But the AF "feels" just fine.


Martin

i guess you mean the 85 1.8. It has 'proper' USM. In fact, it is one of the lenses with the fastest AF that canon makes. FTM is also nice.

Yeah; I meant the 85/1.8! Sorry! It feels nice to use.

However, the manual focus rings on all Canon lenses I have (see my sig, below) are nowhere near what I'd call "smooth" compared to the lovely smooth action on my Olympus/Zuiko OM-series lenses. Those are just lovely to use.


Martin

 

[Admin US West]

AF "feels" just fine.

However, the manual focus rings on all Canon lenses I have (see my sig, below) are nowhere near what I'd call "smooth" compared to the lovely smooth action on my Olympus/Zuiko OM-series lenses. Those are just lovely to use.

Martin

Autofocus lenses are designed with a short throw to make autofocusing faster. Comparing amy autofocus lens with a manual focus lens in going to give the same results.

Try a Canon manual focus lens like the 24mm TS-E, smooth as silk, and easy to focus accurately due to the long throw.

If you compare apples to apples, you might come up with a comparison that is apprepriate.