Lens advice: which prime should I buy first?

[arcanej]

I finally made the jump from point-and-shoot to DSLRs with the 5dm3 kit. I am having a lot of fun with the camera and, even in relatively inexperienced hands, I am able to take gorgeous pictures. I would like to buy a fast prime for general purpose photography, i.e., walking around the city, the park, etc.

Would you recommend the 50mm L or the 85mm L? Or, should I go for a wide angle prime?

Any advice is greatly appreciated.

 

[Loswr]

I'd recommend shooting for a while with the 24-105mm and using that experience to guide your decision. The choice of prime lens depends entirely on what you want to shoot...

 

[joos]

Agree with the post above. The "kit lens" is not your average joe ef-s lens. Better build quality, better glass, better coatings, and etc... Use it some time and see which focal length you tend to favor. Also I did some research before I bought mine and I suggest you do the same so you know what to expect.

All though you can't really go against the 50mm f/1.2L as along as you have the budget for it. I love my 50.

Good luck.

 

[arcanej]

Sounds like good advice. I will play around some more!

 

[Axilrod]

I agree with Neuro, figure out which focal lengths you use the most. But I would say that if this is the only prime you'll be able to get for a while, the 35L and 50L are both superb lenses and I use both of them much much more than my 85L. Don't get me wrong, the 85L is an awesome lens, but I think you'd get more use out of the 35 or 50 and then if you really like primes you could always get an 85 later on.

 

[JerryKnight]

Unless you just have too much money sitting around, I'd recommend starting with the USM primes. Mainly the 50mm/1.4 and 85/1.8. Both are affordable ($400-500), sharp, and fast on the AF. If you absolutely need f/1.2 then your choices are clear, but honestly, I rarely dip below f/2.0.

I think your first L-prime should probably be the 35mm/1.4L, but I really like my 24mm/1.4L. It's neat to have a wide-angle with the ability to give serious bokeh. But these are two L primes that don't have good USM counterparts. It's just hard to recommend the 50mm/1.2L over the 50mm/1.4 for someone just starting out with SLR's...

It's a lot like everything else, such as tennis racquets for example. You could learn tennis and immediately buy a $300 Babolat, but chances are you won't be able to fully put it to use, and a $75 Wilson is as much as you need. As you improve, and you start to feel limited by what you have, you can upgrade, but starting out, it's a lot of money to spend on something you may or may not pursue "all the way".

 

[Random Orbits]

35L or 50L over the 85L. The 85L focuses significantly slower than the other two lenses and is less suited for moving subjects.

 

[Axilrod]

Unless you just have too much money sitting around, I'd recommend starting with the USM primes. Mainly the 50mm/1.4 and 85/1.8. Both are affordable ($400-500), sharp, and fast on the AF. If you absolutely need f/1.2 then your choices are clear, but honestly, I rarely dip below f/2.0.

I think your first L-prime should probably be the 35mm/1.4L, but I really like my 24mm/1.4L. It's neat to have a wide-angle with the ability to give serious bokeh. But these are two L primes that don't have good USM counterparts. It's just hard to recommend the 50mm/1.2L over the 50mm/1.4 for someone just starting out with SLR's...

I actually agree completely with this, I didn't notice that he had just made the jump to DSLRs. But yes, the 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 are both stellar lenses and I owned both of them before getting their L counterparts. They are a great value, the total price on the pair will end up being 1/2 the price of any of the previously mentioned lenses. Down the road you can always upgrade if you really end up liking one of the focal lengths. And remember, a $300 prime will perform just as well as a $1000+ zoom, don't let the price fool you into thinking they are "cheap."

I guarantee you that you will be very impressed with the image quality with either of those over the point and shoots you're used to using. The worst thing that you can do is buy a ton of lenses right out of the gate. Get a few and spend tons of time shooting with them, learn their quirks/sweet spots, etc.

 

[arcanej]

I appreciate all of the advice. I've been a point and shoot for a long time but I genuinely love photography. I don't have money to burn per se, but my wife and I are making a commitment to get better at photography. We're signing up for a series of classes to get to know our camera and photo-editing software better. We will also accompany a pro-photographer friend this summer on a nature shoot to learn how to deal in the field.

As part of our summer trip, we will be in the market for a zoom lens to capture wildlife. We've also budgeted for a faster prime to walk around and have fun with. After thinking about how I've been using the camera so far, I may be leaning towards a wide angle lens as I have a lot more fun closer towards 24mm than 105mm. However, this isn't a huge rush and I think I'll take some more time to get a feel for the camera.

This photo was from 2003 (I think I was using a Canon point-and-shoot A75 at the time) - pic is of the port of Chania in Crete.

This was last summer using a Canon S95 - pic is of two redwoods in the Lady Bird Johnson Grove in California.

 

[EvilTed]

I'd get the 50mm F/1.8 "Nifty Fifty".
It's just over $100 at Amazon and in my opinion a lot sharper than the 24-105 @ 50mm (it's supposedly sharpest length).

If you like this length and need faster - get the 50mm F/1.2 L
If you need wider, I'd try the 35 F/1.4 L.
This is my strategy and for a $100, you can try it and if you don't like it, you haven't lost much and you have a nice cheap little lens with pretty decent optics

I got one today and it blew me away how good the results were wide open @ F/1.8 on the MK3.

ET

 

[Positron]

Whichever focal length you shoot at the most often. For general purpose photography, I'd personally pick the 35L if I could afford it.

I'd get the 50mm F/1.8 "Nifty Fifty".

I have to respectfully disagree. Build quality aside, the 50mm f/1.8 is just too light to be well-balanced on a 5D Mark III. I love my 1.8, but I'd go with the 1.4 for balance if nothing else. Then you also get the benefits of the larger maximum aperture, sharper image when stopped down to the same aperture (within limits), better build, better autofocus, and better resale value if you decide you don't like it.

 

[wickidwombat]

I appreciate all of the advice. I've been a point and shoot for a long time but I genuinely love photography. I don't have money to burn per se, but my wife and I are making a commitment to get better at photography. We're signing up for a series of classes to get to know our camera and photo-editing software better. We will also accompany a pro-photographer friend this summer on a nature shoot to learn how to deal in the field.

As part of our summer trip, we will be in the market for a zoom lens to capture wildlife. We've also budgeted for a faster prime to walk around and have fun with. After thinking about how I've been using the camera so far, I may be leaning towards a wide angle lens as I have a lot more fun closer towards 24mm than 105mm. However, this isn't a huge rush and I think I'll take some more time to get a feel for the camera.

This photo was from 2003 (I think I was using a Canon point-and-shoot A75 at the time) - pic is of the port of Chania in Crete.

This was last summer using a Canon S95 - pic is of two redwoods in the Lady Bird Johnson Grove in California.

for wild life on a budget, seriously look at the 300 f4L IS its an older design with only a 2 stop IS but you can pick them up second hand for between $800 and $1000 (i got mine off ebay for $800) its a fantastic lens
another benefit of this lens is if you slap a 1.4 teleconverter on it you get 420mm at f5.6 and keep IS and the nice 1.5m MFD. unfortunately it looks like the brilliant kenko teleconvertes dont work on the 5D mk3 so the expensive canon ones might be the only ones that work

 

[JerryKnight]

... I don't have money to burn per se, ...

The evidence suggests otherwise, given your flying leap to the top of the Canon DSLR line (not counting the 1D series).

... but my wife and I are making a commitment to get better at photography. We're signing up for a series of classes to get to know our camera and photo-editing software better. We will also accompany a pro-photographer friend this summer on a nature shoot to learn how to deal in the field.

As part of our summer trip, we will be in the market for a zoom lens to capture wildlife. We've also budgeted for a faster prime to walk around and have fun with. After thinking about how I've been using the camera so far, I may be leaning towards a wide angle lens as I have a lot more fun closer towards 24mm than 105mm. However, this isn't a huge rush and I think I'll take some more time to get a feel for the camera.

I applaud your enthusiasm and ability to drop big bucks on a "starter" camera, but I'm hoping you don't fall into the trap of believing that the equipment makes the photographer. You honestly could have started out with a T3i and been equally impressed. It's going to take you years to get to the artistic and technical level that the 5D3 is designed for.

I *really* don't mean to belittle your choice or goals, and your photos are great, but it's just the simple truth that nobody can learn this stuff over night. The classes will certainly help, and it's good you're seeking out professionals to hopefully teach you as much as possible, but I'm certain that for at least the first year, the 5D3 is more camera than you need. Again, respectfully...

I've been a regular assistant wedding photographer for almost 5 years, and I started out with a gray plastic Digital Rebel (300D). I quickly grew out of that and went with one more Rebel for a while before getting my first 5D. I am just now getting to where I can recognize good composition and timing, setup, etc. Actually capturing it consistently is another story. I can tell you, this stuff is hard.

I'm pretty sure you're not, but please do not think that throwing money at photography will automatically make you better. Having the best tools helps, but as I said previously, you need to grow into them to be able to use them effectively.

But regardless, don't listen to people like me. Enjoy photography and learn all you can. You're doing this for your own enjoyment, so only you get to decide how "good" you are, not me or anyone else. Enjoy your 5D3, and try to keep the other photographers from walking off with it!

 

[Positron]

I've been a regular assistant wedding photographer for almost 5 years, and I started out with a gray plastic Digital Rebel (300D). I quickly grew out of that and went with one more Rebel for a while before getting my first 5D. I am just now getting to where I can recognize good composition and timing, setup, etc. Actually capturing it consistently is another story. I can tell you, this stuff is hard.

These words hit me a little too close to home. I've had a DSLR for about 4 years; been into photography for approximately 7, and I still can't translate my vision into a final image consistently. Right now I shoot on a T2i and I want to get a (probably used) 5D Mark II so badly, but I feel like I'm not good enough to make use of it and I can't swallow the $1600 cost. I've been waiting with my hand on the trigger for almost a year now but just can't go through with it. I've been to my local photography store and electronics stores dozens, if not over a hundred times just to play with the 7D, 5D Mark II, and D700 over the past year. I feel terrible about wasting their time but when I look at the pictures I take I'm not even close to mastering what my current camera is capable of.

To the original poster: All these words aside, congratulations on your grand entry into the DSLR world. The images you posted as taken with your P&S are probably better than the ones I take with my DSLR now; you definitely seem to be serious about your pursuit of photography and the advice neuro gave you is probably the best that can be given. Shoot as often as possible, and as you improve, you'll also come to realize on your own which focal lengths you enjoy shooting, and the answer as to which lens to get next will make itself clear to you.

 

[ereka]

I wasn't intending to post this morning (it's 07:37 here in the UK) just lurk for a few minutes to see what's new, but I feel I have to respond to JerryKnight's post. With full respect to JerryKnight, it appears that the OP has a genuine enthusiasm for photography and is not a photography newbie, just picking up a different tool. OK, the technicalities of using a DSLR might take a while to master but, as JerryKnight points out, that in itself will not produce great images. That brings us to my favourite quote, from Ansell Adams i.e. "The most important part of a camera is the twelve inches behind it". It doesn't matter what tools are used, whether it be a point-and-shoot, toy camera with a plastic lens, a large format film camera, a technical camera, a DSLR or a pinhole. For all we know, the OP might have more artistic vision, creativity and imagination in his little finger than the rest of us have as a group. He might well be one of those really annoying people that because of these factors, combined with their energy and enthusiasm, rapidly surpass the wildest dreams of many of us who have been plodding on for years with our top of the range DSLRs without really getting anywhere. :'(

 

[joos]

I've been a regular assistant wedding photographer for almost 5 years, and I started out with a gray plastic Digital Rebel (300D). I quickly grew out of that and went with one more Rebel for a while before getting my first 5D. I am just now getting to where I can recognize good composition and timing, setup, etc. Actually capturing it consistently is another story. I can tell you, this stuff is hard.

These words hit me a little too close to home. I've had a DSLR for about 4 years; been into photography for approximately 7, and I still can't translate my vision into a final image consistently. Right now I shoot on a T2i and I want to get a (probably used) 5D Mark II so badly, but I feel like I'm not good enough to make use of it and I can't swallow the $1600 cost. I've been waiting with my hand on the trigger for almost a year now but just can't go through with it. I've been to my local photography store and electronics stores dozens, if not over a hundred times just to play with the 7D, 5D Mark II, and D700 over the past year. I feel terrible about wasting their time but when I look at the pictures I take I'm not even close to mastering what my current camera is capable of.

To the original poster: All these words aside, congratulations on your grand entry into the DSLR world. The images you posted as taken with your P&S are probably better than the ones I take with my DSLR now; you definitely seem to be serious about your pursuit of photography and the advice neuro gave you is probably the best that can be given. Shoot as often as possible, and as you improve, you'll also come to realize on your own which focal lengths you enjoy shooting, and the answer as to which lens to get next will make itself clear to you.

I have been there too. Not to long ago I was looking at some pictures I had taken with my Rebel XT a long time ago; all I could do after I reviewed the metadata was a face palm and ask myself what the hell was I thinking. Was able to get the composition I wanted, but my exposure, focal length and what ever else you can think of was just wrong.
After I started reading a lot and just trying things at the house as a review did I finally understand. You'll get there.

And to the original poster, its true... shoot often and if you end up having a day of botched shots, take it as a learning experience and keep your head up...

 

[Daniel Flather]

but I really like my 24mm/1.4L. It's neat to have a wide-angle with the ability to give serious bokeh.

+1

Worth its price right there.

 

[dichiaras]

I would go immediately for the 50mm 1.8: it's light, cheap, and it has a better IQ than both the 1.4 and 1.2, though it's slower.

 

[EvilTed]

Positron,

Later on you admit you don't even "have" a MK3 to try the nifty fifty on, that's funny

I do and brand new 70-200 F/2.8 II, 16-35 F/2.8 II and 24-105 F/4.
There is NOTHING unbalanced about the shots from the nifty on the MK3, in fact, I think that in poorer indoor light, they have given the sharpest best quality images out of all of my lenses.

So, rather than "speculating" when you give someone advice, how about referring to direct experience?

ET

 

[briansquibb]

I wasn't intending to post this morning (it's 07:37 here in the UK) just lurk for a few minutes to see what's new, but I feel I have to respond to JerryKnight's post. With full respect to JerryKnight, it appears that the OP has a genuine enthusiasm for photography and is not a photography newbie, just picking up a different tool. OK, the technicalities of using a DSLR might take a while to master but, as JerryKnight points out, that in itself will not produce great images. That brings us to my favourite quote, from Ansell Adams i.e. "The most important part of a camera is the twelve inches behind it". It doesn't matter what tools are used, whether it be a point-and-shoot, toy camera with a plastic lens, a large format film camera, a technical camera, a DSLR or a pinhole. For all we know, the OP might have more artistic vision, creativity and imagination in his little finger than the rest of us have as a group. He might well be one of those really annoying people that because of these factors, combined with their energy and enthusiasm, rapidly surpass the wildest dreams of many of us who have been plodding on for years with our top of the range DSLRs without really getting anywhere. :'(

+1

At least we didn't get the 'A 5DIII is only for pro' comment this time, athough there was the suggestion that he would been OK with a T3i