Advice on Canon PRIMES
- Thread starter PikkieChick
- Start date
Get creative, buy a lensbaby, the Sweet 35 optic, the fisheye optic, add the macro bits and the plastic/singleglass/pinhole optics too...
Cost ? A lot less than a F1.4 prime, a lot lighter and a lot of fun.
Cost ? A lot less than a F1.4 prime, a lot lighter and a lot of fun.
Upvote
0
The zoom lenses you have are too good. Sell them and buy some terrible ones, then get some primes.
You next lens is a matter of preference. I suggest a 8-15mm fisheye, but that is just me, I love fisheye. And that lens works great on FF 1.3 and 1.6 crop cameras.
How about a 50mm f1.4 prime just for shallow dof shots, or a 1.2 50 or 85 if you have the cash.
You know what is great for macro? A macro lens. Oooo and they are primes.
How about a 300/400mm f2.8? for nature sports? Used with no IS, not that bad $$$.
In other words don't buy primes to have primes. Buy the next lens to take your photos in the direction you want.
You next lens is a matter of preference. I suggest a 8-15mm fisheye, but that is just me, I love fisheye. And that lens works great on FF 1.3 and 1.6 crop cameras.
How about a 50mm f1.4 prime just for shallow dof shots, or a 1.2 50 or 85 if you have the cash.
You know what is great for macro? A macro lens. Oooo and they are primes.
How about a 300/400mm f2.8? for nature sports? Used with no IS, not that bad $$$.
In other words don't buy primes to have primes. Buy the next lens to take your photos in the direction you want.
Upvote
0
PikkieChick said:
If by "candid" you mean photographing people who aren't aware you're taking their photo (or who you hope won't notice), you may be better off with greater distance - 35mm would likely be too short; 85mm may be too; though this depends in part on what the environment is: how much available space there is, how crowded the scene is, etc. Very fast, accurate AF helps in such situations too, which would likely rule out the 85L and, if you're likely to be changing the distance from your subject a great deal, maybe the 100L wouldn't be ideal either (wonderful though it is in every other way). AF on the 85 1.8 and 135L is very fast and accurate (same for the 100 f2, apparently, though I've not used one); the 85 1.8 and 100 f2 have the additional advantages of being small, relatively inconspicuous, light and inexpensive. The main flaw of the 85 1.8 is purple fringing, but the 85L is at least as bad (though it has a "look" the 85 1.8 can't quite match). I probably use a fast 50mm more than any other prime, but I don't know what I would recommend there for use on Canon (the ones I use are all cheap old MF lenses that I use on Sony mirrorless bodies).
Upvote
0
I have a similar lens set up as well as a few of the primes your thinking of getting. whats in my bag right now is:16-35II, 24-70II, 70-200II IS, 100-400L, 100L macro, 35ART, and the 50 zeiss.
I really really like the sigma 35. its a focal length I use a lot, it super sharp, I like the colors and mine has none of the AF issues other seem to have.
the 100L also gets a lot of use. obviously the macro aspect is something you'll be adding and I find it much easier to work with than the 70-200II IS
The zeiss I rarely use. I am not impressed with its performance.
before I buy any prime I look through my exif and see how much I really use that focal length. I started doing this after buying a 24II and a 24II TSE (not at the same time). both I seldom used as its not a focal length I used often.
my only advise is to look at what focal lengths you actually use then look at primes in that same length. I think this beats thinking of lenses for a particular subject you like to photograph as each person will like a different focal length. for example portraiture, everyone has a different style, dont buy a lens based on someone elses style or because that lens is really good. pick a focal length that suits you then pick the specific lens by what to you gain, what do you lose.
I really really like the sigma 35. its a focal length I use a lot, it super sharp, I like the colors and mine has none of the AF issues other seem to have.
the 100L also gets a lot of use. obviously the macro aspect is something you'll be adding and I find it much easier to work with than the 70-200II IS
The zeiss I rarely use. I am not impressed with its performance.
before I buy any prime I look through my exif and see how much I really use that focal length. I started doing this after buying a 24II and a 24II TSE (not at the same time). both I seldom used as its not a focal length I used often.
my only advise is to look at what focal lengths you actually use then look at primes in that same length. I think this beats thinking of lenses for a particular subject you like to photograph as each person will like a different focal length. for example portraiture, everyone has a different style, dont buy a lens based on someone elses style or because that lens is really good. pick a focal length that suits you then pick the specific lens by what to you gain, what do you lose.
Upvote
0
I'm gonna throw more GAS on the fire by suggesting the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II + a geared tripod-head + a sturdy tripod ;DPikkieChick said:
It's a manual focus lens ideally for controlled tripod work. It has a bit of a learning-curve, but a very rewarding lens.
Upvote
0
@Mackguyver: great run down on the lenses, but according to TDP and my own experience the 35L is at least equivalent to the 24-70 II at f/2.8 and at wider apertures, the lack of sharpness might actually be due to the CA.
@OP:
I have all the three focal lengths, and for me the 35mm is just an amazing versatile FL that works for everything from landscape to street photography to portraits. There is shallow enough DoF and great bokeh at f/1.4, practically no distortion, and it is tack sharp. Focuses pretty quickly and accurately, and is quite compact. If you want to save $$ and need IS (like you, I have nothing with IS below 70mm) then you might want to go with the 35/2, but for me the f/1.4 was more important. I needed something for those truly dark times... The Sigma is a great lens and I loved it during the short time I owned it, but I am not willing to deal with AF inconsistencies. I don't think that additional bit of sharpness will make me a great photographer, but images with missed focus (esp. those I can't detect in the LCD) are lost forever.
The 85mm is a perfect portrait (1/4-1/2 body) lens. I just bought the f/1.8 with a lot of hesitation as whoever compliments it, qualifies it with ("for the price"). However, it is a pretty good lens. It is as sharp as you NEED wide open, and has really fast AF and is light and compact. I will probably sell it soon after I don't need it anymore (right now I don't have access to my f/2.8 zooms) as it is only 1 stop faster than my 70-200. However, you will greatly benefit from the faster AF (the accuracy of multiple AF points in your camera are much faster with a >f/2.8 lens). It is also a great candid street lens, as I think a longer focal length with great subject isolation helps me most in that situation.
The 135mm is my most favorite lens. It travels with me everywhere. Amazing whenever I use it. As Mackguyver said, absolutely no problem hand holding. However, in your case as so many have said, the 100L probably makes more sense (for me, it doesn't offer much more than macro in relation to the 70-200). It is also close enough to 85mm that it can do double duty for portraits. And it is not too slow to AF, with the AF limiter on.
So, in your place I would probably go with a 35mm and the 100mm macro.
@OP:
I have all the three focal lengths, and for me the 35mm is just an amazing versatile FL that works for everything from landscape to street photography to portraits. There is shallow enough DoF and great bokeh at f/1.4, practically no distortion, and it is tack sharp. Focuses pretty quickly and accurately, and is quite compact. If you want to save $$ and need IS (like you, I have nothing with IS below 70mm) then you might want to go with the 35/2, but for me the f/1.4 was more important. I needed something for those truly dark times...
The Sigma is a great lens and I loved it during the short time I owned it, but I am not willing to deal with AF inconsistencies. I don't think that additional bit of sharpness will make me a great photographer, but images with missed focus (esp. those I can't detect in the LCD) are lost forever.The 85mm is a perfect portrait (1/4-1/2 body) lens. I just bought the f/1.8 with a lot of hesitation as whoever compliments it, qualifies it with ("for the price"). However, it is a pretty good lens. It is as sharp as you NEED wide open, and has really fast AF and is light and compact. I will probably sell it soon after I don't need it anymore (right now I don't have access to my f/2.8 zooms) as it is only 1 stop faster than my 70-200. However, you will greatly benefit from the faster AF (the accuracy of multiple AF points in your camera are much faster with a >f/2.8 lens). It is also a great candid street lens, as I think a longer focal length with great subject isolation helps me most in that situation.
The 135mm is my most favorite lens. It travels with me everywhere. Amazing whenever I use it. As Mackguyver said, absolutely no problem hand holding. However, in your case as so many have said, the 100L probably makes more sense (for me, it doesn't offer much more than macro in relation to the 70-200). It is also close enough to 85mm that it can do double duty for portraits. And it is not too slow to AF, with the AF limiter on.
So, in your place I would probably go with a 35mm and the 100mm macro.
Upvote
0
While I don't have a prime solution to offer (though I agree with the 100L suggestion), may I recommend that you consider selling your 16-35L ll and replacing it with the newer 16-35 f/4L IS. Though you will loose quite a bit of light gathering ability, the newer lens is sharper throughout the frame, particularly at larger apertures, and has very effective IS. If you want maximum sharpness, it's something to consider.
Upvote
0
PikkieChick said:
The 24-70/2.8II is as sharp as it gets. For the photography you're describing, I'd recommend just these two:
35/2 IS
85/1.8
Don't buy too many lenses — they'll be a pain to carry around! The L versions of the 35 and 85 are great, but too heavy for general use, especially if you also carry one or more heavy zooms.
Upvote
0
I have the 100L Macro lens and it works fine also for portraits. However, my most used prime focal lenght is 35mm.neuroanatomist said:
BTW I also have the trinity of zooms and 5D3.
Upvote
0
You get 'sharp' with your version II zooms.
You want something else, like 'magic', then the 85mm L f/1.2 is a strong contender especially for portraits.
Most people agree, there is nothing like it. My favorit prime is the 35mm f/1.4. OK, there is the Sigma 'ART' series and the 'Zeiss' manual focus that are supposedly so much better only that they obviously are not. Try to find a 35mm L second hand at a reasonable price. Market is always right.
The 100 mm f/2.8 L macro is another magic lens for the macro use. Its rendition is absolutely great. It seems like a faultless lens. I cried when I gave it back.
Well, these are lenses I have used. I probably must get either the EF 50mm f/1.2 or the Zeiss 55mm f/1.8. The latter is the bes of the ormal normal lenses around, with the Otus towering above. Canon EF is still twice the price of the Zeiss with all it glitches....frankly, I do not need them either as I got the 50mm f/1.4 that still is working after 12 years.
Well, that's the subject.
You take protraits, rent the 85mm L and see if it sings for you.
You take social gatherings, see if the 24mm or the 35mm L responds beter to your needs.
You interest is architecture...test the TS-lenses, they are magnificent.
Lensbaby?
You want something else, like 'magic', then the 85mm L f/1.2 is a strong contender especially for portraits.
Most people agree, there is nothing like it. My favorit prime is the 35mm f/1.4. OK, there is the Sigma 'ART' series and the 'Zeiss' manual focus that are supposedly so much better only that they obviously are not. Try to find a 35mm L second hand at a reasonable price. Market is always right.
The 100 mm f/2.8 L macro is another magic lens for the macro use. Its rendition is absolutely great. It seems like a faultless lens. I cried when I gave it back.
Well, these are lenses I have used. I probably must get either the EF 50mm f/1.2 or the Zeiss 55mm f/1.8. The latter is the bes of the ormal normal lenses around, with the Otus towering above. Canon EF is still twice the price of the Zeiss with all it glitches....frankly, I do not need them either as I got the 50mm f/1.4 that still is working after 12 years.
Well, that's the subject.
You take protraits, rent the 85mm L and see if it sings for you.
You take social gatherings, see if the 24mm or the 35mm L responds beter to your needs.
You interest is architecture...test the TS-lenses, they are magnificent.
Lensbaby?
Upvote
0
martti said:
I agree, but I find the bokeh "faultless" and even to the point of "boring" though - it's optimized for macro, and you certainly don't get results like these f1.2 primes from it. Even the bokeh my 70-300L looks more interesting most of the time, but of course that's personal taste.
Upvote
0
Lanscapes and architecture...
two people already mentioned it - TS-E lenses, more specifically the 24mkii or even the 17mm
There is always room to upgrade, but seem that you are doing fime with current setup (pleased with results and using them a lot)
Sure, there is macro and nightscapes photography to consider, among other fields, but if your focus is more around travelling photography, I would rather consider trade the current 16-35 for the f4 or better yet get the new 11-24 ;D
I think you should look into more creative and/or specialized lenses after thinking about it for a bit longer - your lens coverage is pretty good for travelling - time to broad you options into different fields
two people already mentioned it - TS-E lenses, more specifically the 24mkii or even the 17mm
There is always room to upgrade
, but seem that you are doing fime with current setup (pleased with results and using them a lot)Sure, there is macro and nightscapes photography to consider, among other fields, but if your focus is more around travelling photography, I would rather consider trade the current 16-35 for the f4 or better yet get the new 11-24 ;D
I think you should look into more creative and/or specialized lenses after thinking about it for a bit longer - your lens coverage is pretty good for travelling - time to broad you options into different fields
Upvote
0
Marsu42 said:
What would be the point of bringing up two defferent lenses with two differents kinds of magic if they were similar?
You find the bokeh of the 100mm L macro boring because the lens is too perfect.
You do realize that you are a snob, don't you?
Upvote
0
martti said:
I think that's a bit harsh. As Marsu said- it is a matter of personal taste. I also didn't like the bokeh on the 100L and decided against purchasing it. Perfection can be relative- the 100L is not designed to be a portrait lens. It is also not designed to be a fast focusing lens. So on those counts, the 85L and 135L are better choices. Horses for courses.
Upvote
0
martti said:
Ugh? Next to sounding rather insulting (or did you forget a smiley?), you're contradicting yourself in the next sentence. If I'd like perfect lenses with smooooooooooth bokeh, I might be a "snob" (whatever that is, exactly). But as it happens I like grunge, dirty, and natural - that's why a very even bokeh doesn't appeal to me.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
