Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses
Thread started 25 Jul 2006 (Tuesday) 19:12
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Rather Than the Holy Trinity -- How About the Fab Four?

 
JimAskew
20% discount at IHOP
JimAskew's Avatar
Joined Aug 2005
Springfield, VA
Jul 25, 2006 19:12 |  #1

We have all heard about the Holy Trinity primes for your "L" belivers but I have an alternative suggestion.

I propose the "Fab Four" primes for us bargan basement hunters:

a. EF 20MM f/2.8 USM at $420
b. EF 28MM f/1.8 USM at $400
c. EF 50MM f/1.4 USM at $315
d. EF 100MM f/2.0 USM at $390

Together these sum to $1,525 (as recorded at B+H) as opposed to the $4,000+ for the Holy Trinity

Of course one could substitute the 100MM f/2.8 MACRO or the 50MM f/1.8, or the 15MM f/2.8, or.....

The drill is to find four good prime lenses that cash challenged photographers could use now as they save up for the more expensive "Real Deal" :)

Comments?


Jim -- I keep the G5X in the Glove Box just in case!
7D, G5X, 10-22MM EF-S, 17-55MM f/2.8 EF-S IS, 24-105MM f/4 EF L

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
blonde
Buck Naked Floozies
blonde's Avatar
8,405 posts
Joined Oct 2005
Boston, MA
Jul 25, 2006 19:19 |  #2

i would vote for:
35mm f2.0 $210
50 1.4 $300
85 1.8 $325 (best lens for the money out there in my own opinion)
100 2.0 $370

total: $1205


this shoudl give you killer low light setup for very small change




LOG IN TO REPLY
nadtz
Goldmember
nadtz's Avatar
1,483 posts
Joined Dec 2005
Jul 25, 2006 19:33 |  #3

I agree with

35mm f2.0 $210
50 1.4 $300
85 1.8 $325
100 2.0 $370

On a 1.6 covers a pretty good range with good quality all round. You could even sub the 35/2 with sigmas 30/1.4 for a bit more.




LOG IN TO REPLY
ChuckJr
Member
42 posts
Joined Jul 2006
USA
Jul 25, 2006 19:39 as a reply to nadtz's post |  #4

I am new. Which lenses are the Holy Trinity?

Thanks!




LOG IN TO REPLY
MDJAK
Cream of the Crop
MDJAK's Avatar
24,609 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Joined Nov 2004
New York
Jul 25, 2006 19:44 as a reply to ChuckJr's post |  #5

35 f1.4, 85 f1.2, 135 f2 are the holy trinity




LOG IN TO REPLY
MDJAK
Cream of the Crop
MDJAK's Avatar
24,609 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Joined Nov 2004
New York
Jul 25, 2006 19:45 as a reply to MDJAK's post |  #6

My Fab Four:

70-200 f2.8

300 f2.8

400 f2.8

600 f4

Total price: If you have to ask you can't afford them. (And neither can I)

mark




LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ W
Canon Fanosapien
Tom W's Avatar
12,743 posts
Joined Feb 2003
Chattanooga, Tennessee
Jul 25, 2006 19:47 |  #7

JimAskew wrote:
We have all heard about the Holy Trinity primes for your "L" belivers but I have an alternative suggestion.

I propose the "Fab Four" primes for us bargan basement hunters:

a. EF 20MM f/2.8 USM at $420
b. EF 28MM f/1.8 USM at $400
c. EF 50MM f/1.4 USM at $315
d. EF 100MM f/2.0 USM at $390

A good combination on the 1.6X cameras. On full-frame, the 20/2.8 runs into some light falloff issues, but it's still a pretty good lens stopped down a bit. I've heard mixed talk on the 28/1.8 with speculation that the corners go soft at wide apertures on FF.

Haven't handled the 28/1.8, but it's around the ideal focal length for "normal" shots on the 1.6. The 50/1.4 is great, and did great in portrait duty on my 10D. The 100/2 and/or its sibling, the 85/1.8 are both very good. Choose whichever suits your medium telephoto needs.

On a 5D, I'd consider the 35/2, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, and 135/2.8 soft focus (which doesn't seem popular, but does seem to have great sharpness when the SF is set to "0").


Tom
5D III, 70D, & various lenses

LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ W
Canon Fanosapien
Tom W's Avatar
12,743 posts
Joined Feb 2003
Chattanooga, Tennessee
Jul 25, 2006 19:48 as a reply to MDJAK's post |  #8

MDJAK wrote:
My Fab Four:

70-200 f2.8

300 f2.8

400 f2.8

600 f4

Total price: If you have to ask you can't afford them. (And neither can I)

mark

That's a lot of "fab" there! :)


Tom
5D III, 70D, & various lenses

LOG IN TO REPLY
blonde
Buck Naked Floozies
blonde's Avatar
8,405 posts
Joined Oct 2005
Boston, MA
Jul 25, 2006 19:48 as a reply to MDJAK's post |  #9

MDJAK wrote:
My Fab Four:

70-200 f2.8

300 f2.8

400 f2.8

600 f4

Total price: If you have to ask you can't afford them. (And neither can I)

mark

thats not the fab four, thats the dream team (thats the only way i can have them..) btw, if you are going all gang oh with primes, why not substitude the 70-200 with the 200 1.8 :)




LOG IN TO REPLY
ChuckJr
Member
42 posts
Joined Jul 2006
USA
Jul 25, 2006 20:36 as a reply to MDJAK's post |  #10

MDJAK wrote:
35 f1.4, 85 f1.2, 135 f2 are the holy trinity

Thanks!




LOG IN TO REPLY
RyanD
Member
RyanD's Avatar
122 posts
Joined Jul 2005
Renfrew, Ontario, Canada
Jul 25, 2006 22:25 |  #11

JimAskew wrote:
a. EF 20MM f/2.8 USM at $420
b. EF 28MM f/1.8 USM at $400
c. EF 50MM f/1.4 USM at $315
d. EF 100MM f/2.0 USM at $390

That sounds pretty close to what I plan on adding into my lineup (if you call what I have a lineup) later this year, except I may go with the 50 1.8 and the 24mm 2.8 since I'm way down in the cellar below you bargain basement guys.

Although I would like to have the 20mm, it is a little pricey even on the used market for what some say is a so~so lens. The lack of USM wouldn't be too problematic as it would be mostly a landscape lens anyways.

Of course, this would mean that I would be pretty close with the 28mm aswell, but I hear that the 4mm on the wide end makes a sizable difference. I may regret it though so I'll probably shell out for the 20mm.

Though on the tele end, (speaking of the 50mm, 85mm, 100mm lineup) the difference is less of a factor, so I can't see the need of having both the 85 and the 100mm. Either or coupled with the 50mm make a good combo.

Just my $0.02CDN


Ryan
---------------
10D w/ Grip -- 100mm f/2 -- 70-200mm f/4 -- A Couple Kit Lenses
Canadians buying from the US? Click here for some important tips

LOG IN TO REPLY
mbellot
"My dog ate my title"
mbellot's Avatar
3,354 posts
Joined Jul 2005
The Miami of Canada - Chicago!
Jul 25, 2006 22:57 as a reply to RyanD's post |  #12

I like the dynamic duo. ;)

17-85 IS + 70-200 IS

But I'm hoping to clear some finances to convert to the 24-70, just have to figure out how to convince "the boss".:lol:

blond wrote:
85 1.8 $325 (best lens for the money out there in my own opinion)

Not to disagree, but I think the nifty fifty is the best lens for the money. Its less than a third the cost of the 85/1.8 and sharp as long as its stopped down just a bit. I've heard it referred to as the "crack lens" because its the cheapest way to get hooked on good IQ.




LOG IN TO REPLY
willg
Senior Member
willg's Avatar
895 posts
Joined Mar 2005
Decatur, IL
Jul 25, 2006 23:20 |  #13

50 1.8 is sharp, but I think usm focusing and better contrast won me over to the 1.4


5D, 300D, Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4, Canon 70-200mm f/4, 135mm f/2, 24-105mm f/4, 50mm f/1.4, Sigma ef 500 dg super, Canon 580EX
http://www.spideronthe​floor.com/external link

LOG IN TO REPLY
calicokat
Cream of the Crop
calicokat's Avatar
14,720 posts
Joined Oct 2005
Southern California
Jul 25, 2006 23:25 |  #14

How about the EF-S Trinity. 10-22, 17-55 and 60mm's


"You are going to fall off a cliff trying to get a better shot someday"- My hopeful and loving wife :eek: :twisted:
My Websiteexternal link

My Gear

Calicokat 1990-2007 RIP My Loving Kitty

LOG IN TO REPLY
LITHOKEPHALOS
Member
LITHOKEPHALOS's Avatar
126 posts
Joined Jul 2006
Non comprende
Jul 25, 2006 23:45 as a reply to calicokat's post |  #15
banned

One can see those fad lenses on every forum: 35l, 85L, 135l, 200 f/1.8, 300 f/2.8.....
Unfortunately, sometimes people buy them under the influence of their peers without having done much analysis of their own. Then they end up selling that until recently coveted glass....then they try something else.....the quest for that magic wand just keeps going around.

I think there are 3 very cost effective Canon primes for the owners of 1.6 cameras who are into serious practice of photography: 24 f/2.8, 60 f/2.8 and 85 f/1.8.


EF-S: 10-22, 18-55, 17-55, 60.
EF(non L): 15, 24, 35, 50 f/1.4, 85, 100 f/2.8, 24-85, 75-300
A whack of L lenses and a few EOS cameras.

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

4,772 views & 0 likes for this thread
Rather Than the Holy Trinity -- How About the Fab Four?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00144 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.02s
Latest registered member is Senile&LovingIT!
958 guests, 418 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016