how to choose fast primes?

i know that this is a bit of an odd question....
but i am considering jumping into a trial into my first quality fast prime.
i know that *I* have to decide on a FL...
but i am looking at a 24 II or 85 II since I often shoot at those lengths as it is.

i know the 85 II has the slow AF issue though is considered "magical" for portraits. the 24 II is "only" 1.4. I am NOT planning on going ONLY primes. I just wanted to add a first quality lens to my arsenal.

I am a hobbiest. Shoot environmental portraits, family portraits, macro, and pretty much anything else. my lighting is either natural outside light or simple on camera speedlight or up to 3 speedlight off camera set up (if this helps). I use a 7d crop with no plans at this point to go FF

thanks.

When I shot with a crop sensor, I had the 50 1.8 and liked it. But it's kind of long for most things. Once I got my sigma 30 1.4 it changed everything. My photography took a quantum leap that year. I highly recommend that lens. Apparently some miss focus so try it before you buy it, read up on focusing with narrow dof, and consider micro adjusting as necessary.

Have fun. Get that sigma!

do you use your 50mm much? thats a very popular FL on a crop. if so, you could always upgrade to the 1.2L.

between the 24 and 85, thats tough. both are great lenses and great FLs. i personally would go with the 24, but thats just me.

No. In fact, i dont. It is either too long or too short for my shooting. Hence the the 50L is not on the list. Thanks for the thought. I am also interested obly in autofocus lenses right now...and canon lenses at that for my first foray. Thanks. Agaon... it is it the first foray into fast high quality primes.... not just any primes.....


Thank for other ideas and opinions

pdrober2 wrote in post #15559374
do you use your 50mm much? thats a very popular FL on a crop. if so, you could always upgrade to the 1.2L.

between the 24 and 85, thats tough. both are great lenses and great FLs. i personally would go with the 24, but thats just me.

You mentioned two things that stood out to me:

environmental portraiture
&
Not planning on going full frame

I would recommend the 24L then without hesitation as it is fantastic on the 7D (I had both in the past and I really liked the framing I got with that combo, though I prefer 24 to be 24 on full frame ). To me environmental portraiture is all about including the environment, not just shooting outside of a studio setting. It can surely be done with longer lenses, but I think something slightly wider is ideal for this purpose. The 24L will give you a good amount of environment to go with your subject, and I think you'd be really happy with it.

It may motivate you to try more prime lenses, and eventually go all primes (like so many of us have)

Sigma 30mm is the one to get. And it's on sale.

There has been a lot of discussion here on POTN about the 85 f1.8 vs. the 85 L.
Seems that many who have used both claim there is no reason to get the 85L unless you actually want to take images at extremely wide apertures.

You seem like someone who would do just fine with the much less expensive 85 f1.8 . . . just a budget-friendly suggestion. And it is still very much a "fast prime"!

Maybe go back through the photos that you have shot and look at what your most used focal length is. For me a 85mm is a length I rarely use on a crop sensor, so that's a no go. For a first prime, many people go with a 35mm or 50mm standard because it is the most use focal length by most people. The 24 is equal to a 35mm standard on a crop so it would be my choice between the two.

First, take a long, deep breath...

Now go buy an EF 28/1.8, 50/1.4 (either the Sigma or the Canon) and an EF 85/1.8.

You can get all three of these lenses for about the price of either one of the Ls you are considering. They are all excellent lenses with potential for top image quality. They are all more generally versatile, lighter, smaller, less intimidating to use than an L-series.... and each is plenty of lens for a "first time with primes". Reminder: you'll need to buy the lens hoods for any of the Canon lenses, too... they are sold separately.

Shoot with these lenses for a while and decide if a.) they work for you, you like shooting with primes, and b.) you still want to upgrade to one of the Ls for some reason. You can always sell off a lens to upgrade, often with very little loss from your original purchase cost.

It is very rare for a single prime lens to meet all of a shooter's needs. Yes, you have your zooms to revert to. But, if you want to shoot with primes a bit you might as well get a set that provides some versatility.

28mm is nice for environmental portraits. Another lens I use for that purpose is the EF 20/2.8.

50mm and 85mm on crop complement each other nicely... they are the ideal traditional short and long portrait focal lengths. An alternative might be the EF 100/2. The 135/2L is very nice, too, but starts to get a bit long for much portraiture on crop cameras.

None of the above lenses offer true macro capabilities, which you mention.... Depending upon how high priority macro is for you, you also might want to consider substituting a macro lens for one or two of the above. Personally I'm not a big fan of using macro lenses for portraiture, they can almost be too sharp, show too much fine detail and too many flaws. Also, most macros are only f2.8 at best. However, the Tamron 60mm f2.0 is a full stop faster than most and might be an interesting substitute for both 50mm and 85mm portrait lenses. There are also the Canon EF-S 60/2.8 macro, Sigma 70/2.8 macro and Tamron 90/2.8 macro. Of course there are also the Canon 100L and 100/2.8 USM.

I really don't want to get on my hobby horse but there is very good evidence that your 7D will not be able to detect light that comes from a lens which is faster than f/2. The evidence is here and there's some commentary here..

With this in mind, you may want to consider whether paying for a f/1.4 lens makes any sense.

Fwiw, I'd consider a moderately wide lens - something like 20-28 mm on a crop camera. The 24mm IS might well be ideal.

agphotography wrote in post #15559937
You mentioned two things that stood out to me:

environmental portraiture
&
Not planning on going full frame

I would recommend the 24L then without hesitation as it is fantastic on the 7D (I had both in the past and I really liked the framing I got with that combo, though I prefer 24 to be 24 on full frame ). To me environmental portraiture is all about including the environment, not just shooting outside of a studio setting. It can surely be done with longer lenses, but I think something slightly wider is ideal for this purpose. The 24L will give you a good amount of environment to go with your subject, and I think you'd be really happy with it.

It may motivate you to try more prime lenses, and eventually go all primes (like so many of us have)

thanks - those make sense. I highly doubt your last sentence...but who knows?

tkbslc wrote in post #15559957
Sigma 30mm is the one to get. And it's on sale.

thanks for the thought. If Canon made a wider f 1.4 lens in the 20s I would be looking at that. Ideally for a crop, I would have loved a 21mm f1.4...but oh well. the 30 is not what I want. I toyed with the idea of the 35 for a while and used my 24-105 at 35 for a while only at 35 and didn't really like it as much as I did as I did at 85 or 24. Thanks.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #15559991
There has been a lot of discussion here on POTN about the 85 f1.8 vs. the 85 L.
Seems that many who have used both claim there is no reason to get the 85L unless you actually want to take images at extremely wide apertures.

You seem like someone who would do just fine with the much less expensive 85 f1.8 . . . just a budget-friendly suggestion. And it is still very much a "fast prime"!

you are probably right. but usually those people can say that only after trying the 1.2, no? I have never tried a 1.2, so I cannot say. *YOU* are probably right, though and I am still going back and forth on your statement. It certainly is cheaper...and has better AF! and is lighter. Thanks for your post.

JAbberwocky wrote in post #15560411
Maybe go back through the photos that you have shot and look at what your most used focal length is. For me a 85mm is a length I rarely use on a crop sensor, so that's a no go. For a first prime, many people go with a 35mm or 50mm standard because it is the most use focal length by most people. The 24 is equal to a 35mm standard on a crop so it would be my choice between the two.

thanks. I have done that and have even gone and tried actively to use only the same focal length on my 24-105 for an evening. and I have used exposure plot to see my own patterns and I see that I often use both areas ...and not too much the middle (hence I can discount the 50mm completely - and the 35mm).

amfoto1 wrote in post #15560443
First, take a long, deep breath...

Now go buy an EF 28/1.8, 50/1.4 (either the Sigma or the Canon) and an EF 85/1.8.

You can get all three of these lenses for about the price of either one of the Ls you are considering. They are all excellent lenses with potential for top image quality. They are all more generally versatile, lighter, smaller, less intimidating to use than an L-series.... and each is plenty of lens for a "first time with primes". Reminder: you'll need to buy the lens hoods for any of the Canon lenses, too... they are sold separately.

Shoot with these lenses for a while and decide if a.) they work for you, you like shooting with primes, and b.) you still want to upgrade to one of the Ls for some reason. You can always sell off a lens to upgrade, often with very little loss from your original purchase cost.

It is very rare for a single prime lens to meet all of a shooter's needs. Yes, you have your zooms to revert to. But, if you want to shoot with primes a bit you might as well get a set that provides some versatility.

28mm is nice for environmental portraits. Another lens I use for that purpose is the EF 20/2.8.

50mm and 85mm on crop complement each other nicely... they are the ideal traditional short and long portrait focal lengths. An alternative might be the EF 100/2. The 135/2L is very nice, too, but starts to get a bit long for much portraiture on crop cameras.

None of the above lenses offer true macro capabilities, which you mention.... Depending upon how high priority macro is for you, you also might want to consider substituting a macro lens for one or two of the above. Personally I'm not a big fan of using macro lenses for portraiture, they can almost be too sharp, show too much fine detail and too many flaws. Also, most macros are only f2.8 at best. However, the Tamron 60mm f2.0 is a full stop faster than most and might be an interesting substitute for both 50mm and 85mm portrait lenses. There are also the Canon EF-S 60/2.8 macro, Sigma 70/2.8 macro and Tamron 90/2.8 macro. Of course there are also the Canon 100L and 100/2.8 USM.

thaks for this thought out response. I am not selling my own lenses to get the lenses I am asking about - I am keeping my own 100mm macro. or my kenko tubes. so macro is ok. thanks.

secondly, I am not a salesman. so I try very very very hard not to have to sell lenses. I hate it. I would rather save triple as long to buy something I don't "need" than buy 3 things that I plan to upgrade through selling them on the local market.

thirdly, as mentioned above, the idea of the 85 1.8 is indeed a potential. it has a very name. The 50mm is not interesting to me. My 50 1.8 I got actually to play in reversing a lens for macro uses first and second as a lens to use.... both I use sparingly. third, the 28 f1.8 - it is an idea. I was a bit interested in getting something wider at 24 (or more, as I wrote above), but I will check it out. Thanks for offering it as an option.

noisejammer wrote in post #15560478
I really don't want to get on my hobby horse but there is very good evidence that your 7D will not be able to detect light that comes from a lens which is faster than f/2. The evidence is here and there's some commentary here..

With this in mind, you may want to consider whether paying for a f/1.4 lens makes any sense.

Fwiw, I'd consider a moderately wide lens - something like 20-28 mm on a crop camera. The 24mm IS might well be ideal.

I have been surfing here almost daily here for years and have never heard of this before. is this a theoretical proposal or is this also noticed by those outside of a laboratory? I mean, while I have heard of people complaining of price - performance isssues or DOF importance factors or corner to corner sharpness or microcontrast issues..... i have yet to say that they don't see image differences on their cameras between f1.2 vs f1.8 or f2 or f4 - have you? I mean, I *THINK* I can see the difference on a sample of a canon camera between a DOF of a shot taken at f1.2, f2 and f4 and f8...... or maybe I didn't understand. I am willing to learn more, if misunderstood.

If you're going to spend that much on a single lens, I would change it up.

Instead of the 24L, buy a used 5D2 and either a Canon 35IS or the Sigma 35. This would give you much better performance than a 7D plus 24L plus it would give you a great normal prime for your 7D.

Same thing with the 85L. A used 5D2 and a 135L would do better than the 85L on crop. Plus the 135L on crop would make a great indoor sports or stage photography lens on the 7D.

ceriltheblade wrote in post #15563704
I have been surfing here almost daily here for years and have never heard of this before. is this a theoretical proposal or is this also noticed by those outside of a laboratory? I mean, while I have heard of people complaining of price - performance isssues or DOF importance factors or corner to corner sharpness or microcontrast issues. or maybe I didn't understand. I am willing to learn more, if misunderstood.

It's real. What happens is that the microlenses over the pixels on the sensor can only see light coming from over a certain angular range. So as you use lenses with apertures wider than f/2 on the 7D, the sensor cannot see the additional light.

Literally, when you open up the lens from f/2 to f/1.4, the sensor sees the exact same light level. Canon understands that this behaviour would be confusing in use, so they secretly embedded a fix in the software.

Here is how it works. Say you take a shot at f/2, 1/100 and ISO 1600.

Now change to f/1.4, 1/200 and ISO 1600. The camera will tell you it is using ISO 1600, but really it is using ISO 3200 to fix the light loss issue and it is not telling you.

You can observe this yourself by turning the lens far enough to disconnect the electrical contacts. When the camera doesn't know what the aperture is, it cannot cheat the ISO level and it will underexpose.

There is some debate as to whether this large aperture effect comes into play with DOF, but I rather doubt it does. I'd assume the DOF at f/1.4 looks shallower than at f/2 on a 7D, but perhaps someone could check it for us.

JeffreyG - if I understood the graphs and the commentary (from 2010) correctly - while the 7D is one of the biggest offenders on the list, all the canon products pretty much suffer from the same phenomena. This is, of couse, highly disturbing and has put an immediate stop for me right now considering expensive fast glass until I can figure it out. I mean....paying for quality that I will get is one thing....paying for the sake of paying is not my game....

so are there any wide primes at f2-f2.8 which are excellent corner to corner? i don't remember any off hand....maybe the 24 side of the 24-70II? (but then i am back to zooms...) or the 21 f2.8 ZE (but then I am on MF)... grrrr.

or the 85 1.8 at f2.....

although the idea of the used 5 series either clasic or version II is starting to growing on me too...I was just hoping not to have to get another body.....

damn if this didn't just get more complicated!

I wouldn't worry about it. 9/10 fast glass is razor sharp at f2, while slower lenses are not quite.