What prime should I get?

[pcdebb]

So I've outgrown my kit lens (still having fun with my zoom tho). I"m looking for a good prime. I would do general stuff with it, but I like taking candid and/or portraits. I would like something that does well with low light. I had a 35mm with my Nikon that did that well. I'm reading the 50 f/1.8 is cheaply built, might look at the f/1.4 or even the 40mm pancake or even an 85mm?

 

[Ryan85]

I wish I would've bought a prime lens way sooner than I did instead of just using my my cheap first kit lens. I think any of those will be fine for you. The 50 1.8 is cheaply built but for 100 dollars it's a awesome lens. It's very sharp and the best bang for the buck of any lens by any manufacturer IMO.... Now I personally have the 50 1.4 and o can't see much of a sharpness differences between that and the 1.8 but it's better built. I also have the 85 1.8'and I love it. It's sharp and focuses very fast. Of those the 85 is my favorite and what I'd get. But it's kinda what reach and perspective you want. If you really want to do macro the lens the 100lL macro is awesome. It's a very nice portriat lens too. But it's around 1000 dollars.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

So I've outgrown my kit lens (still having fun with my zoom tho). I"m looking for a good prime. I would do general stuff with it, but I like taking candid and/or portraits. I would like something that does well with low light. I had a 35mm with my Nikon that did that well. I'm reading the 50 f/1.8 is cheaply built, might look at the f/1.4 or even the 40mm pancake or even an 85mm?

The prime I used the most on my 5D3 is the 35mm f2IS, IQ is terrific , focuses very fast, has IS and lens is very light. I used for group pictures, street Photography, candids and some full body portrait. Distortion is well controlled, CA is very low (if any) and little of vigneting at the widest apperture in FF, with APS-C no problem at all.

 

[tayassu]

Assuming you have an APS-C body, the best do-it-all focal length is 24mm, the FF equivalent of ~35mm.
That doesn't do very well for portraits. For portraits, on APS-C 50-85mm is the best. That doesn't do well for general stuff. So I'd recommend you to get a 35mm. That is good for both, as it represents the human eyesight best (equiv. 50mm).
There are two good 35mm AF options out there: the Canon 35/2 IS and the Sigma 35/1.4.
The Sigma is way heavier, bigger and 300$ more expensive at 900$, but it has got the f1.4, which is a big help to stop motion in low-light.
For general use, though, f2 is more than enough, PLUS you get IS, which is a huge help. That one is a great, sharp lens, it is small, light, handy and at 600$ not hugely expensive. That would be my recommendation for you.

 

[Northstar]

So I've outgrown my kit lens (still having fun with my zoom tho). I"m looking for a good prime. I would do general stuff with it, but I like taking candid and/or portraits. I would like something that does well with low light. I had a 35mm with my Nikon that did that well. I'm reading the 50 f/1.8 is cheaply built, might look at the f/1.4 or even the 40mm pancake or even an 85mm?

It sounds like you're on a budget, so get the 40mm 2.8 if you want something wider.....get the 85 1.8 if you want something longer.

These are both pretty decent quality lenses that will last a long time.

 

[Khnnielsen]

So I've outgrown my kit lens (still having fun with my zoom tho). I"m looking for a good prime. I would do general stuff with it, but I like taking candid and/or portraits. I would like something that does well with low light. I had a 35mm with my Nikon that did that well. I'm reading the 50 f/1.8 is cheaply built, might look at the f/1.4 or even the 40mm pancake or even an 85mm?

The prime I used the most on my 5D3 is the 35mm f2IS, IQ is terrific , focuses very fast, has IS and lens is very light. I used for group pictures, street Photography, candids and some full body portrait. Distortion is well controlled, CA is very low (if any) and little of vigneting at the widest apperture in FF, with APS-C no problem at all.

The 35mm f2 IS was my very first prime lens, and I love it - both on a FF and a crop body.

On a crop body you can shoot macro-like stuff with its minimum focus distance of 24 cm/0.8 ft.

 

[Cosmicbug]

I'd look for a good deal on the Canon 50mm f1.4. Not too expensive with good low light use

 

[RLPhoto]

50mm 1.8. It's cheap and if you don't like the focal length, it didn't cost you much.

 

[bholliman]

I agree with those recommending the EF 35mm f/2 IS lens. I've owned one for four months and its become one of my favorite lenses, over several much more expensive lenses with red rings around them!

I assume you have an APS-C camera, the 35mm focal length will give you a "normal" field of view that is great for general shooting. Long enough for upper body and wider portraits (you don't want to get too close with this or shorter focal lengths or it will distort the facial features in an unflattering way), but short enough to be very useful indoors. The 35/2 IS is terrific optically, not quite as sharp as the Sigma 35 Aft, but very close:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=824&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=829&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

Compared with the Sigma 35 Art, the Canon lens is also has image stabilization (S35A does not), much better autofocus accuracy and speed and weighs 1/2 what the Sigma does (335 grams vs. 665 grams) and is $300 cheaper. For me the 35/2 IS was the clear choice between these two lenses, but if you really want/need f/1.4 (another full stop of light gathering) and the best image quality available in a 35mm prime, and can live with potential autofocus issues, then the Sigma would be a better choice.

All of that said, what is your budget? The Canon 35/2 IS cost $550 to $600. If your budget is half that, I would suggest the Canon 50mm f/1.4 instead. Its an older lens (introduced in 1993), very small and compact (290 grams) with decent image quality. Its autofocus is slower and less accurate than newer USM lenses, but its built better than the nifty fifty (50/1.8 ) and sharper. At this price point you have to make some compromises.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

It is difficult to recommend a lens without knowing what you already have, and if will be used on APS-C or full frame.

So I will recommend lenses prepared for the future:

EF35mm F2 IS (great quality and modest price)
EF40mm F2.8 STM (better image quality up to $ 200)
Sigma 50mm F1.4 Art (better image quality than any 50mm Canon)
EF85mm F1.8 (unbeatable in its price)
EF100mm F2 (image quality similar to that glorious Canon 135L)

 

[surapon]

So I've outgrown my kit lens (still having fun with my zoom tho). I"m looking for a good prime. I would do general stuff with it, but I like taking candid and/or portraits. I would like something that does well with low light. I had a 35mm with my Nikon that did that well. I'm reading the 50 f/1.8 is cheaply built, might look at the f/1.4 or even the 40mm pancake or even an 85mm?

Dear Friend , Mr. pcdebb
I recommend Sigma 50 mm F/ 1.4 = $ 399 US Dollars ( Not the ART one =$ 900 + US Dollars= Too High cost .), Yes, I have 19 Canon Lenses, And Plus 5 Diff. Brand name Lenses, And I am very happy about this only Sigma lens that I own.
3 years ago, I want Canon 50 Mm. F/ 1.4 which $ 100 US Dollars Cheaper than Sigma, But , after I read the PRO review, I buy this Sigma Lens.

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-50mm-Canon-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0018ZDGAC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1417959948&sr=8-1&keywords=sigma+50mm+for+canon

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_50_1p4_c16/

Good Luck.
Surapon

 

[jdramirez]

I think 35 mm on crop is a bit more functional. 50mm (80mm with 1.6 crop factor) can be a touch long... ditto with the 85mm. But the 85 does a really nice job... though there is some purple fringing... the f/1.8 50 does feel cheap, and it is loud, but it is really sharp and nice around f/2.8. Which is probably why I would suggest going with the 40mm. F/2.8 is sharp, it isn't as long as the 50 or the 80, and cheaper than most of the canon 35mm options.

As for the f/1.4 50mm... the auto focus is faster and quieter, but it is fragile. If you don't drop it... it will be fine... but if you do drop the lens, the AF groove can be misaligned and never be right again. I hated the 50mm f/1.4 because I was afraid of breaking it.

 

[mrzero]

We're all assuming you're on a crop sensor (Rebel, 60D, 70D, 7D series, etc.). If not, adjust accordingly.

I would suggest two primes, so you can play around a bit at both the wide and long(ish) ends of the normal zoom range.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the new 24mm 2.8 EF-S STM pancake lens. I think it would be good for you to consider. The focal length is equivalent to 38mm on a full-frame or film camera (your old Nikon, perhaps?), and the price is about $150 US. It would be good for candid pictures.

The 50mm 1.8 is a great lens despite the similarly cheap price. On crop, it will be equivalent to 80mm. If you shoot at 1.8, it will have soft blurry backgrounds (bokeh) and a very narrow slice of focus. It would be good for portraits and low-light shooting. It is also about $125 or so. The 40mm is another option, but it will be a little bit shorter, have a little less bokeh, and not as good in low light, but it really isn't much different in size or price. The only big difference is that the 40mm is STM focus, which is smoother and quieter if you shoot a lot of video on your DSLR.

An 85mm would be pretty long on a crop camera, more intended for headshot-type portraiture. It is the equivalent of 136mm, which is a good bit of reach and can get awkward if you don't have enough room.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

With your Canon T3, I'd recommend a 35mm f/2 IS as your first prime. Its close to the normal focal length for a crop sensor. It will also be a great lens for video or on a full frame body. I presume your previous post about a upgrade means you will stay with crop bodies.

There are some good deals on 70D's right now, and there will be more as Christmas approaches.

 

[FTb-n]

With your Canon T3, I'd recommend a 35mm f/2 IS as your first prime. Its close to the normal focal length for a crop sensor. It will also be a great lens for video or on a full frame body. I presume your previous post about a upgrade means you will stay with crop bodies.

+1

I love my 35 f2.0 IS lens. It's sharp, bright (more than a stop brighter than the 70-200 f2.8L II) and focuses much quicker than the old non-IS version. At a 56 mm "full frame equivalent", it's a good normal lens for crop. The f2.0 and IS will give you great low light potential.

If you're looking for something cheaper, I can also recommend the 40 f2.8 pancake. Also very sharp.

If you want something wider, look at the new 28 f2.8 IS or the new EF-S 24 f2.8 STM. I can't speak from experience, but these have been favorably compared to the 35 IS and the 40.

As for 50 mm lenses, I'd wait. Canon is expected to replace the 1.8 and/or the 1.4. They are old, tired, and soft compared to the new primes that Canon has introduced (at least wide open). With the recent IS versions of the 28 and 35, I'm hoping for IS 50 f1.8 or faster -- maybe by next spring?? I know, wishful thinking.

 

[pcdebb]

Thank you all so much for your feedback! I'm kinda sorta on a budget but at the same time I want to get something that will last. I'm usually very good at protecting my electronics, and like some said, I can get the 50 1.8 and not be such a big hit to the wallet. I used a 35 1.8 with Nikon and swore by it.

The next on the list is maybe a wide angle, more for landscapes, sunsets, etc.

 

[Spiros Zaharakis]

If you are on a tight budget I recommend getting the 24 f2.8STM pancake and the 50 f1.8. Total cost will be less than buying one of the more expensive lenses and you will get amazing results for the money. If you can spend more, opt for the better built 50 f1.4 instead.