The Unholy Trinity of Non-L Primes?

[KyleSTL]

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).

 

[joshmurrah]

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!

 

[sawsedge]

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...

 

[crasher8]

Here's my sacrilegious prime factors

40 Pancake
(missing lens)
100 2.8 Macro

or is it…


(missing lens)
40 Pancake
100 2.8 Macro

??????????

 

[ecka]

Re: Here's my sacrilegious prime factors

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.

 

[crasher8]

Re: Here's my sacrilegious prime factors

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 (5D3)

 

[ecka]

Re: Here's my sacrilegious prime factors

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 (5D3)

40mm is pretty close to 35mm, but I don't think that I'd need another must-have prime between 40mm and 100mm for the trinity, which is 35~50 / 70~100 / 135~200.

 

[AvTvM]

Re: Here's my sacrilegious prime factors

(missing lens)
40 Pancake
100 2.8 Macro

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

FF (5D3)

I would want something wider. Problem is, Canon has not a single really good Non-L prime wideangle lens, except the new 24/2.8 IS and 28/2.8 IS. And even these two expensive beasts aber not better IQ-wise than the new 24-70 II.

That's why I often take along my 17-55 plus 100/2.0 ...

 

[crasher8]

I'd consider the Sigma 28 1.8 to complete the

blank
pancake
100 Macro

It is hellofva lot sharper center and corner wise than the Canon counterpart and built a lot better as well but the back/front focusing hassles and sending it back funtimes are not something I look forward to. If I knew I would get a good copy then it would be a no brainer.