The Unholy Trinity of Non-L Primes?

[Synomis192]

I've always heard photographers that praise a photographer for collecting either a 35/50/85 or 24/50/135 lens collection. Those are really really great lens and I've only got to spend 30 minutes with a 50 f/1.2 and I ultimately fell in love with it.

Is there a non-L prime trinity out there that offers the best images?

Like this is what I'm thinking, if I were to get the non-L versions of the 35/50/135 lens is that a good enough prime collection?

 

[macrodust]

Both the 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.8 are really good value for the money, and I don't hesitate a second to recommend these.

On the wide end it's a bit trickier to find good non-L primes. I have the 28mm 1.8 and while I think it's a great focal length (being in between 24mm and 35mm), it really is a mediocre lens. I haven't tried the 35 2.0, but I frequently use the 40mm 2.8, which is a fantastic little lens considering the price and size!

I don't see any non-L "replacement" for the 135mm 2.0L. Save up for one! It's great, and it's cheap-ish for being an L lens.

 

[Hillsilly]

A prime lens collection that is "good enough" is a difficult question. I'm reasonably confident in saying that there aren't any "bad" lenses in the Canon collection. Most are good and more than adequate for most things. Some are very good and fill in the gaps for special needs.

Even the cheapest lens - the 50mm f/1.8 - is actually quite good once you've stopped it down a bit. In fact, virtually every cheap option is almost essentially as good as the "L" option except that they generally aren't as sharp at the widest apertures, feel a little flimsy, and their out of focus backgrounds aren't as nice.

For most things, the non-L 35/50/100 lenses will be almost as good, and you'd have to look closely to tell the differences. And even then, "differences" doesn't actually mean "better" (although, admittedly, generally it will). And as mentioned above, the 135mm f/2 is a very good lens if that's a focal length that interests you. Its worthwhile saving up.

 

[Canon-F1]

the 100mm f2 is better then the 85mm f1.8.

i don´t know why everyone recommends the 85mm.
the purple fringing of that lens, even when fixable in post, is annoying.

 

[Rat]

I don't see any non-L "replacement" for the 135mm 2.0L. Save up for one! It's great, and it's cheap-ish for being an L lens.

There is a non-L 135mm f/2.8 that includes a softfocus setting, which is about half as expensive as the 135L. I have *no* idea how good or how usable that lens is, but it's there

 

[The Bad Duck]

As said, the 100/2.0 and the 85/1.8 are really great lenses. I have the 85 and love it, although if I was to get one of these lenses today it would be the 100. I am using a 5D mkII. If I had used a crop camera I would have prefered the 85 /1.8.

The 28/1.8 has a bad reputation, but I find mine really good; it seems every bit as sharp as my 35 /1.4 L but with less wonderful contrast/colours, and less interesting focal length. On crop, I would get the 20/ 2.8 based on what I read from reviews.

The 50 /1.8 I had only lasted two mounths. It broke in two pieces. The glass was good though.
The 50 /1.4 is rather ok from f/2. I like the focal length but I will probably get the L-version of this lens at some point (but I will not get the L-version of the 85 since the 1.8 seems good enough). On crop, the sigma 30 /1.4 should do the trick.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I own the 50mm f/1.4, the 85mm f/1.8, and the 35mm f/2 as part of my kit. I use both a 5D MK2 body and a Canon 60D body. I would have to say of those three lens that the 50mm f/1.4 is my least favorite. The 85mm is a well known; a great lens that produces a similar effect/result (just not as pronounced) to the 135mm f/2L.

The 35mm f/2 is an interesting lens. It is very sharp on a FF body even wide open. It produces good color. It is also buzzy in AF and can produce slightly busy bokeh for my tastes. It is also somewhat prone to purple fringing, but fortunately the latest version of Lightroom makes that a non-issue these days, and from what I understand, the MK3 deals with that in body. But one of its biggest plusses (besides a great focal length) is that is has great delineation. You can have more in the frame but yet very nice separation of your subject from the background. It also focuses much closer than the other two lens.

I wish that Canon would revisit the lens and update it with USM and perhaps a little smoother transition to ooF areas. Of course, with Canon's revised pricing it would probably cost $800. Right now it is a bargain. Light. Sharp. An easy lens to throw in the pocket and as is sharper than either my 17-40mm f/4L or 24-105mm f/4L IS by f/2.8. This shot was taken this week, wide open, with the 35mm f/2. There is some small processing in Lightroom 4, but more to do with color/saturation than any kind of sharpness.

 

[elflord]

I've always heard photographers that praise a photographer for collecting either a 35/50/85 or 24/50/135 lens collection. Those are really really great lens and I've only got to spend 30 minutes with a 50 f/1.2 and I ultimately fell in love with it.

Is there a non-L prime trinity out there that offers the best images?

Like this is what I'm thinking, if I were to get the non-L versions of the 35/50/135 lens is that a good enough prime collection?

The Sigma 85mm is an obvious choice, though at its price point and quality it really plays with L glass. 35 f/2 / Sigma 85 f/1.4 / 135L would make a pretty solid budget trinity.

The only issues with your proposed trinity are that 35mm and 50mm are pretty close together (if you have a 50, you might start looking at 24mm instead of 35mm), and there's not much point getting a budget 135 (the 135L is one of the best values in the lineup).

If you can live with manual focus, Samyang's lenses are a steal at the wide angle.

 

[sandymandy]

100mm macro 2.8 is as good as the L version of it.

 

[crasher8]

I think the 40 2.8 is my solution for a great low priced 35mm on FF. This little gem has more going for it than cons. I had the 35 f/2 and used it on both crop and FF and just couldn't deal with the CA, buzzing and hunting/seeking AF. I liked the color rendering and FL but the low blade count made the blur too choppy.

If I was to buy Primes on a semi-budget I'd get:

Sigma 30 1.4 (crop)
Canon Pancake 40 (FF-it's a weird FL on a crop)
Sigma 50 1.4 (both)
Canon 100 f/2 (Very underrated, no CA issues like the 85)
EF 135 L (This and the 70-200 f/4 L are two L lenses you should really get, best bargains in the Canon lineup)
Another great portrait lens is the Canon 100 f/2.8 Macro. Almost too sharp for some folks. Better on kids and youth portraits.

 

[Loswr]

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.

 

[LostArk]

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.

While I wouldn't hesitate to call the 35-85-135 a "holy trinity" of lenses, I find that the difference in perspective between 85 and 135 to be minimal, so to have both in one's trinity strikes me as redundant.

As for the "unholy trinity" of non-L primes, that's easy:

24mm f/2.8 IS, Sigma 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8 (or 100 f/2)

 

[CharlieB]

the 100mm f2 is better then the 85mm f1.8.

i don´t know why everyone recommends the 85mm.
the purple fringing of that lens, even when fixable in post, is annoying.

Yup +1

I've got the 28/1.8, and have tested it against the 24-105L at 28mm and F/4.0. The 28/1.8 is much better than the 24-105L at F/4.0. And, you can let things suffer a little, and open it up 2-1/3 more stops if need be.

If I had three, and only three CANON lenses to pick... whew... tough choice.

I'd go 100/2.8 macro, non-L over the 100/2.0

I'd go 50/1.4 but if I could find a version-I of the 50/1.8, I'd get it.

And, 28/1.8 easily for wide.

And thats IF my only choice was three.

People hate it, but the 20/2.8 is not a bad performer... especially when you have peripheral illumination correction.

 

[dr croubie]

I've got the Samyang 35/1.4, 40/2.8 Pancake, Takumar 50/1.4, EF 50/1.8 II, FL 55/1.2, EF 85/1.8, EF 100/2.0.

Pick any of those and you've got your 'unholy non-L trinity' (my best suggestion would be the Samyang 35, FL55/1.2, EF 100/2.0, that's generally what's in my bag if there's only space for 3).
Lack of AF at the wider ends really doesn't bother me, there's always Live View and Katz Eye screens...

Edit: I just realised I've also got the 40 Pancake (it's so small I forget it's there sometimes). That can replace the Samyang 35 in some situations, but then nothing's really wide. So it could replace both the 35mm and 50/55mm lengths, then add in the Tokina 17/3.5 or Mir 20/2.5, or any number of 28/2.8s I seem to have to cover the wide end, and keep either the 85/1.8 or 100/2.0 (of course that will depend if i'm shooing crop or FFFilm)

Aren't interchangeable lenses great?

 

[wickidwombat]

My current Non L Unholy trinity

20mm Voigtlander color skopar f3.5 SLII
40mm Canon f2.8 Pancake
85mm Sigma f1.4

I basically carry these everywhere with my 5Dmk3

however I am eagerly awaiting the new sigma 35 f1.4 which will most likely replace the 40mm pancake in this trinity

I also have the 50mm sigma f1.4 which is really good too but much bigger than the shorty forty.
The 20mm and 40mm both take 52mm filters so they can share, and i have CPL, 10stop ND and IR filters in 52mm which stay in the bag with these guys.

 

[spinworkxroy]

The question is not which lens to buy but which focal length you really need?
Granted, having the trinity L lense is alwasys a dream of almost everyone but i also know not everyone has the budget for it so it's good know know which focal length is the mostly used for yourself then you can make a better decision.

For myself, although many people swear by a 50mm lens, i actually find that my LEAST most used lens.
THe most used one is the 85 f1.8 because of what i shoot.
And when i'm out and about just shooting for fun, i usually use the 24-105 or 17-40. I almost never use the 50mm.

 

[wayno]

As far as IQ relative to cost goes, the Trinity would surely be:
50 1.4
85 1.8
100 macro non L
?

 

[ciao_chao]

Personally, I quite enjoy using the 28/85 combo. The 28 is a lovely length, and I do like the fastness of it, so it's not the best optically, but it's good. While I'll accept 85/1.8 is an ancient lens, it's a good one mainly because I find the 100mm length a bit neither here nor there.

Well, as to 135mm replacements, I have a CZJ Sonnar f3.5, now it's totally different to the f2L but it has some of that Zeiss magic that a lot of people talk about, and while I know many of you will be dubious, but so was I until I actually used it, and no it's not expensive either.

 

[dgan1]

Dont know about the perfect trinity but ive been quite impressed by all the non l primes ive used but the ones i own are the only ones i will comment on.

28 1.8 used at f2 and above is nice and sharp, well at least my copy is, very fast focussing too. Great "street" lens.

50 2.5 macro. Not a true macro, but focusses close, produces nice smooth out of focus areas, is razor sharp and very cheap, i got mine for $150 (considering its performance) second hand. But it does have possibly the slowest/hunting auto focus of any lens i have used, but i still love it as the image quality is just fantastic.

100 2.8 (non L) macro great lens sharp and i doubt you would notice any difference between it and the L macro (apart from build quality and IS) Ive owned both and kept the non L. Heres a gallery of my pics using the 100 2.8 and raynox dcr250 combo the 100 2.8 on its own is sharper again http://gippslandimages.com.au/p1056430360 the jumping spider on the white bground is taken with the 50 2.5 and manual extension tubes.

Cheers
Daniel

 

[Synomis192]

I own the 50mm f/1.4, the 85mm f/1.8, and the 35mm f/2 as part of my kit. I use both a 5D MK2 body and a Canon 60D body. I would have to say of those three lens that the 50mm f/1.4 is my least favorite. The 85mm is a well known; a great lens that produces a similar effect/result (just not as pronounced) to the 135mm f/2L.

The 35mm f/2 is an interesting lens. It is very sharp on a FF body even wide open. It produces good color. It is also buzzy in AF and can produce slightly busy bokeh for my tastes. It is also somewhat prone to purple fringing, but fortunately the latest version of Lightroom makes that a non-issue these days, and from what I understand, the MK3 deals with that in body. But one of its biggest plusses (besides a great focal length) is that is has great delineation. You can have more in the frame but yet very nice separation of your subject from the background. It also focuses much closer than the other two lens.

I wish that Canon would revisit the lens and update it with USM and perhaps a little smoother transition to ooF areas. Of course, with Canon's revised pricing it would probably cost $800. Right now it is a bargain. Light. Sharp. An easy lens to throw in the pocket and as is sharper than either my 17-40mm f/4L or 24-105mm f/4L IS by f/2.8. This shot was taken this week, wide open, with the 35mm f/2. There is some small processing in Lightroom 4, but more to do with color/saturation than any kind of sharpness.

I was thinking about getting that combo too, but I feel like if I get the 35/50/85 I'll be missing some stuff on the wider end of the spectrum. Especially since I'm on an APS-C sensor right now. I'd probably have to pick up a Rokinon 14mm and add it to that collection. Thanks for giving your input about the 35mm f/2 though. I was always so curious about that little guy. He seems so promising, but some people don't like the lens at all for some reason. I'm just glad that Canon hasn't made a 35mm f/2.8 IS. That would just break the bank. They might as well just make an 85mm f/2.8 IS haha.

The question is not which lens to buy but which focal length you really need?
Granted, having the trinity L lense is alwasys a dream of almost everyone but i also know not everyone has the budget for it so it's good know know which focal length is the mostly used for yourself then you can make a better decision.

For myself, although many people swear by a 50mm lens, i actually find that my LEAST most used lens.
THe most used one is the 85 f1.8 because of what i shoot.
And when i'm out and about just shooting for fun, i usually use the 24-105 or 17-40. I almost never use the 50mm.

I understand what you mean about the whole focal length situation. My problem is that I have extreme days where I have my kit lens stuck at 18mm and I shot wide, or I have some days (like at the moment) where I slap on my 55-250 and keep it on. I don't know what my favorite focal lenght is so I'm just trying to decided what kind of "trinity" of primes I should build my collection from. Lightroom said that my most used focal lengths are 18mm, 28mm, 55mm. So should I try to build a collection from that data?

I've got the Samyang 35/1.4, 40/2.8 Pancake, Takumar 50/1.4, EF 50/1.8 II, FL 55/1.2, EF 85/1.8, EF 100/2.0.

Pick any of those and you've got your 'unholy non-L trinity' (my best suggestion would be the Samyang 35, FL55/1.2, EF 100/2.0, that's generally what's in my bag if there's only space for 3).
Lack of AF at the wider ends really doesn't bother me, there's always Live View and Katz Eye screens...

Edit: I just realised I've also got the 40 Pancake (it's so small I forget it's there sometimes). That can replace the Samyang 35 in some situations, but then nothing's really wide. So it could replace both the 35mm and 50/55mm lengths, then add in the Tokina 17/3.5 or Mir 20/2.5, or any number of 28/2.8s I seem to have to cover the wide end, and keep either the 85/1.8 or 100/2.0 (of course that will depend if i'm shooing crop or FFFilm)

Aren't interchangeable lenses great?

Yes, interchangeable lenses are amazing. My problem about getting Rokinon/FL mount lenses is that I'll be "upgrading" so to speak to a Canon 5Dc. My live view capabilties are going to go bye bye haha. I don't use live view anyways. It's a hassle and I like having quick AF.

I've got the 28/1.8, and have tested it against the 24-105L at 28mm and F/4.0. The 28/1.8 is much better than the 24-105L at F/4.0. And, you can let things suffer a little, and open it up 2-1/3 more stops if need be.

If I had three, and only three CANON lenses to pick... whew... tough choice.

I'd go 100/2.8 macro, non-L over the 100/2.0

I'd go 50/1.4 but if I could find a version-I of the 50/1.8, I'd get it.

And, 28/1.8 easily for wide.

And thats IF my only choice was three.

People hate it, but the 20/2.8 is not a bad performer... especially when you have peripheral illumination correction.

I like that combo suggestion, interesting that you throw the 20mm into the fray. I've been thinking about purchasing that lens once I got FF because it seems like it'd be a good wide angle when I need it. A lot if people say that it performs well on a FF body.