Prime advice

Hi all!

To cut a long story short, I shot my aunt's play last year with a 350D and Sigma 70-300 (ouch) and am now looking for a faster lens to go with the 40D I got at Christmas so I can do a better job of it this time around.

I guess the obvious choice would be the 70-200 2.8. But I'm anxious to try out shooting with primes, and as my shots were mostly in the 100-150 range I was thinking the 135L might be a sensible alternative. I've also considered the 200 2.8, but my thoughts are it's probably a bit long for what's needed, and if I'm going to get a prime, it should at least be faster than what I could get with the equivalent zoom option.

What're your thoughts?

My thoughts are:
135L + 85 F/1.8, or if you can afford it, an 85L.

The 40D gives great iQ at 1600 iso, but I find I still need the speed of a really fast lens for indoor, non-flash photography. BTW, I got the 40D because it still has 3200 iso if I need to go even higher.

HTH, kind regards, Wim

I agree with getting the 135L, or the 85/1.8 if you can get closer to save money.

Forget the 85L for this though. The lens is not only expensive, it is worse than the 85/1.8 for anything that focus speed matters in.

The 85L is a specialized portrait lens on FF, not an action lens on APS-C.

Dave,

Can you clarify for us that you are or are not intending this prime set for shooting more plays? Or are you wanting primes for other things (and if so, what are their intended uses)?

Tony-S wrote in post #4598794
Dave,

Can you clarify for us that you are or are not intending this prime set for shooting more plays? Or are you wanting primes for other things (and if so, what are their intended uses)?

I will definitely be shooting more plays/performance stuff, so want something which can be used for that. Beyond that, I'm not too sure... most of my stuff so far has been nature related, although I'm getting more into portrait shots.

Thanks for the advice so far guys!

I'd say make the 135mm a top priority, unless distance+lighting would permit the use of an f/2.8 lens. The 200mm f/2.8 is my third sharpest lens (behind my Sigma 150mm and Sigma 30mm), and its focusing is faster and more accurate than any lens I have. The 85mm f/1.8 is a great torso portrait lens if you can get one stop down.

I went for fast primes for concerts (and plays if I go to one). However to get good coverage, I usually bring 2 primes (e.g., 100/2.0 and 200/2.8L). I once brought the 50/1.4, also. I can see the advantage of having a 70-200/2.8 for concerts but will not go that route.

Since the 100/2.8 macro is on your wish list, why don't you get that first and use it to shot plays? You will then have your macro and a decent lens for plays. You can then save up for the 70-200/2.8 which will be awesome for shooting plays. Before I bought the 100/2.0, I used my 100/2.8 macro lens for concerts and it did OK. I bought the 100/2.0 only because I shot basketball and needed a faster 100mm lens and one that focuses faster than the 100/2.8 macro.

85/1.8 and 135/2 would work great for plays. My indoor mid-to-tele prime setup is
50/1.4, 100/2, and 200/2.8, which all work great. I'm very happy with the quality
from these primes. A used 100/2 at around $325 is a fantastic bargain, as is the
85/1.8 at even slightly less money.

I use to shot heaps of theatre during my film days..I shot black and white film pushed to 1600ISO with great results..

My favourite lens was a Nikkor 85mm f2..The closest digital camera lens is a 50mm f1.8..The 50mm f1.4 would be better..

Lately I have been shooting jazz in a club using my Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 without flash with good results..Admittedly I have been shooting at 1600ISO..

Check out the result..

Jurgen
Laos

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

JeffreyG wrote in post #4598585
I agree with getting the 135L, or the 85/1.8 if you can get closer to save money.

Forget the 85L for this though. The lens is not only expensive, it is worse than the 85/1.8 for anything that focus speed matters in.

The 85L is a specialized portrait lens on FF, not an action lens on APS-C.

We're talking a play here, not basketball.

Kind regards, Wim

wimg wrote in post #4602911
We're talking a play here, not basketball.

Kind regards, Wim

A lot of actors move pretty quick doing Teddy in Arsenic and Old Lace.

But seriously, the 85/1.8 is a better rounded lens for a variety of applications. The 85L focus speed isn't just a little slow.....it is a lot slow. The 85L should only be bought if you know you need f/1.2 - 1.6 enough to justify paying five times as much to get it.

JeffreyG wrote in post #4602935
A lot of actors move pretty quick doing Teddy in Arsenic and Old Lace.

But seriously, the 85/1.8 is a better rounded lens for a variety of applications. The 85L focus speed isn't just a little slow.....it is a lot slow. The 85L should only be bought if you know you need f/1.2 - 1.6 enough to justify paying five times as much to get it.

Well, let's agree to disagree. It is slower, but you can pre-focus, f.e.

Also, you can pick your moments, which is what I do.

And if need be, there is such a thing as manual focus too. Did that for 27 years or so.

Kind regards, Wim

Thanks for all the feedback guys. It's really helped me come to some kind of decision as to what to do. And I like the photo, yogestee

I saw a 200L for a price that I just couldn't refuse and so that will be on the way shortly. If it proves to be too long, then so be it and I"ll sell it along (or I might just keep it). But in either case I'm going to try to get my hands on both an 85 1.8 and 135L, and then I think it'll all be covered.

Great lens! Along with the 85/1.8 and 135/2.0, you'll have a good set of primes for plays and sports.

I use the 85/1.8 and 135/2.0 for plays both are great. I hope to one day own the 200/2.8 as it appears to be something I would get a lot of use out of.