going back to primes!

I tried the 28-135 IS too slow and image quality no where near as good as the 50 1.8 II I just got today. It is a big difference contrast,sharpness etc.. and its much lighter and easier to work with. I will build up my lenses with prime Zooms have to many compromises.

I keep on saying this thing over and over in this forum, but very few takers are here



Some goooooood Primes

20mm f2.8
24mm f2.8
35mm f2
50mm f1.8
50mm f1.4

I only shot with primes back in my K1000/ ZX-M days since I learned on primes but When I got my 10D I thought I would try out a zoom lens since I figured technology must have made major improvements in quality. I was dissapointed You can really tell the difference but maybe people raised on zooms got used to the quality.

Of course primes are better than zooms, if for no other reason than they generally have a wider maximum aperture which facilitates faster and more accurate focusing.

But consider this. You choose a 135mm F2 for a particular landscape shot. Ideally, you really want a 160mm lens to crop out that ugly sign post on the left, but your next lens is a 200mm F2.8 which crops too much, so you use the 135mm and crop the image later.

Now, whilst it's true that the 135mm prime has better resolution than a 70-200mm zoom set at 135mm, it's probably only marginally better at f8. But what about the cropped image/135mm prime versus the zoom at 160mm focal length? Could be the zoom has the edge.

This has been a hot debate for a while. I think both primes and zooms have value to them. It's a "no brainer" that primes are slightly sharper. However, I don't want to carry 10 primes around.

I have both and find the quality hard to pick out. The 28-135 is probably not a good comparison since it's not a pro quality lens.

I've seen zooms take hits from folks who own primes, the same folks put 1.4 and 2x tele converters on the primes. This degrades the image and the only thing they've accomplished is to have turned the lens into a versatile lens, aka zoom.

I don't think folks have grown up on zooms and "got used" to the quality. My decision regarding my zooms was a thought out process. What kind of shooting, future lens purchases ect.

I thought long and hard, many sleepless nights, between the 300 f4 is and my 100-400. I obviously settled on a little less optical quality in my decision. If I only went to the zoo, the 300 would have been my choice. But the 100-400 has given me some needed options with other shooting situations. I hate changing lenses constantly (I have two d60's). I will be getting the big dog, the 300 2.8 or 400 2.8. I can still keep the zoom while I would have to get rid of the 300 f4.

I have to admit, the two primes I do own after selling my 200 2.8, is the 50 and 90mm macro. I will be getting the 85. This is my favorite shooting range and where IMHO, primes really shine.

Cheers.

All I know is with the 28-135 IS the subject matter was lifeless lacking punch/contrast/saturat​ion and nots harp and it was a total night and day difference nothing subtle. below is a sample image using the 50mm 1.8 This is the lens that will show off the 10D
Select original size to see it in detail where you can see the difference

http://www.pbase.com/i​mage/16199889

http://www.pbase.com/i​mage/16199891

I bought all prime because of speed.
I don't like flash photography... or even own a flash unit, so I need all the light I can get.

Canon 14mm 2.8 Fisheye
Canon 50mm 1.4
Canon 85mm 1.8

hugodrax wrote:
below is a sample image using the 50mm 1.8 This is the lens that will show off the 10D
Select original size to see it in detail where you can see the difference

http://www.pbase.com/i​mage/16199889

http://www.pbase.com/i​mage/16199891

Hugodrax,
Am I missing something? I can't find the 28-135 IS shots of the faucet and the cactus. All I see are two shots of the 50mm f1.8 showing great lack of DoF, at an aperture which the 28-135 zoom doesn't have.

agreed. I sold my 28-135 a while ago... all I use is primes on my D60... world of difference.

Canon 50mm f/1.8 II
Canon 100mm f/2.0
Sigma 8mm f/4 (not the sharpest, but a darn cool lens for multi-frame panoramas)

This one's worth mentioning again: Canon 100/2.

Silly Silly Silly.... of course the primes are sharper. It's useless re-iterating this. If you are a hobbist, and can set up all your shots...and are never in a real-world shoot under stress, primes are the way to go.

The 28-135 IS is a great compromise zoom lens. Its cheap, it's sharpness numbers excell some of the L zooms, the IS function lets you take amazing natural light shots at 800 asa, and it is an effective lens in photojournalistic shooting.

If abject resolution was the only criteria of a great photo, then crazy glue the 50mm 1.4 or 200mm L onto your 10D.
It isn't. Lighting is the most important aspect of any photo, then the skill of the shooter, then the content and creativity of the image, then the equipment.

Give Clapton a $29 chinese plastic guitar, and he will make you cry. Give me the Les Paul Gold edition, and I will sound un-inspiring. When I look at my portfolio, I have still not beat some of the shots I took with my Olympus D600 1.4MP SLR.

Decent Zooms have a place in the bag of almost all real shooters. They are compromise lenses. I'll bet you that the next great shot I take will be shot with the 28-135 IS, why?...because it is on my 10D 80% of the time.

Bob Nagy

I agree with most of what you're saying. I have said many times that the best lens is the one that's on your camera, because that is the one that is ready to take a picture. And zooms definitely have their place.

For me, I most often use a zoom at an event where I am taking a variety of shots, and I don't have control over the subject, and people are going to want the shots as a record of the event, rather than for the pictures' artistic value. -Real World, as you say.

However, sharpness (and general optical quality) is not the only good thing about primes. IMO, it's not even the best thing about primes:

They focus faster (The motor has to move less glass less far) - this is very good whenever your subject is alive and not posing for you.

They let in more light (a f/1.4 lets in 10x the light of a cheap zoom) - this means they'll focus faster and you can see better through the view finder, and you can use less flash.

You have much more control over DoF.

They're smaller, lighter, and cheaper, per quality.

You must be joking. Ask the hundreds of combat photographer carting around Leica M4's with sets of 3 primes or the hundreds of gifted photographers who have been published in National Geographic,Life,Time etc... if they think primes are useless in real world situations.

When the Rounds are pounding your way that Rangefinder with the 50mm Will let you take the shots. Try that with a 28-135 IS or a 24-70L

Primes never stopped me from doing anything and when I was in the Army I had 2 primes and a sturdy mechanical Nikon F2 and Leica M4 body with a 50.

I second it. Though I have a 70-200Lf2.8, but for Portraits I prefer to use Primes. It never had been a constraint to me. The only time I reach out for Zoom is for Landscapes where I may need 140mm or 92mm to perfect the composition

All images below are shot with Canon 300L

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

hugodrax wrote:-
"You must be joking. Ask the hundreds of combat photographer carting around Leica M4's with sets of 3 primes or the hundreds of gifted photographers who have been published in National Geographic,Life,Time etc... if they think primes are useless in real world situations. "

If this is true, and I suspect it is probably an inaccurate generalisation, it would be useful to know what the 'real' reasons are for such a choice of prime lenses with the old-fashioned range-finder system of focusing.

If I were a photographer in any combat situation, my first choice would be the best quality, biggest aperture IS zoom that money can buy. However, I can think of some good reasons why the range-finder camera and primes might be preferred in highly volatile situations.

(1) primes have fewer moving parts and are less liable to malfunction under stress and knocks.

(2) same applies to basic range-finder cameras. In far away, isolated places it might not be wise to rely upon an electricity source to recharge the batteries.

(3) Sand and dust is the enemy of the latest autofocusing DSLRs. Reliability is the name of the game.

Don't know if I've covered everything, but I'm pretty sure 'absolute' resolution is at the bottom of the list. In any case, as we all know, start cropping an image taken with a prime, because it wasn't the ideal focal length to begin with, and that resolution advantage is lost.

Am I right or am I right?