Before you buy your next prime...
- Thread starter Badger
- Start date
I've just found out during my recent trip that I'm using my 24-105mm F4L IS USM around 80-85% of the time. My copy (just very recent, bought a month ago) is surprisingly sharp almost comparable to my primes. It's almost everything I need now. I've tried my friend's 24-70mm F2.8L and I always miss that extra 35mm.
Upvote
0
ecka said:jdramirez said:ecka said:AcutancePhotography said:
Doesn't work for lens collectors
Let's reframe the discussion.
It's not the telescope, it's the astronomer.
Every photographer knows - it's the lighting
That's true but the night sky is sooooo dark!
Upvote
0
Menace said:ecka said:jdramirez said:ecka said:AcutancePhotography said:
Doesn't work for lens collectors
Let's reframe the discussion.
It's not the telescope, it's the astronomer.
Every photographer knows - it's the lighting
That's true but the night sky is sooooo dark!
Yes, but the actual subjects there are the light sources. In astrophotography "it is the equipment" that makes a better picture
.
Upvote
0
verysimplejason said:
The 24-105 is fabulous, especially for travel. If there's copy variation I also must have a really good copy; it made me sell my 24-70L (Mk I). I do have some sharper primes though, but the 24-105 delivers every time.
Upvote
0
This is a great video... for how to rationalise purchases to the other half!
i'm kind of in agreement re the focal length leaps... I have a 24L, a 50 (1.8) and want a 100L at some point down the line (70-200 is doing ok at the moment).
Strangely enough, I rarely use my 50... hence why i have never up-graded it! I tend to go wide or long, normal is just too, well, normal!
i'm kind of in agreement re the focal length leaps... I have a 24L, a 50 (1.8) and want a 100L at some point down the line (70-200 is doing ok at the moment).
Strangely enough, I rarely use my 50... hence why i have never up-graded it!
I tend to go wide or long, normal is just too, well, normal!
Upvote
0
My way is/was quite simple. I started out with a relatively cheap used "super zoom" - A Sigma 18-250mm Macro. I knew it would be too dark of a lens for my tastes, but that wasn't the point. I shot for 6 months... several thousand pictures. That timeframe also included a vacation (a cruise with several offshore excursions - both the cruise and the excursions used telephoto lengths that I don't often use in day-to-day shooting).
After 6 months, I looked at the focal length metadata and image counts in LR. I threw out the 18mm (because presumably I was looking to go even wider) and the 250mm (because presumably I was looking to go more telephoto).
I then made a spreadsheet listing from that data listing the image counts and calculating the % of the total shots taken. That gave me a good starting point to figure out what I need.
Note that the ranges will differ for every user/photographer, but here's my breakdown:
- Nearly 70% of my images fell into the 46-90mm range. An important note here is that the distribution fell almost evenly on each side of 70mm.
- I don't think it's an accident that 70mm is where Canon chose to split the focal lengths of their most popular zooms (forcing the average enthusiast to buy 2 expensive lenses), but constantly carrying two heavy lenses and missing shots due to non-stop lens switching doesn't work for me.
- An additional 9% fall into the 91mm-150mm range, with 5% of them under 110mm.
- About 8% are in the 19mm-45mm range.
- About 5% are macro.
- The remainder (18mm, 250mm, and the 151mm-249mm) are less than 5%.
This gave me a pretty good purchasing strategy:
- Looking through the images, I realized I needed a flash first. Helloooo 600EX-RT and 8x12 softbox! Purchased.
- Get the Sigma (better than the Canon) 24-105mm. It covers 83% (70% + 5%(under 110mm) + 8%) of my shooting. I wish it was f/2.8 instead of f/4, but it's a darn good lens and has IS. Purchased.
- Get a Sigma (non-art) or Canon 50mm f/1.4. Great bang for the buck, and I LOVE the 50mm. It never comes off my other camera and 25% of my shots were between 46mm-62mm. It makes sense to have a good prime here. Purchased.
Note: I still want/need to purchase the below, but truthfully, the only thing I really wish I had at this point is the full macro setup. That's right, 3 lenses and I'd be a VERY happy camper. 5 (add the 20mm and 85mm) and I could not find a *valid* excuse to buy anything more.
- Most of my occasional (vacation) telephoto needs can be handled by a 1.4x teleconverter. They are cheap and light weight. Ideally, from a photographic perspective, I'd probably have a 70-200mm f/2.8 with a 2x teleconverter. Realistically, this is mostly needed for vacations, and there is no way I'm carrying that beast on all day walks, especially if those walks are hikes up a mountain!
- Most occasional (ooh, look, pretty flower!) macro work can be handled with extension tubes. Again, cheap and lightweight.
- I'd like to get something along the lines of a 20mm prime for certain types of shooting. It makes up such a small percentage of what I do that I can be patient about this one and buy used/cheap when the right deal comes along and there's money burning a hole in my pocket.
- I didn't do much of it, but I LOVE extremely close macro. I really want a Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x lens. Saving for the ($1k) lens isn't bad, but there's a whole slew of stuff that goes with it (Manfrotto 190 CF tripod, Manfrotto 401 geared head, RRS focusing rails, Canon twin and/or <brand?) ring lights, ad nauseum.. This isn't just a $1k lens, it's a $4k endeavor, so save it for last.
- There are always going to be times that we wish for a little less or little more focal length. Deal with it. Something to keep in mind: Missing wide-angle is harder to deal with than missing telephoto. You can crop and zoom to make up for missing telephoto length, but if you don't have the wide angle, you just don't have it (though photo-stitching can help).
- If I was to buy anything else after this, it would likely be an 85mm prime as about 32% (IIRC) of my shooting was in the 80-90mm range).
So, that's my way of figuring out what makes sense and the conclusions I came to *for my type of shooting*.
Now, if you REALLY want to drive yourself crazy, go back and rate all of those photos, determine which of your best shots were taken at each focal length and cross reference to the above. I tried, and I strongly advise against it.
Good luck!
Rusty
After 6 months, I looked at the focal length metadata and image counts in LR. I threw out the 18mm (because presumably I was looking to go even wider) and the 250mm (because presumably I was looking to go more telephoto).
I then made a spreadsheet listing from that data listing the image counts and calculating the % of the total shots taken. That gave me a good starting point to figure out what I need.
Note that the ranges will differ for every user/photographer, but here's my breakdown:
- Nearly 70% of my images fell into the 46-90mm range. An important note here is that the distribution fell almost evenly on each side of 70mm.
- I don't think it's an accident that 70mm is where Canon chose to split the focal lengths of their most popular zooms (forcing the average enthusiast to buy 2 expensive lenses), but constantly carrying two heavy lenses and missing shots due to non-stop lens switching doesn't work for me.
- An additional 9% fall into the 91mm-150mm range, with 5% of them under 110mm.
- About 8% are in the 19mm-45mm range.
- About 5% are macro.
- The remainder (18mm, 250mm, and the 151mm-249mm) are less than 5%.
This gave me a pretty good purchasing strategy:
- Looking through the images, I realized I needed a flash first. Helloooo 600EX-RT and 8x12 softbox! Purchased.
- Get the Sigma (better than the Canon) 24-105mm. It covers 83% (70% + 5%(under 110mm) + 8%) of my shooting. I wish it was f/2.8 instead of f/4, but it's a darn good lens and has IS. Purchased.
- Get a Sigma (non-art) or Canon 50mm f/1.4. Great bang for the buck, and I LOVE the 50mm. It never comes off my other camera and 25% of my shots were between 46mm-62mm. It makes sense to have a good prime here. Purchased.
Note: I still want/need to purchase the below, but truthfully, the only thing I really wish I had at this point is the full macro setup. That's right, 3 lenses and I'd be a VERY happy camper. 5 (add the 20mm and 85mm) and I could not find a *valid* excuse to buy anything more.
- Most of my occasional (vacation) telephoto needs can be handled by a 1.4x teleconverter. They are cheap and light weight. Ideally, from a photographic perspective, I'd probably have a 70-200mm f/2.8 with a 2x teleconverter. Realistically, this is mostly needed for vacations, and there is no way I'm carrying that beast on all day walks, especially if those walks are hikes up a mountain!
- Most occasional (ooh, look, pretty flower!) macro work can be handled with extension tubes. Again, cheap and lightweight.
- I'd like to get something along the lines of a 20mm prime for certain types of shooting. It makes up such a small percentage of what I do that I can be patient about this one and buy used/cheap when the right deal comes along and there's money burning a hole in my pocket.
- I didn't do much of it, but I LOVE extremely close macro. I really want a Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x lens. Saving for the ($1k) lens isn't bad, but there's a whole slew of stuff that goes with it (Manfrotto 190 CF tripod, Manfrotto 401 geared head, RRS focusing rails, Canon twin and/or <brand?) ring lights, ad nauseum.. This isn't just a $1k lens, it's a $4k endeavor, so save it for last.
- There are always going to be times that we wish for a little less or little more focal length. Deal with it. Something to keep in mind: Missing wide-angle is harder to deal with than missing telephoto. You can crop and zoom to make up for missing telephoto length, but if you don't have the wide angle, you just don't have it (though photo-stitching can help).
- If I was to buy anything else after this, it would likely be an 85mm prime as about 32% (IIRC) of my shooting was in the 80-90mm range).
So, that's my way of figuring out what makes sense and the conclusions I came to *for my type of shooting*.
Now, if you REALLY want to drive yourself crazy, go back and rate all of those photos, determine which of your best shots were taken at each focal length and cross reference to the above. I tried, and I strongly advise against it.
Good luck!
Rusty
Upvote
0
RLPhoto said:
+1 sans the 50L (but seeing as how many of my favorite photographers love it, It might throw my 85L back into storage as it's my next target)
I don't have the 24L too actually.... I have the Samyang 24mm 1.4, hehe. It's a big difference in price, but I'm willing to pay it to get consistent colors in my heavy workflow. Just a matter of time.... muahahaha.
Upvote
0
Ripley said:
You went and bought the best there is... Boring! Now sell and buy some primes etc, and be happy
Upvote
0
I fell into my GAS solution (that probably sounds dangerous to an outsider)...
I've been looking for a small camera for my wife for YEARS. I've purchased her 3 cameras and none have the combination of qualities she wants. Finally, I asked about the SL1... I told her it's the smallest DSLR in the world. I got it in her hands and SHE LOVES IT! Now, we "share" all of my lenses and she's pretty excited about it!
I've also been teaching her all about the basics of knowing your gear (aperture, SS, ISO) and this whole process has actually been really good for our marriage as it's giving us a common hobby to REALLY engage in where we didn't have one before other than favorite TV shows.
Oh... and... she's HOT. I'm a pretty lucky husband
I've been looking for a small camera for my wife for YEARS. I've purchased her 3 cameras and none have the combination of qualities she wants. Finally, I asked about the SL1... I told her it's the smallest DSLR in the world. I got it in her hands and SHE LOVES IT! Now, we "share" all of my lenses and she's pretty excited about it!
I've also been teaching her all about the basics of knowing your gear (aperture, SS, ISO) and this whole process has actually been really good for our marriage as it's giving us a common hobby to REALLY engage in where we didn't have one before other than favorite TV shows.
Oh... and... she's HOT. I'm a pretty lucky husband
Upvote
0
Sporgon said:jebrady03 said:Oh... and... she's HOT. I'm a pretty lucky husband
Some pictures would be nice
I would have asked too, but we are talking about a wife. Girlfriend sure... but I hold back when b till death do is part is involved.
Having said that.. I think every beautiful woman should have nudes taken... So when they are old and flabby they have proof they were hot.
Upvote
0
