Holy trinity for a crop sensor ?

28 1.8 - 50 1.4 - 85 1.8

This is my "holy trinity of primes for crop sensor". I currently have the 28 and the 85. I want to nab the 50 for those in between the wide and the tele.

Wedding\portrait photographer use on crop.

My choice for primes would be 30 1.4, 50 1.4 and 85 all Sigs >>good copies...

I would also consider Tokina 11 16 2.8 >> Canon 17 55 2.8 or Sig 17 50 2.8 >> Canon 70 200 2.8 II or Sigs version of the 70 200

Think a 5D II would be my choice for your desired purpose...

10-22, 17-55, (Sigma) 50-150 is my "dream kit" for crop bodies. Maybe add the 100-400.

Come on Canon, make the 50-150 f/2.8!

Well it's not a trinity but my current trio for primes is 30/1.4, 60/2.8, and 85/1.8. I would like to make that a quintet and add the S50/1.4 and 135/2.

Trio for zooms is 17-55/2.8, 24-105, and 70-200/4 IS. Need to add the 17-55, or 17-50.

For weddings?

On crop get 28/1.8, 50/1.4 and 85/1.8. These Canon lenses are great on crop. All three are USM and have great image quality, particularly since the crop cameras use the lens' "sweet spot". If you prefer the Sigma, go for it... They will be bigger, heavier and more expensive, and it can be a crap shoot getting "good copies", but some folks prefer them.

Also get a wider lens. Tokina 12-24 or Canon 10-22 would be my recommendation. Sorry, there aren't any truly wide primes for crop cameras. I do like using Canon 20/2.8 on crop, though. It's just not very wide.

TangentZ wrote in post #13746211
10-22, 17-55, (Sigma) 50-150 is my "dream kit" for crop bodies. Maybe add the 100-400.

Come on Canon, make the 50-150 f/2.8!

Amen! I'm packing the Tokina 11-16, Tamron 17-50 non-vc, and the Sigma 50-150 for my f/2.8 trinity and couldn't be happier.

Holy Trinity is currently:

Sigma 30 1.4
Sigma 85 1.4
Canon 135L

Wish there was a 15 or 20 1.4

watt100 wrote in post #13744507
don't listen to him!

+1


Probably sigma 30 1.4/canon 35L, sigma 50 1.4/canon 50 1.2, sigma 85 1.4/canon 85 1.2 IMO 135 is a tad long on crop.

amfoto1 wrote in post #13746517
If you prefer the Sigma, go for it... They will be bigger, heavier and more expensive,

The 30 1.4 is bigger, heavier and cheaper

The 50 1.4 is bigger, heavier, and more expensive, which in regard to pricing I suppose is normal since its newer and has a proper ultrasonic motor versus canon's micro-USM. But yes, its a bit pricey for a fast 50. Heck, even the canon 50/1.4 is expensive for a fast 50 IMO.

The 85 1.4, well thats obvious why its bigger, heavier and more expensive compared to the 85 1.8, but compared to the 85 1.2? It has no Canon equivalent, so...

JeffreyG wrote in post #13743714
I don't know, it sort of depends on why one is looking to use primes.

Is it because you like to have a camera with a small and light lens in your hands? If so, I might suggest picking through the various Canon standard primes (28/1.8, 35/2, 50/1.4 and 85/1.8) as well as the Sigma 30/1.4.

Is it because you like to have very thin DOF and very low light capability? If so, you might be better off getting a larger format body like a used 1D3 or a 5D Mark II. In the long run, a larger format couple with one or two fast zooms can deliver better results (and be more convenient to use) than a 1.6X body with a whole bag of expensive fast primes.

That's the rub. A lot of the really fast primes are expensive, and this is especially the case at the very short focal length end of things which is where a 1.6X shooter winds up looking. Once you get wider than the 28/1.8, there are not a lot of cheap options that are f/2 or faster.

And if you are going to buy lenses that are all near f/2 (28/1.8 or 35/2 or 85/1.8) then you are not getting any better low light capability or shallower DOF than you would get with a 5D2 and a 24-70/2.8 zoom.

You have inadvertently answered a question i'd been meaning to ask! Thanks. I borrowed a 24L on my 50D. I really enjoyed the lens, but didn't feel i could achieve the look you get with a 35L on FF .... Nice to hear from someone who has "been there done that" to make sure i'm not just blaming my lack of skill on the gear

NoFitState wrote in post #13780190
You have inadvertently answered a question i'd been meaning to ask! Thanks. I borrowed a 24L on my 50D. I really enjoyed the lens, but didn't feel i could achieve the look you get with a 35L on FF .... Nice to hear from someone who has "been there done that" to make sure i'm not just blaming my lack of skill on the gear

JeffreyG was really spot on. There's absolutely no reason to get fast primes on a crop if your goal is to get shallow dof or low light capability because you really aren't getting that from the aps-c sensor.

His last paragraph of 'if you are going to get mediocre prime, 5d2 + 2.8 zoom trumps that any day' is really bookworthy

kin2son wrote in post #13780692
JeffreyG was really spot on. There's absolutely no reason to get fast primes on a crop if your goal is to get shallow dof or low light capability because you really aren't getting that from th aps-c sensor.

His last paragraph of 'if you are going to get mediocre prime, 5d2 + 2.8 zoom trumps that any day' is really bookworthy

I moved from the 30D + 17-55 to the 5D + 24-105 (and a few other lenses) almost five years ago. In the process I learned something that I still see other 1.6X shooters stuggling to quite grasp.

That is, on a FF body all lenses act as though they are a little more than one stop faster (relative to DOF and noise) than they do on 1.6X. They also act a lot shorter too.

What I mean is this.....people say 'I love my EF_S 17-55 and I worry about the lack of IS on the 24-70 if I move to FF". This misses the point.

On a FF body, the 24-105L is functionally equivalent to an EF-S 15-65 f/2.5 IS USM on a 1.6X body. It took me moving to FF to figure this out, that the FF equivalent to the EF-S 17-55 is the 24-105L, not the 24-70. There is no 1.6X equivalent to the 24-70.

The 24-70 on a FF body is like using an EF-S 15-45 f/1.8 USM on a 1.6X body. Totally different.

So for most people the barrier to a larger format body is cost. The availability of used 5D bodies makes this easier to some extent. But even if you want a 5D Mark II, this path is not always going to be more expensive. If you are likely to wind up with a 7D + 3-4 fast primes, then FF may well be cheaper and more convenient.

For me, I chose two 'standard-ish' primes for my crop sensor. 28mm 1.8 is a great lens on crop... I hear complaints about softness at the corners, but for APS-C it's almost non-evident. Even on FF it's quite usable, and is my go-to lens for film. Maybe I have a good copy. Also I had a Canon 50mm 1.4, until the AF quit on me. I am currently waiting on my Sigma version. Whichever you choose (sigma or canon), a 50mm 1.4 is fantastic on crop. It is equivalent to ~80mm on FF, which is perfect for portraits, especially with the wide aperture. For indoor stuff, that's all you'd need. If you want more reach, consider an 85mm 1.8. Also a great lens.

All of these allow me to get good shutter speeds without pumping my ISO too high in normal conditions. In less-than-ideal conditions, they give me acceptable shutter speeds in crap light with some ISO noise.

As far as something ultra wide goes... unfortunately there aren't many good primes that are UWA on a crop body. The Vivitar/Rokinon/Bower 13mm 2.8 is quite good, and though there is no AF, at 13mm your DOF is very forgiving. I would suggest something like the Tokina 11-16 if you want a good fast UWA with autofocus. Currently these are really the only good fast UWA lens options on crop, though I find the Sigma 10-20's f4 aperture at 10mm is adequate usually.


As for abandoning your primes for a zoom... Here's my advice: If you like shooting primes, stick with it. It's rewarding and a valid mode of photography. Most of the greatest names in photography history used primes exclusively, there's no reason why you can't get good results with it today. I can look around and almost exactly eyeball FOV and tell what my 28mm framing will be like vs a 50mm frame. I don't even need to look through the viewfinder. It becomes intuitive. I know what you mean with the love for shooting with primes. It feels more natural and elementary to me, more honest. The world of photography is very different now, and I accept that. But as a photography purist and one that loves the culture of photography in general, primes are my bread and butter. I can tell you that most of the people on this forum would hate using a Leica and boy are they missing out. Nowadays, it's just point and shoot a million frames a second and by the magic of the amazing camera in your hand, you have a professional looking product. There really is a lot less craft to it now, and the barrier into entry is almost nil.

Also, as Jeffrey pointed out, a 2.8 zoom will give you similar functionality on FF. However, take the same prime you were using on crop, and plop it on a full frame, and you can do things no zoom can do. Keep that in mind.

AbPho wrote in post #13744604
Exactly. Did you know that 35mm film was heavily frowned upon when it first came out in the early 1900's. Substandard quality and all that jazz. Back then medium and large format were the bomb. Anyone not using that was a joke.

Anyways, the holy trinity is what ever you want it to be. If you find that the 14L, 24L II, and TS-E 24 II are your thing then by all means go with it. Do not be swayed by what others use or want. Get what you need and what you can afford.

Cheer.S!

Sorry to break it to you, but 35mm film is still pretty crap, TODAY. I mean it's useable, but if you're at all serious... get a Mamiya 7 or a SLR MF camera. 35mm's redeeming value is only in its portability and the great lens/autofocus systems you have with Nikon and Canon. For size reasons, it also makes shooting a lot faster and you couldn't do sports very easily on any other medium. But blow up a 35mm film shot to anything larger than 8x12 or so, even with L glass on 25 speed film, and you'll see what I'm talking about. It simply does not cut the mustard.

For landscapes, LF or bust. You might as well give it up trying to make it as a landscape photographer on 35mm. Even FF on digital is fairly wishy washy for detail-heavy work like landscape or studio stuff. No question.

kin2son wrote in post #13780692
His last paragraph of 'if you are going to get mediocre prime, 5d2 + 2.8 zoom trumps that any day' is really bookworthy

And if Canon releases a 5D3 with the AF system and frame rate of the 7D at a price closer to that of the 5D2 than the 1D bodies, I will give FF some serious thought.

FEChariot wrote in post #13781175
And if Canon releases a 5D3 with the AF system and frame rate of the 7D at a price closer to that of the 5D2 than the 1D bodies, I will give FF some serious thought.

Hmm, I doubt you'll see the frame rate. But it will be interesting to see what's around the corner.

kin2son wrote in post #13780692
JeffreyG was really spot on. There's absolutely no reason to get fast primes on a crop if your goal is to get shallow dof or low light capability because you really aren't getting that from the aps-c sensor.

Its all relative.

Plenty of people are perfectly happy with the low light performance and shallow DOF they get from fast primes on APS-C. To say there's no point is simply... Ignorant.

Here's a very quick and simple comparison, since you take a 2.8 zoom as the standard on FF against which a fast prime should compete on APS-C:
5D2 + 24-70 = $3638
Canon 60D + sigma 30mm 1.4 = $1488.95

Less than half the price. Sure, you'll get better high ISO performance on the 5D2. But to say its pointless to get a fast prime on crop for low light smacks of elitism, and frankly, makes you seem like a gear-whore.

If your goal is to get better low light + shallower DOF coming from a compact, or m4/3, then you'll be plenty happy with APS-C. Unless your goal is to get DOF so shallow that only a thin sliver of your subject is in focus, making for a poor photo in most cases, you'll be happy with APS-C. Unless your goal is to shoot in almost complete darkness with no flash, and no tripod, you'll be happy with APS-C. If your goal is to keep your wallet happy whilst getting great equipment, you'll be happy with APS-C.

If your goal is to show off and tell others your camera cost more than theirs, you'll be happy with the 5D2, until someone comes along with the 1DIV and makes you feel inadequate and small.

*This part is for the people who like to read more into my posts than is necessary, useful, or intended:

Of course, the 5D2 is a great camera and is better than APS-C cameras in terms of low light performance and gets shallower DOF at the same aperture. But then again, I never said it wasn't, or didn't. If you can afford a 5D2 + fast lenses, all the more power to you. Don't come here and state that APS-C users should "not bother" trying to get low light and shallow DOF performance because compared to your expensive camera, they'll fail. If money was no object, you'd be in the right. But unfortunately we don't live in that perfect little universe where everyone can have anything they wish for, and no one has to worry about paying bills and feeding the kids.
Would I like a 5D2? You bet I would. Am I willing to spend over $2000 on a body and then not much less on lenses that will perform well on it? You bet I'm not. Its a hobby. I'm perfectly happy with the DOF I get from APS-C, and the low light performance as well. I work around the limitations of my equipment. I don't try fix it by buying more expensive gear because money doesn't grow on trees.