Fixed Focal vs Zoom

[DieselGirl]

Here are the lenses I have already gotten in ...what...three weeks that I have owned this camera? Actually, I don't remembe when I got it, but it's been about a month now or so.

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Zoom Lens
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Lens
Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Lens
Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Lens ( came with camera)

I am noticing that fix focal seems to be better suited to what I am shooting, which is mostly people and animals. The down fall is that you are stuck with a zillion lenses but the quality is just simply better in my eyes.

I looked at the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM Zoom Lens this weekend. The damn thing is so big I can't see myself lugging it around! I also don't know if I would ever use it. I'm sure I can but I wasn't ready to buy it quite yet. Maybe it's me, but I wasn't completely thrilled at the quality of the pictures I took with that lense (the store employee let me play with the lens for a while)

Thoughts??

[Olegis]

It's all up to you and your style of shooting. Big bad zooms are very convinient to use and the 70-200L (both f/4 and f/2.8 ) produce excellent quality photographs - but if they are too heavy for you to walk around taking pictures you like, they will be useless.

[Tom W]

Here are the lenses I have already gotten in ...what...three weeks that I have owned this camera? Actually, I don't remembe when I got it, but it's been about a month now or so.

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Zoom Lens
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Lens
Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Lens
Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Lens ( came with camera)

I am noticing that fix focal seems to be better suited to what I am shooting, which is mostly people and animals. The down fall is that you are stuck with a zillion lenses but the quality is just simply better in my eyes.

I looked at the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM Zoom Lens this weekend. The damn thing is so big I can't see myself lugging it around! I also don't know if I would ever use it. I'm sure I can but I wasn't ready to buy it quite yet. Maybe it's me, but I wasn't completely thrilled at the quality of the pictures I took with that lense (the store employee let me play with the lens for a while)

Thoughts??

The general rule is that the fixed-length lenses are generally a bit sharper (thought not always) than the zooms. Zooms represent a bit of a compromise since they need to be perfectly optomized for every focal length within their range. So there are tradeoffs related to the zooms.

What environment were you testing the 70-200 in? It is generally an excellent lens. The reason I ask what environment is that long telephotos present some issues that aren't nearly as prevalent in shorter-length lenses. The primary issue is that the longer the magnification of the lens, the more it amplifies body shake. That requires that you either use a tripod or monopod, steady yourself against something solid, or use a higher shutter speed. Otherwise, any little movement that may not show up on a shorter lens will be apparent on the longer lens.

What kind of shutter and aperture settings were you using with the 70-200?

Here's another idea - keep shooting with what you've got for a little while longer and see just what focal lengths you tend to use the most. Naturally, your 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 are highly suited to low-light situations, but when outdoors, see how you're using the two zooms. Take mental note of what shutter speeds and apertures you're most frequently using as well as what focal length you tend to use.

If you find yourself butting up against the 135 mm end of the 28-135 zoom frequently, that is an indication that a longer lens is needed. Also, if you tend to push the lower end of the shutter speed with that lens, you may need a bit wider aperture to allow yourself a faster shutter speed (and don't forget to use the ISO setting capabilities of the camera to "shift" the available shutter/aperture combinations when necessary). Just try to make a better assessment of your needs.

Then go out and test the 70-200 again, taking into account the issues of camera shake vs. aperture/shutter speed and all that. See if the focal length is right for the application and see if the lens has enough available aperture to let you use a faster shutter in the situations where you will use the lens.

And after all that, it might just be that you really have all the lenses that you need anyway.

[Andy_T]

I looked at the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM Zoom Lens this weekend. The damn thing is so big I can't see myself lugging it around!

Are you kidding us?
Have you tried to pick up the f/2.8 version?

*That* one is big and heavy.

Maybe get some exercise :wink:

PS: If you want a 200 mm prime, there's the 200/2.8 L that weighs 1.68 lb as opposed to the 1.56 of the 70-200 at about US$ 100 more (BH prices).

There are the 'consumer grade' Canon zoom lenses (80-200 and 75-300 w/wo IS) that are both lighter (0.5 lb and 1 lb) and cheaper (120$ and 300$), but also not as sharp/fast as the L versions.

Your choice, basically :lol:

Best regards,
Andy

[CoolToolGuy]

I'm becoming more fond of primes, too. Lately I'm doing a lot of theater and auditorium shooting - school play, concerts, dance recitals, etc. and I'm getting good results pushing the ISO to 200 and using one of my primes with f2.0 or faster. The 24-70 L is usable, but I have to push the ISO more and/or suffer longer shutter speeds AND use a monopod. And for plays where the subject can be moving, the primes may be the only good option. Next up for me - the EF 135 f2.0 L.

Zooms provide a lot of flexibility, but they all 'stop' at 2.8 or slower. Sometimes that's not good enough, and when you have all of that good Canon glass available it makes sense to use it - zoom with your feet if necessary. :roll:

[DieselGirl]

Tom W - Great advice as usual. I haven't been taking notice of what end of the 28-135mm I have been using lately. I have been shooting mostly with the 85mm and that has seem to fit most of my needs lately. But it wouldn't hurt for me to track what I am shooting at when using the 28-135mm. You are right. Perhaps I do have all the lenses I need. But I want an L lens! *laughs*

Andythaler
Yes, I did pick up the f2.8 lens. I had the guy show me both of those. I also had him put a battery grip on my camera body so you can imagine how heavy that got quickly! Yeah you are right. I am pretty out of shape, I gotta hit the gym now so I can build up enough endurance to get the f2.8 lens.

:wink:

[robertwgross]

It's kind of funny. After shooting a wedding, with all of that running around with tripods and camera gear, and I finally get finished and make it home... my forearms ache a bit. Heavy cameras and lenses hung on a flash bracket make for quite an arm workout.

---Bob Gross---

[droosan]

I use primes almost always. And the biggest reason isn't optical quality, it's responsiveness. Primes focus much faster (per $), for two reasons: 1) They let in more light (like 10x more) which allows the camera to find the focus faster. 2)The focusing elements don't have to travel as far to focus.

Faster focus is worth everything when your subject is alive.

Other advantages:
Optical quality
Greater control over depth of field.
Smaller
Lighter
Cheaper
Less obtrusive

Yes, zooms have their advantages, but mine sit in my bag most of the time.

[G3]

It's kind of funny. After shooting a wedding, with all of that running around with tripods and camera gear, and I finally get finished and make it home... my forearms ache a bit. Heavy cameras and lenses hung on a flash bracket make for quite an arm workout.

---Bob Gross---

Man, you're not kidding. I shot an outdoor wedding last Saturday, the Altar was set up on top of a fairly steep hill facing downhill (THAT was a challenge, trying to find the vantage points). Up and down that hill about a bujillion times, wearing a suit and carrying a tripod mounted camera. When I first got there, I was walking up the hill with my light meter to read off of the Altar and I tripped...broke my middle toe on my left foot. Then I had to run around all day shooting with a broken toe. My foot was so swollen by the time I got home that when I took my shoe off, I couldn't put it back on. That's the first time I've ever done something like that at a job. Embarrassing.

[robertwgross]

G3, either sue your boss or claim workman's compensation. Oh, wait, you probably are your own boss.

Nevermind.

---Bob Gross---

[Tom W]

I use primes almost always. And the biggest reason isn't optical quality, it's responsiveness. Primes focus much faster (per $), for two reasons: 1) They let in more light (like 10x more) which allows the camera to find the focus faster. 2)The focusing elements don't have to travel as far to focus.

Faster focus is worth everything when your subject is alive.

I don't believe that is true of all lenses. All of my USM lenses focus very quickly, while my 50 is a little slow (not terribly slow, but not super quick like the others).


Other advantages:
Optical quality
Greater control over depth of field.
Smaller
Lighter
Cheaper
Less obtrusive

Yes, zooms have their advantages, but mine sit in my bag most of the time.

Yes, primes do generally offer wider apertures, better optical quality, and reduced size. But you give up a ton of convenience for those features, and depending on the lenses being compared, some of the advantages are essentially nil. Plus, you need 2 or 3 primes to cover the range of a zoom.

Don't get me wrong - nothing in my bag will shoot a larger aperture than f/2.8 except for the 50/1.4. And the 50 is the sharpest tool in the shed, but by only a small margin over the comparable zoom that covers that focal length. Plus, the 50 doesn't shoot at 24 nor at 70 mm.

[G3]

G3, either sue your boss or claim workman's compensation. Oh, wait, you probably are your own boss.

Nevermind.

---Bob Gross---

:)

Yeah, I've already filed the suit. Boy am I pissed. I'll probably fire me.

Actually, it was entirely my fault. I was looking down at my light meter changing the mode and not paying attention to where I was going. Hit a slick spot on the hill and with those dress shoes on (no traction at all) my feet came right out from under me. Luckily I didn't get muddy or anything..just a little small grass stain on the elbow of my white shirt. However, I do have this big festive-looking purple toe now.

[MarkH]

Other advantages:

Cheaper


How are primes cheaper?

For a 70-200 if you used just 3 primes (70, 135, 200) I can't see how they'll cost less.

For a 24-70 you would really need a 24, 35, 50 and 70 to equal what it can do, the zoom is definately much cheaper.

Of course the primes have their advantages, but to cover the same focal lengths the primes will be dearer, heavier and take up more space in your bag.

If I want to buy a 24-70 f2.8L and a 17-200 f2.8L IS, what would it cost to have a wider aperture by using primes to cover the same focal lengths?

[nosquare2003]

As Andy said, you may consider a 200/2.8L. It is smaller but a bit heavier than 70-200/4L. And the 200/2.8L is "black" that it might drew lesser attention.

[Loekito]

Are you already considering EF 70-300 DO IS USM ?

here's why:

1. same quality with L lenses
2. small form factor, light weight
3. has IS feature
4. > 200mm focal length

regards,

Loekito

[CoolToolGuy]

Other advantages:

Cheaper


How are primes cheaper?

For a 24-70 you would really need a 24, 35, 50 and 70 to equal what it can do, the zoom is definately much cheaper.



B&H Prices:
-24-70 f2.8L = $1150

-24 f2.8 = $280
-35 f2.0 = $220
-50 f1.4 = $295
-85 f1.8 = $325
total = $1120

The primes win on the price front, and that includes the 50 f1.4. If you want to save another $200, go for the 1.8. (Oops, I forgot the hoods - that would drive the primes over)

Don't get me wrong, I like my 24-70, but when I get myself into a dimly lit situation, the primes win, no contest. Not only are they faster and sharper, but that 24-70 L is a big, heavy lens to be hand-holding at 2.8, regardless of the rule of thumb of 1 over focal length - I would never be able to hold it at 24mm with a 1/30 shutter speed.

Try them, you may find yourself in the prime of your life! :wink:

Have Fun

[karusel]

That is very interesting. However, it actually depends on what you need and what you want. 24-70 perhaps offers slightly lesser sharpness, but you don't have to change lens every five seconds -and risk dust getting to the sensor-, when you decide for a differend composition, theme, whatever. If you're a true professional, by all means, go with the primes, if you're an advanced amateur, 24-70 will definetely suffice. That said, it is sometimes much better to use a prime, and that is in low light conditions, 50 1.4 is quite unbeatable at it.

[Tom W]

B&H Prices:
-24-70 f2.8L = $1150

-24 f2.8 = $280
-35 f2.0 = $220
-50 f1.4 = $295
-85 f1.8 = $325
total = $1120

The primes win on the price front, and that includes the 50 f1.4. If you want to save another $200, go for the 1.8. (Oops, I forgot the hoods - that would drive the primes over)

Don't get me wrong, I like my 24-70, but when I get myself into a dimly lit situation, the primes win, no contest. Not only are they faster and sharper, but that 24-70 L is a big, heavy lens to be hand-holding at 2.8, regardless of the rule of thumb of 1 over focal length - I would never be able to hold it at 24mm with a 1/30 shutter speed.

Try them, you may find yourself in the prime of your life! :wink:

Have Fun

Well, I'd have to say that there's more to the equation than price. For example, not every lens you listed has true ring-type USM focusing. In terms of focus speed and accuracy, I believe that the 24-70 is hard to beat. And as for dimly lit, f/2.8 isn't terrible for most applications, particularly since the 24-70 does it so well. And of course, there's the convenience of not having to change lenses frequently.

That said, I have yet to find a substitute for my 50/1.4. It has most definately got its purpose in life and those extra 2 stops of light (not to mention that DOF) are quite useful when flash isn't acceptable. I'll probably be adding to the prime collection at some point in the future, but that's not at the top of my list right now. I rarely find myself in those kinds of situations where the zoom won't do the job.

[CoolToolGuy]

Well, I'd have to say that there's more to the equation than price. For example, not every lens you listed has true ring-type USM focusing. In terms of focus speed and accuracy, I believe that the 24-70 is hard to beat. And as for dimly lit, f/2.8 isn't terrible for most applications, particularly since the 24-70 does it so well. And of course, there's the convenience of not having to change lenses frequently.

That said, I have yet to find a substitute for my 50/1.4. It has most definately got its purpose in life and those extra 2 stops of light (not to mention that DOF) are quite useful when flash isn't acceptable. I'll probably be adding to the prime collection at some point in the future, but that's not at the top of my list right now. I rarely find myself in those kinds of situations where the zoom won't do the job.

The question that was addressed was price. And there IS more to a lens purchase than price. But ring-type USM focusing has not risen to the top of my priority list as of yet. A nicety, yes, but USM focusing in the Drebel kit lens (available in Japan) doesn't turn it into serious competition with the 50mm f1.4 in the image-quality department.

I originally got my 85 f.18 at the same time as my 24-70 L to do some theater work. My original vision was to use the 24-70 most of the time, and use the 85 for portraits. I started out moving around, shooting the early blocking, tech and rehearsals, and the zoom was very flexible, as zooms are.

Then I started shooting from a seat during dress rehearsals (and ultimately the performances) and I had the opportunity to change lenses and do some tests. The 85 really started to show its stuff - I kept the ISO at 200, which gave me much better image quality than the 400 and 800 ISOs I was using with the 24-70. And although I kept using the monopod that I had to use with the 24-70, I was able to use better shutter speeds (1/60 and above) to capture the cast during those short periods when they are not moving.

The other thing I always notice and mention about the 24-70 L is its size and weight. That puppy is very big (takes a 77mm filter), long (with the hood on, it looks like some 70-200s), and heavy (2.1 pounds). It is a lot to handle, and in low light levels a monopod is a necessity to eliminate shake - I think Canon should consider IS for it like they do for the 70-200.

So zoom if you must, but there certainly is a place for primes today, and if you have specific needs (like low light settings), a series of primes may be the right choice.

[Tom W]

The question that was addressed was price. And there IS more to a lens purchase than price. But ring-type USM focusing has not risen to the top of my priority list as of yet. A nicety, yes, but USM focusing in the Drebel kit lens (available in Japan) doesn't turn it into serious competition with the 50mm f1.4 in the image-quality department.

I realize that the issue was price, but I was pointing out that price ought not be the only consideration. And I'll also point out that the USM on my 24-70 routinely focuses faster and more accurately than that of my 50/1.4. Image-wise, the 1.4 has an edge, at least at wide apertures, but it isn't that significant for my purposes most of the time. YMMV, of course.

I originally got my 85 f.18 at the same time as my 24-70 L to do some theater work. My original vision was to use the 24-70 most of the time, and use the 85 for portraits. I started out moving around, shooting the early blocking, tech and rehearsals, and the zoom was very flexible, as zooms are.

Then I started shooting from a seat during dress rehearsals (and ultimately the performances) and I had the opportunity to change lenses and do some tests. The 85 really started to show its stuff - I kept the ISO at 200, which gave me much better image quality than the 400 and 800 ISOs I was using with the 24-70. And although I kept using the monopod that I had to use with the 24-70, I was able to use better shutter speeds (1/60 and above) to capture the cast during those short periods when they are not moving.

The other thing I always notice and mention about the 24-70 L is its size and weight. That puppy is very big (takes a 77mm filter), long (with the hood on, it looks like some 70-200s), and heavy (2.1 pounds). It is a lot to handle, and in low light levels a monopod is a necessity to eliminate shake - I think Canon should consider IS for it like they do for the 70-200.

So zoom if you must, but there certainly is a place for primes today, and if you have specific needs (like low light settings), a series of primes may be the right choice.

I guess that it all depends on the situation - I can see the usefullness of very fast lenses in your kind of work, but for most of what I do, f/2.8 is fast enough. As long as you are able to work out the position/focal length issues and have the ability to switch lenses when needed, then primes are at an advantage.

For me, the zoom does well, and its convenient, quick and portable compared to primes. But I don't shoot the same situations that you do. And that's probably the most important factor in the ongoing prime-vs-zoom debate.

[nosquare2003]

That is very interesting. However, it actually depends on what you need and what you want. 24-70 perhaps offers slightly lesser sharpness, but you don't have to change lens every five seconds -and risk dust getting to the sensor-, when you decide for a differend composition, theme, whatever. If you're a true professional, by all means, go with the primes, if you're an advanced amateur, 24-70 will definetely suffice. That said, it is sometimes much better to use a prime, and that is in low light conditions, 50 1.4 is quite unbeatable at it.

1. I don't think that changing lens a big problem in DSLR. Otherwise I will buy the 28-300L lens -- no, no, I don't want it.
2. I'm just a casual user but I like using primes. I don't want to argue whether prime or zoom lenses are better. They are just different. However, I don't agree that only a true professional needs prime lenses. On the contrary, I think that prime lenses are best for "some" beginners. If I started photography by zoom lenses, I would be too lazy to walk around for composition. But it is FUN using prime lenses -- and I have learnt more than zoom lenses.

[nosquare2003]

The question that was addressed was price. And there IS more to a lens purchase than price. But ring-type USM focusing has not risen to the top of my priority list as of yet. A nicety, yes, but USM focusing in the Drebel kit lens (available in Japan) doesn't turn it into serious competition with the 50mm f1.4 in the image-quality department.

I realize that the issue was price, but I was pointing out that price ought not be the only consideration. And I'll also point out that the USM on my 24-70 routinely focuses faster and more accurately than that of my 50/1.4. Image-wise, the 1.4 has an edge, at least at wide apertures, but it isn't that significant for my purposes most of the time. YMMV, of course.

I originally got my 85 f.18 at the same time as my 24-70 L to do some theater work. My original vision was to use the 24-70 most of the time, and use the 85 for portraits. I started out moving around, shooting the early blocking, tech and rehearsals, and the zoom was very flexible, as zooms are.

Then I started shooting from a seat during dress rehearsals (and ultimately the performances) and I had the opportunity to change lenses and do some tests. The 85 really started to show its stuff - I kept the ISO at 200, which gave me much better image quality than the 400 and 800 ISOs I was using with the 24-70. And although I kept using the monopod that I had to use with the 24-70, I was able to use better shutter speeds (1/60 and above) to capture the cast during those short periods when they are not moving.

The other thing I always notice and mention about the 24-70 L is its size and weight. That puppy is very big (takes a 77mm filter), long (with the hood on, it looks like some 70-200s), and heavy (2.1 pounds). It is a lot to handle, and in low light levels a monopod is a necessity to eliminate shake - I think Canon should consider IS for it like they do for the 70-200.

So zoom if you must, but there certainly is a place for primes today, and if you have specific needs (like low light settings), a series of primes may be the right choice.

I guess that it all depends on the situation - I can see the usefullness of very fast lenses in your kind of work, but for most of what I do, f/2.8 is fast enough. As long as you are able to work out the position/focal length issues and have the ability to switch lenses when needed, then primes are at an advantage.

For me, the zoom does well, and its convenient, quick and portable compared to primes. But I don't shoot the same situations that you do. And that's probably the most important factor in the ongoing prime-vs-zoom debate.


1. The autofocus speed for 50mm primes are slow. But autofocus speed for other prime lens are quite fast. (100/2.8 is another slow autofocus lens.)
2. If there is a need to change focal length in very fast and frequent situations, a zoom lens will be better. But it won't take a long time to change small prime lenses -- if the subject can wait a bit. Sometimes even a zoom lens doesn't work. Suppose we attach the 24-70/2.8L on the camera. Suddenly an eagle flew in the sky and we want to take a shot of it. And we still need to change to a longer lens.

[Tom W]

1. The autofocus speed for 50mm primes are slow. But autofocus speed for other prime lens are quite fast. (100/2.8 is another slow autofocus lens.)

I believe that the 100/2.8 is the Macro lens, and is slow primarily by virtue of its extraordinary focus range. Isn't it also equipped with a range-limiting switch for "normal" shooting? I can't speak for all the primes, but I notice that several are equipped with ring-type USM which is very fast, accurate, and allows full-time manual. So, I guess the 50 isn't the best example of focus speed.

2. If there is a need to change focal length in very fast and frequent situations, a zoom lens will be better. But it won't take a long time to change small prime lenses -- if the subject can wait a bit. Sometimes even a zoom lens doesn't work. Suppose we attach the 24-70/2.8L on the camera. Suddenly an eagle flew in the sky and we want to take a shot of it. And we still need to change to a longer lens.

It just shows that Canon needs to hurry up and develop that 15-500 f/1.4 DO IS USM, double overhead cam, fuel injected, superheterodyne, dual conversion, twin prop, air conditioned, aluminum-sided thermopane zoom lens that we need so bad. :D

As for the eagle - regardless of the lens I carry, I probably left the camera bag at home anyway. ;)

[where1]

It just shows that Canon needs to hurry up and develop that 15-500 f/1.4 DO IS USM, double overhead cam, fuel injected, superheterodyne, dual conversion, twin prop, air conditioned, aluminum-sided thermopane zoom lens that we need so bad. :D


I hope it comes with a tripod mount. :D

[CoolToolGuy]

It just shows that Canon needs to hurry up and develop that 15-500 f/1.4 DO IS USM, double overhead cam, fuel injected, superheterodyne, dual conversion, twin prop, air conditioned, aluminum-sided thermopane zoom lens that we need so bad. :D


Tom, those are some really good specs, but I won't even consider it unless it is also low-carb. :roll:

[Tom W]

It just shows that Canon needs to hurry up and develop that 15-500 f/1.4 DO IS USM, double overhead cam, fuel injected, superheterodyne, dual conversion, twin prop, air conditioned, aluminum-sided thermopane zoom lens that we need so bad. :D


Tom, those are some really good specs, but I won't even consider it unless it is also low-carb. :roll:

:D

Not only low carb but high fiber, low fat, low sodium, high diffractive protein, and absolutely no trans-fatty acids.

Shoots great, less filling!

[CoolToolGuy]

It just shows that Canon needs to hurry up and develop that 15-500 f/1.4 DO IS USM, double overhead cam, fuel injected, superheterodyne, dual conversion, twin prop, air conditioned, aluminum-sided thermopane zoom lens that we need so bad. :D


Tom, those are some really good specs, but I won't even consider it unless it is also low-carb. :roll:

:D

Not only low carb but high fiber, low fat, low sodium, high diffractive protein, and absolutely no trans-fatty acids.

Shoots great, less filling!

So, you figure out a way to get a little Viagra into the mix, and they'll sell a million of them! :wink: :) :D :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Tom W]

It just shows that Canon needs to hurry up and develop that 15-500 f/1.4 DO IS USM, double overhead cam, fuel injected, superheterodyne, dual conversion, twin prop, air conditioned, aluminum-sided thermopane zoom lens that we need so bad. :D


Tom, those are some really good specs, but I won't even consider it unless it is also low-carb. :roll:

:D

Not only low carb but high fiber, low fat, low sodium, high diffractive protein, and absolutely no trans-fatty acids.

Shoots great, less filling!

So, you figure out a way to get a little Viagra into the mix, and they'll sell a million of them! :wink: :) :D :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


LOL! But wouldn't the viagra counteract the effect of the DO optics? :twisted:

[DieselGirl]

It just shows that Canon needs to hurry up and develop that 15-500 f/1.4 DO IS USM, double overhead cam, fuel injected, superheterodyne, dual conversion, twin prop, air conditioned, aluminum-sided thermopane zoom lens that we need so bad. :D


Tom, those are some really good specs, but I won't even consider it unless it is also low-carb. :roll:

NOW WE'RE TALKING!!!!!!!!!

[CoolToolGuy]

It just shows that Canon needs to hurry up and develop that 15-500 f/1.4 DO IS USM, double overhead cam, fuel injected, superheterodyne, dual conversion, twin prop, air conditioned, aluminum-sided thermopane zoom lens that we need so bad. :D


Tom, those are some really good specs, but I won't even consider it unless it is also low-carb. :roll:

:D

Not only low carb but high fiber, low fat, low sodium, high diffractive protein, and absolutely no trans-fatty acids.

Shoots great, less filling!

So, you figure out a way to get a little Viagra into the mix, and they'll sell a million of them! :wink: :) :D :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


LOL! But wouldn't the viagra counteract the effect of the DO optics? :twisted:

Well, from what I've seen, the DO elements are a little like the ribs on a (pick your favorite term for a protective device), so it could actually enhance the experience! :oops:

[Tom W]

It just shows that Canon needs to hurry up and develop that 15-500 f/1.4 DO IS USM, double overhead cam, fuel injected, superheterodyne, dual conversion, twin prop, air conditioned, aluminum-sided thermopane zoom lens that we need so bad. :D


Tom, those are some really good specs, but I won't even consider it unless it is also low-carb. :roll:

:D

Not only low carb but high fiber, low fat, low sodium, high diffractive protein, and absolutely no trans-fatty acids.

Shoots great, less filling!

So, you figure out a way to get a little Viagra into the mix, and they'll sell a million of them! :wink: :) :D :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


LOL! But wouldn't the viagra counteract the effect of the DO optics? :twisted:

Well, from what I've seen, the DO elements are a little like the ribs on a (pick your favorite term for a protective device), so it could actually enhance the experience! :oops:

Zoom zoom zoom! :wink: :twisted:

[roanjohn]

It just shows that Canon needs to hurry up and develop that 15-500 f/1.4 DO IS USM, double overhead cam, fuel injected, superheterodyne, dual conversion, twin prop, air conditioned, aluminum-sided thermopane zoom lens that we need so bad. :D


Tom, those are some really good specs, but I won't even consider it unless it is also low-carb. :roll:


.............and under $1000 USD.............

Ro1

[droosan]

Plus, the 50 doesn't shoot at 24 nor at 70 mm.

Sometimes, for example, at a crowded event where the photographer has very little mobility, you are right. In those cases I am more likely to have a zoom. However, often you can zoom in or out with your 50, by moving your feet. Your feet, on the other hand, can't change the aperture, the edge sharpness, or distortion.

Also, don't forget, zooming in is as easy as using the crop tool in Photoshop. 6.3MP allows a lot of cropping unless you are shooting posters--if you have a sharp lens.

This afternoon, a very orange bird I had never seen before appeared in my yard. I went in the house and got my camera. (I am not normally a bird photographer so I don't have a 500mm) I had the choice of a 75-300/5.6 zoom, or a 200/2.8L. I didn't hesitate, I put on the 200mm. I know from experience I have a much better chance of ending up with a usable picture with the 200mm. It will find the bird, focus on it instantly, and I can crop the picture on the computer. The moral: Because of its greater sharpness, greater aperture, and much faster focusing, my 200mm prime is effectively longer than my 300mm zoom.

Now if the subject is dead and it's sunny, focusing isn't an issue, and I'd consider the zoom.

[droosan]

The autofocus speed for 50mm primes are slow. But autofocus speed for other prime lens are quite fast. (100/2.8 is another slow autofocus lens.)



Slow compared to a faster focusing prime, but not slow compared to a comparably priced zoom. My 50/1.4USM focuses much faster than my 28-105USM.

Another comparison
200L: lightning fast, 75-300 slooooooooow

Sure, compared to a multithousand $ zoom the 50/1.4 might not be that fast. But it's better than any zoom in my budget.

Remember, the camera needs light to find the focus, f/1.4 is 16 times more light than f/5.6 and 4 times more light than f/2.8

[Tom W]

Plus, the 50 doesn't shoot at 24 nor at 70 mm.

Sometimes, for example, at a crowded event where the photographer has very little mobility, you are right. In those cases I am more likely to have a zoom. However, often you can zoom in or out with your 50, by moving your feet. Your feet, on the other hand, can't change the aperture, the edge sharpness, or distortion.

But most often, the aperture, edge sharpness and distortion are insignificant issues, at least with the 24-70, whereas I cannot knock down walls or stop traffic with my 50 mm to get the shot. In other words, they each have situations where one holds an advantage. For what I shoot, the minor disadvantages of the zoom are far outweighed by its flexibility. If the situation demands it, I'll not hesitate to use the 50.

Also, don't forget, zooming in is as easy as using the crop tool in Photoshop. 6.3MP allows a lot of cropping unless you are shooting posters--if you have a sharp lens.

And I do have a sharp lens or two or three. And all but one are zooms. Anyway, there's only so far that cropping can get you, and it certainly won't widen your angle of view.

This afternoon, a very orange bird I had never seen before appeared in my yard. I went in the house and got my camera. (I am not normally a bird photographer so I don't have a 500mm) I had the choice of a 75-300/5.6 zoom, or a 200/2.8L. I didn't hesitate, I put on the 200mm. I know from experience I have a much better chance of ending up with a usable picture with the 200mm. It will find the bird, focus on it instantly, and I can crop the picture on the computer. The moral: Because of its greater sharpness, greater aperture, and much faster focusing, my 200mm prime is effectively longer than my 300mm zoom.

Now if the subject is dead and it's sunny, focusing isn't an issue, and I'd consider the zoom.

Well, I don't think its proper to judge zoom lenses by comparing an f/2.8 L prime with an f/5.6 low-end consumer zoom. Had you had a 70-200 f/2.8 zoom, you could have gotten the same shot of the bird, and then turned around and got your large dog standing 5 feet behind you without hesitation.

[Tom W]

Slow compared to a faster focusing prime, but not slow compared to a comparably priced zoom. My 50/1.4USM focuses much faster than my 28-105USM.



Your experience differs from mine - my old (well, 1 year old) 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 focuses both faster and more accurately than either my 50/1.4 does or my 50/1.8 did. And it was only $220 new.

[CoolToolGuy]

Slow compared to a faster focusing prime, but not slow compared to a comparably priced zoom. My 50/1.4USM focuses much faster than my 28-105USM.



Your experience differs from mine - my old (well, 1 year old) 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 focuses both faster and more accurately than either my 50/1.4 does or my 50/1.8 did. And it was only $220 new.

Geez, as a guy who grew up with Canon FD lenses where the focus speed was determined by hand/eye coordination, I just can't use autofocus speed as a prime factor in picking a lens. The image quality is what matters. There can be occasions where the autofocus speed can matter (sports, for example) but if the lens produces a better image, focus by hand, or wait for Canon to upgrade the lens.

As for the prime versus zoom, I have both and I use both. Both have their strong points. I do, however, think that many people write off primes as old school, thinking that zooms are the only way to go. And to them I reiterate:
Try one, you may find yourself in the prime of your life

[Tom W]

Slow compared to a faster focusing prime, but not slow compared to a comparably priced zoom. My 50/1.4USM focuses much faster than my 28-105USM.



Your experience differs from mine - my old (well, 1 year old) 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 focuses both faster and more accurately than either my 50/1.4 does or my 50/1.8 did. And it was only $220 new.

Geez, as a guy who grew up with Canon FD lenses where the focus speed was determined by hand/eye coordination, I just can't use autofocus speed as a prime factor in picking a lens. The image quality is what matters. There can be occasions where the autofocus speed can matter (sports, for example) but if the lens produces a better image, focus by hand, or wait for Canon to upgrade the lens.

That isn't the point. The point is that while I understand fully that compromises that go into a zoom lens and that, more often than not, its image quality is slightly softer than a comparable prime of the same focal length, I also understand that one need not use false information to support their choices.

Primes and zooms both have their places. My 50/1.4 was about useless trying to shoot a fast-acting indoor volleyball game since it could not find the proper focus point a good deal of the time.

Manual focus isn't always an option (though its great for Macro) due to the miniature viewfinder.

As for the prime versus zoom, I have both and I use both. Both have their strong points. I do, however, think that many people write off primes as old school, thinking that zooms are the only way to go. And to them I reiterate:
Try one, you may find yourself in the prime of your life

I have a prime - I use it. I'll probably have more primes in the future (that 100 macro comes to mind). But I resent the inference made by a couple of posters (not yourself) that prime users ought to look down their noses at the lowley zoom lens users, particularly when certain zooms are so close in image quality to their comparable stable of primes as to make the differences negligable.

I'm not writing off primes as "old school", and I'm sorry if that's the idea that you got. But I'll defend my lens choices against the "elites" that claim zooms as a whole are inadequate. I know better.

[CoolToolGuy]

Tom,

Please don't take my comments personally. They were not directed at you, although you were a significant responder in this thread. Threads like this one (in my mind) are not about one person responding to another, but all of us pooling and disseminating our collective wisdom for the benefit of all. What I think about zooms is my impression of a general attitude, not what I think that you believe. Sorry if you saw it otherwise.

[Tom W]

Tom,

Please don't take my comments personally. They were not directed at you, although you were a significant responder in this thread. Threads like this one (in my mind) are not about one person responding to another, but all of us pooling and disseminating our collective wisdom for the benefit of all. What I think about zooms is my impression of a general attitude, not what I think that you believe. Sorry if you saw it otherwise.

Ehhh, sorry, Rick. I've been working nights this week, I had just gotten up when I posted the reply (after being awakened by the neighbor's lawn mower - imagine that, people mowing their lawn during the day). I tend to take things on a more personal and agressive level at my earliest hours.

As well, I had just recently gotten through a similar, but less friendly "discussion" at another web site after one poster made the semi-innocent comment that a certain favorite zoom lens was "an overweight dinasaur that is soft wide open". It escalated from there, me being the stubborn one that I am. As well, I probably carried some of that attidute with me over here to the more civilized world.

[droosan]

Well, I don't think its proper to judge zoom lenses by comparing an f/2.8 L prime with an f/5.6 low-end consumer zoom.

Ah-ha! This is the whole sticking point of our argument, I believe. I think it is exactly proper to compare these two since they are comparably priced. It is proper to compare the 50/1.4 with the 28-105 because they are comparably priced. I believe it is not proper to compare the 50/1.4 with the 24-70L because they are not comparably priced. For me money is THE object because I have very little. When I go into the store, I don't ask, "Should I buy that $500 prime or that $2500 zoom?" Instead I say, "My wife will have my head if I spend over $500. Should I buy this impressive prime lens or should I buy this [your words] 'low-end consumer zoom'." In this situation the prime has often won, and I have never regretted it. (Hmm, I have never ebayed off a prime but I ebayed off several zooms over the years.)

Our argument may simply be that you are arguing from a stand point of "L-zooms are pretty damn good" and I am arguing from a standpoint of value-for-money in the sub-$1000 range.

[Tom W]

Well, I don't think its proper to judge zoom lenses by comparing an f/2.8 L prime with an f/5.6 low-end consumer zoom.

Ah-ha! This is the whole sticking point of our argument, I believe. I think it is exactly proper to compare these two since they are comparably priced. It is proper to compare the 50/1.4 with the 28-105 because they are comparably priced. I believe it is not proper to compare the 50/1.4 with the 24-70L because they are not comparably priced. For me money is THE object because I have very little. When I go into the store, I don't ask, "Should I buy that $500 prime or that $2500 zoom?" Instead I say, "My wife will have my head if I spend over $500. Should I buy this impressive prime lens or should I buy this [your words] 'low-end consumer zoom'." In this situation the prime has often won, and I have never regretted it. (Hmm, I have never ebayed off a prime but I ebayed off several zooms over the years.)

Yes, price is part of the equation, but when you need to buy a 24, 28, 35, 50 and something close to 70mm primes, all capable of shooting sharp, contrasty, color-balanced images at f/2.8 (like the 24-70 does), your price theory flies out the window. That's a lot of lenses.

Interestingly, you conveniently forgot the rest of my post.

Our argument may simply be that you are arguing from a stand point of "L-zooms are pretty damn good" and I am arguing from a standpoint of value-for-money in the sub-$1000 range.

Ummmm, L-zooms are a little more that "pretty damn good" - they rival the pile of primes that they replace in price and image quality. Plus, they offer considerably better build quality and convenience. Look, if you want to shoot primes, by all means, enjoy yourself. I shoot with one of them as well, when the situation calls for it. And I'll probably buy other primes as I see fit.

But don't try to press the idea that those that prefer to shoot with zooms are settling for "pretty damn good" images or that those using zooms are too lazy to walk 10 feet to get a shot ("zoom with your feet"). The image quality of the 2 "L" zooms (and the Sigma) that I use is excellent, not pretty damn good. And there are plenty of times where zooming with ones' feet will not get the shot, without the added capability to change focal lengths on the fly.

[nosquare2003]

Tom, we don't need to buy all the prime lenses. I agree that the 24-70/L can do the job of the prime lenses "most" of the time. And I won't label zoom lens users as lazy. It needs discipline, however.

[droosan]

... but when you need to buy a 24, 28, 35, 50 and something close to 70mm primes...

Now you're over the top. A 24 and a 50 will do the work of an 24-70 very well, especially with digital. And yes, I recognize that it means switching from one to the other. But that trades off with the already mentioned advantages, too.

I am not denying that a decent zoom offers flexibility. All I am saying is that an excellent prime is better than a crappy zoom in most cases and excellent primes and crappy zooms are about the same price.

I'm goal-oriented. When I buy something it is generally to solve a particular problem I have. "I need to improve my basketball pictures. This 200mm will do nicely and it is only $600." Nothing else will do what the 200 will (in terms of focusing on action) in a dimly lit gym for $600.

[Tom W]

... but when you need to buy a 24, 28, 35, 50 and something close to 70mm primes...

Now you're over the top. A 24 and a 50 will do the work of an 24-70 very well, especially with digital. And yes, I recognize that it means switching from one to the other. But that trades off with the already mentioned advantages, too.

Well, that's debatable. Lets say that 3 lenses, a wide, a normal, and a short telephoto would replace it. If we were talking full frame, I'd settle for a superwide, a normal wide, and a normal lens. Otherwise, there's a pretty big gap to crop out, given that there are other issues that might require cropping and other processing as well. You can use up a lot of image quality real quick.

I am not denying that a decent zoom offers flexibility. All I am saying is that an excellent prime is better than a crappy zoom in most cases and excellent primes and crappy zooms are about the same price.

I think you do a lot of folks here a disservice by calling their $200-300 zoom lens "crappy". In most situations, given 8X12 prints from similar "crappy" zooms and primes, a person would have to look real hard to tell the difference. That doesn't mean that there aren't situations where the prime will excel, but those situations aren't prevalent for most shooters. For the few times that I need real low-light capability, I can use the 50 - otherwise, my 2.8 zooms do the job just fine. And, of course, I don't need to stop and change lenses in the field.

I'll concede that there are some crappy zooms out there, and I'll concede again that the prime has an advantage in image quality _some_ of the time, but I will again state that the difference is generally negligable except in special circumstances. To restate again, to me, the minute differences aren't worth the lost convenience and flexibility.

I'm goal-oriented. When I buy something it is generally to solve a particular problem I have. "I need to improve my basketball pictures. This 200mm will do nicely and it is only $600." Nothing else will do what the 200 will (in terms of focusing on action) in a dimly lit gym for $600.

I could see where a fast prime could be helpful in low-light situations WRT exposure and shutter speeds, but as far as focusing action, I doubt that there is any appreciable difference between the various true USM lenses, but for a couple of exceptions (and your 70-300 is probably one of those exceptions). All 3 of my Canon zooms focus very quickly and accurately. Two are "L", one is that (as you might put it) "crappy" 28-105 f/3.5-4.5. :)

[AzzKicker]

I like Primes.


But there are times when a zoom lens is very usefull. Sometimes your group shots can be wide or small so you have to walk back and forward to much since its a fixed focal length just to get everything in fram.

[Tom W]

I like Primes.


But there are times when a zoom lens is very usefull. Sometimes your group shots can be wide or small so you have to walk back and forward to much since its a fixed focal length just to get everything in fram.

I like them as well, but I find zooms more of a match for most (but not all) of my shooting. Plus, I enjoy a good argument once in a while. :)

Ironically, even with a zoom, you'll find yourself moving about a bit, trying to get that tree just right to frame the bridge or trying to get that ugly building adjacent to you out of the picture. But you move and you zoom and take the shot.

[droosan]

All 3 of my Canon zooms focus very quickly and accurately. Two are "L", one is that (as you might put it) "crappy" 28-105 f/3.5-4.5. :)

I can call the 28-105 "crappy" with impunity because I own it. Compared to a variable aperture 35-80 I had for a few years and compared to a v.a. 28-80 I had for another couple years, the 28-105 is great. However, compared to my 100/2.0, it is neither quick nor accurate at the long end. In another thread a while back I pondered the dramatic difference in the images produced by these two lenses. In that thread I was talking about relatively still subjects. I haven't even started on the inability of the 28-105 to hold a runner in focus.

I put on a zoom when I don't really know what kind of pictures I am going to be taking. But that doesn't happen very often with me and that might be the kind of person or photographer I am. I tend to plan the pictures I am going to take and choose the best equipment (lens, flash, camera...) I have for that particular job.

If you sent me your 24-70, I would gratefully accept it, and happily use it, probably often. However if you asked me to send you my 24 and 50 in return, I'd have to ebay the 24-70 to buy back my 24 and 50, but then I would have money left over with which I could get a 20mm.

The truth is, 24-70 doesn't seem like a very big range to me. When I am sitting with my 24mm on, I never, that I can recall, say, "I wish I had my 50 on." It is much more likely that I would say, I wish I had my 100, or my 200 on. The 24-70 doesn't solve that problem. Only the 35-350 comes close to that, and that is lot of pounds and a lot of dollars and still isn't as wide as I could ever want, or as long.

[Tom W]

All 3 of my Canon zooms focus very quickly and accurately. Two are "L", one is that (as you might put it) "crappy" 28-105 f/3.5-4.5. :)

I can call the 28-105 "crappy" with impunity because I own it. Compared to a variable aperture 35-80 I had for a few years and compared to a v.a. 28-80 I had for another couple years, the 28-105 is great. However, compared to my 100/2.0, it is neither quick nor accurate at the long end. In another thread a while back I pondered the dramatic difference in the images produced by these two lenses. In that thread I was talking about relatively still subjects. I haven't even started on the inability of the 28-105 to hold a runner in focus.

I also own it and its a good lens. If your copy of the 28-105 doesn't focus quickly and accurately, then perhaps its broken. Did you drop it or something while changing lenses?

Do you ever get dizzy up there on that high horse of yours? Or do you sometimes come down and mingle among the peasants with their "crappy" zooms?


I put on a zoom when I don't really know what kind of pictures I am going to be taking. But that doesn't happen very often with me and that might be the kind of person or photographer I am. I tend to plan the pictures I am going to take and choose the best equipment (lens, flash, camera...) I have for that particular job.

Well, planning is a good idea. I do it as well at times. Other times, I just go out shooting. And in most cases, the zoom is the right tool.


If you sent me your 24-70, I would gratefully accept it, and happily use it, probably often. However if you asked me to send you my 24 and 50 in return, I'd have to ebay the 24-70 to buy back my 24 and 50, but then I would have money left over with which I could get a 20mm.

There's little chance of that happening, so get used to swapping out lenses and cropping pictures a lot.

The truth is, 24-70 doesn't seem like a very big range to me. When I am sitting with my 24mm on, I never, that I can recall, say, "I wish I had my 50 on." It is much more likely that I would say, I wish I had my 100, or my 200 on. The 24-70 doesn't solve that problem. Only the 35-350 comes close to that, and that is lot of pounds and a lot of dollars and still isn't as wide as I could ever want, or as long.

Well, the 24-70 has a lot more range than that 24 prime. And if I need longer, I've got a zoom for that range as well.

[droosan]

As entertaining as it is to trade purile insults with you, it is selfish of us. It doesn't positively contribute to the friendly atmosphere that is so important to this forum. And so I leave this thread. I think we are two blind men debating different parts of the elephant, anyway.

I apologize to all for my part in this. I need also to clarify: The EF 28-105 USM is not crappy in any absolute sense. I think photodo.com will back me up that it's optical fidelity is as good as any zoom in its range for under $1000, and far better than many. I have taken many pictures with this lens I am happy with. The experience from which I made the preceding comments is this: My 28-105 coupled with my 10D and fully extended, produces pictures not as accurately focused as my EF100/2.0, especially if the subject is moving. For all I know it may be my particular lens or my particular 10D or the combination of the two.

[randyk]

As many have said, all versions of the 70-200 are terrific. But I wouldn't expect to get camera store pics that would show this. It excels at sports in good lighting. Primes really show well in poor lighting like camera stores.

If you don't shoot action, 70-200 might not be useful for you. Seems like you don't need longer than 135mm from your kit.