High IQ Zoom and neccessity of primes...

[nicksan]

I just want to get different perspective on this.

I have 2 lenses...17-55IS and 70-700 f/4L IS.
I also have the nifty fifty which pretty much stays in the bag.

I was looking at the f/1.4 version of the fifty. I'm trying to figure out if I should even bother given that the 17-55 is razor sharp and is just a great lens.

I realize that the IS can naver substitute for the physical difference in the wider aperture on the 1.4 and the wider aperture would afford me faster shutter speeds for subject movement. (Although I question the usability at 1.4 - 1.8 for that type of shooting)

Just wondering if any of you have pondered the same thing.

Some of the the primes I am looking at would be.
50mm 1.4
85mm 1.8
100mm Macro

Wondering if this is all just redundant given my lens lineup...

[Hawg Hanner]

On the 30D? Nah, I wouldn't recommend it, especially since you already own the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM. However, a nice fast lens for portraits might be very handy. Perhaps you should consider the Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM or the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC USM. Those focal lengths and speeds are likely to be a better fit for your camera with a 1.6 crop factor.

[ed rader]

I just want to get different perspective on this.

I have 2 lenses...17-55IS and 70-700 f/4L IS.
I also have the nifty fifty which pretty much stays in the bag.

I was looking at the f/1.4 version of the fifty. I'm trying to figure out if I should even bother given that the 17-55 is razor sharp and is just a great lens.

I realize that the IS can naver substitute for the physical difference in the wider aperture on the 1.4 and the wider aperture would afford me faster shutter speeds for subject movement. (Although I question the usability at 1.4 - 1.8 for that type of shooting)

Just wondering if any of you have pondered the same thing.

Some of the the primes I am looking at would be.
50mm 1.4
85mm 1.8
100mm Macro

Wondering if this is all just redundant given my lens lineup...

with the 17-55 you may never use the 50 1.4. i think if you needed the 50 1.4 you would know it.

i think that even @ f2.2 the 50 will not be as sharp as the 17-55 wide open.

you have the PERFECT 2-lens combo imo and i would not add to it unless you need to.

ed rader

[Rumjungle]

If your 50/1.8 stays in the bag, I'm willing to bet the 1.4 will stay in the bag as well. Sure, it'll pull in 4 times as much light as your 2.8, but that doesn't matter if it's in storage.:)

The 100 macro, however, is not redundant. The focal length may be covered by the 70-200, but its 1:1 macro capability is not.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

I'd get the 85 1.8. You don't have that length with any speed.

[blam]

get one of these 2
85mm 1.8
100mm Macro

lean towards the macro if you do macro shooting

[nicksan]

I'd get the 85 1.8. You don't have that length with any speed.

Yeah, I was thinking getting something in that "mid-range" range...
85 or 100.

I also agree that the 100 Macro is something that I should consider outside this debate since it is a speciality lens with the Macro capability.

I guess the times when the faster lens would help me would be action shots, which I don't do too much of. Always nice to have should I need it.

I don't think the 70-200 f/4IS would be too useful in indoor action shots.

But I guess I also answered that question...the fact that I don't typically shoot action indoors. I don't REALLY need it.

I guess I'm going through Lens buying withdrawal symptoms...so far in my young DSLR "career" I have purchased a lens every other month. Darn double rebates!

Man...it's REALLY hard to resist. My hands are shaking as I type this.:)

Thanks for setting me straight!!!

[BearLeeAlive]

With a 17-55 f2.8 you would not likely need the speed of the 50 f1.4 too often. Before getting my 50 f1.4, the 85 f1.8 was my go to lens, but I found it too long in many cases. I have just picked up the 100 macro and am going to see if it can replace the 85 as a portrait lens for the few times that I would need a long lens for this, though I did get it primarily for its macro capabilities. If I stick with a 1.6 crop camera I will likely get a 30 1.4 or similar lens.

I chose to go with a good set of f4 zoom lenses for their light weight. I can then carry more focal lengths with me when hiking, skiing or just walking about. I plan to supplement this with a few fast primes for those low light conditions or where a smooth bokeh is desired.

[blam]

I personally am debating on whether or not to get something fast in the 30mm range, but I really don't know how much use it will get since I am looking at getting a 24-70 F2.8L

[Mr. Clean]

I second the 85 idea. If I had a 17-55 I don't think I'd use anything else in that focal range for sure. The 85 1.8 kills indoor action shots!

[Broncobear]

If your 50/1.8 stays in the bag, I'm willing to bet the 1.4 will stay in the bag as well. Sure, it'll pull in 4 times as much light as your 2.8, but that doesn't matter if it's in storage.:)

The 100 macro, however, is not redundant. The focal length may be covered by the 70-200, but its 1:1 macro capability is not.


try a test shot with the 50mm 1.4...it brings POP to a whole new level.

[nicksan]

I second the 85 idea. If I had a 17-55 I don't think I'd use anything else in that focal range for sure. The 85 1.8 kills indoor action shots!

My wallet is screaming "Noooooooooooo!"....

[sirsloop]

I think you forgot to ask youself what you will be doing with this lens. In the first post the first line should have been somethine like "I want a better lens to shoot "X", and I dont know if my two lenses, 17-55IS and 70-700 f/4L IS, are going to work."

The three lenses you listed are VERY different and have VERY different uses! The 50/1.4 is a great portrait lens, but has a lousy focusing distance. The 85 is really a FF portrait lens. The 100 macro is a macro lens... too long for portrait work and not really ideal for a walk around lens.

Figure out what you want to shoot first, them pick up the lens that makes the most sense. If you want a walk around lens, I think you have it covered just fine. If you are looking for more light, maybe a hotshoe flash like the 430ex or 580ex should be looked at!!!

the other reply summed up the 50mm debate... if the 50/1.8 stays in the bag the 1.4 isnt gonna get used any more often!! In fact i'm probably gonna sell my 50 as well - its never used over my 35/2 and 70-200/2.8L

[nicksan]

I think you forgot to ask youself what you will be doing with this lens. In the first post the first line should have been somethine like "I want a better lens to shoot "X", and I dont know if my two lenses, 17-55IS and 70-700 f/4L IS, are going to work."

The three lenses you listed are VERY different and have VERY different uses! The 50/1.4 is a great portrait lens, but has a lousy focusing distance. The 85 is really a FF portrait lens. The 100 macro is a macro lens... too long for portrait work and not really ideal for a walk around lens.

Figure out what you want to shoot first, them pick up the lens that makes the most sense. If you want a walk around lens, I think you have it covered just fine. If you are looking for more light, maybe a hotshoe flash like the 430ex or 580ex should be looked at!!!

the other reply summed up the 50mm debate... if the 50/1.8 stays in the bag the 1.4 isnt gonna get used any more often!! In fact i'm probably gonna sell my 50 as well - its never used over my 35/2 and 70-200/2.8L

Actually, what I wanted to know was if others here have also wondered about the same thing in general since some of the nicer zoom lenses are such great performers.

Sure, obviously these lenses have different purposes.

Lastly, I already have a 580EX...it's in my sig...

[sirsloop]

You have two super nice thousand dollar zoom lenses... dont think you need to worry about a couple of $400 prime lenses. :) Both the 17-55 and 70-200L offer top notch IQ.

If you need a specific lens for portrait work, or absolutely need the stops at 50mm then sure the primes are nice. You never use your 50/1.8 now, so theres no need to even consider a 50 or 85. The only lens here that I can see peaking your interest is the 100 macro for specific macro use.

[SoundsGood]

You have two super nice thousand dollar zoom lenses... dont think you need to worry about a couple of $400 prime lenses. :)
Good point.

I just ordered the 70-200 f/4 IS myself, and I'm thinking about getting the 17-55. If I do, I'll be selling my primes. As it is I never use them... with the 17-55 I'd really never use them.

[sirsloop]

Good point.

I just ordered the 70-200 f/4 IS myself, and I'm thinking about getting the 17-55. If I do, I'll be selling my primes. As it is I never use them... with the 17-55 I'd really never use them.

I was thinking about getting a 17-40L myself... but I cant bear it to part with my 35/2. :lol: