approach to primes for a prime - newbie

hi there

I am interested in getting your collective advice about a prime to purchase.

i recently traded up from the USM 100 macro to the 100 L IS and while it was mainly for macro, I started playing with it for its non-macro applications as well. First of all, at least for my specific copies, the jump in sharpness and AF was significant; second of all - it was kind of fun to force myself into a single FL and it kind of opened my appetite to play with more primes.

I looked at my general uses of my zoom lenses and I don't have a focal length that I use more. I am pretty equal between 10-200.

so the ones that i have been flirting with also have a FL range significantly wide:

Zeiss ZE 21 f2.8: pro: people say that the microcontrast is second to none and it has a special "look" and that it is the sharpest corner to corner. cons: people say that it doesn't have a special look and that it is all crap. MF.

Canon 24 tilt: pro: something else to learn in addition to be a razor sharp 24mm. cons: something else to learn. MF

Sigma 35 Art: pro: if the AF works well, the sharpness and colors are really impressive which may or may not be taken care of with the Sigma USB dock cons: IF the AF works...

Canon 85 1.8: pro: the fastest AF on an 85 prime and excellent IQ. Cons: color fringing can be strong (though in fairness - in all the 85s it has been mentioned)

Sigma 85 1.4: pro very close to the 85 1.2 quality without the snail like AF. cons: see above

Canon 135 f2 pro: not as fast as the other primes but has a "magical ability" to turn me into a pro photographer cons: none that i read...most of the complaints are only about the FL - and not anything else about the lens.

I am shooting on a 7d and at this point in the game I am not thinking about FF.

random thoughts:

I did not include the 50mm ranges because I don't like it on a crop. I purchased my 50 1.8 specifically to reverse mount though I played with it a bit anyway on the crop and was less than happy with the length. I always wanted more or less....

I also didn't include the f1.2 lenses - not because of the finances - but rather - there is talk about the sensors not being able to even utilize the aperture - so why pay a premium if I won't get a premium out of the lens-camera combo?

the purpose of the lens at this point is to play and experiment. I love my zooms and will not drop them, but I wanted to explore the world of the faster primes.

thanks for any insights or practical advice for a real prime-newbie

Heya,

Since you already have the 100L, I wouldn't look at the 85's or the 135 just yet. Not unless you really are trying to focus there specifically (and also because you're using the 7D, they may just be too long perhaps, but that's up to you).

Sounds like you could however use something in the 30~50mm focal length range.

Personally the 85 1.8 and the 35 f2 are my favorite primes. Covers almost everything I do, short of sky work.

Very best,

i don't really get your question.

you seem to list what is great about primes in your post.

the 85 1.8 is a great lens, and a great price. I'd say this is a no brainer if you are wanting to experiment with primes. but as already stated, 85 is pretty close to your 100, although it is 1 1/3 stops faster.

the other lenses you list are a pretty decent investment,and many of them have a specific purpose, so given you don't list a specific purpose for buying primes, it's hard to say much.

are you going lowlight indoors shooting people? landscapes? portraits?

i mean, a prime is a fixed, so it has a specific purpose, so you kinda need to have a need to fill before you buy one.

MalVeauX wrote in post #16476217
Heya,

Since you already have the 100L, I wouldn't look at the 85's or the 135 just yet. Not unless you really are trying to focus there specifically (and also because you're using the 7D, they may just be too long perhaps, but that's up to you).

Sounds like you could however use something in the 30~50mm focal length range.

Personally the 85 1.8 and the 35 f2 are my favorite primes. Covers almost everything I do, short of sky work.

Very best,

thanks for the opinion. it seems very reasonable

Jerobean wrote in post #16476345
i don't really get your question.

you seem to list what is great about primes in your post.

the 85 1.8 is a great lens, and a great price. I'd say this is a no brainer if you are wanting to experiment with primes. but as already stated, 85 is pretty close to your 100, although it is 1 1/3 stops faster.

the other lenses you list are a pretty decent investment,and many of them have a specific purpose, so given you don't list a specific purpose for buying primes, it's hard to say much.

are you going lowlight indoors shooting people? landscapes? portraits?

i mean, a prime is a fixed, so it has a specific purpose, so you kinda need to have a need to fill before you buy one.

not to be contrary, but I don't agree with you. I am in a phase where I want to experiment and explore a lens. I do not need a reason to buy it except for that. What I *do* want is a good to great lens so as to fully enjoy the experience. I live in an area of the world where it is not acceptible to return a lens, and it is also a pain to run it back and forth to the lab to get it fixed. I mean, if I lived in NYC, next to Adorama or B&H - this post wouldn't even be here.

yes - I will be shooting indoors, outdoors, people, landscapes, portraits, and more. good light and bad light. pretty much whatever I want. because I don't have a goal except to play and explore and learn.

anyway, i listed lenses above which have caught my eye on the board from the samples others can produce and the talk that they generate. The talk can be quite confusing at times because there is a whole lot of talk and many opinions.

and for a person like me - without a specific goal - it isn't clear which lens would be "fun".

i hope this clarifies my point better.

Many thanks

Heya,

One other thing I would definitely look into, is that even a mid-tier prime is going to have outstanding image quality. Even entry primes have amazing image quality. One of the big draws, to me, of primes is the wide aperture you can get and sharp quality, but without the high cost that a zoom with similar properties would draw. Plus, zooms just don't get as wide as primes do really (close, but not quite). Someone might say that it's only a stop or two difference in aperture, but that makes a world of difference to your final image if you're playing with blade thin depths of field due to wide aperture. And this is often the lure of primes to begin with! Super shallow depths of field for very interesting photos. The wide aperture makes them very useful in low light, and even more useful if they have IS (or 3rd party equivalent) in low light.

I went from Zooms to Primes mainly because the cost of a very good quality zoom is simply enormous. Instead, I can get a good prime lens that costs way less and get all benefits, with the only con being that I cannot zoom (change focal length on the fly) and that I have to carry several lenses instead of just one lens. But I just put my lenses in a bag and carry two or three total lenses and I'm good. So that's not a con for me. I can see it being a problem for some though and appreciate that. The con of not being able to change your focal length on the fly? Not a problem for me unless I'm shooting moments that last seconds, instead of scenes that are relatively unchanging. Portraits and landscape for example aren't changing much in general.

So whatever lens you choose, I would stress that you get a prime with the widest aperture you can. That's part of the learning and fun of primes, is having access to that 1.2, 1.4, 1.8, 2, etc, apertures, instead of only 2.8 or higher which is common for "really good" zooms for wide aperture. I find the difference in the final image of something at 1.8 and 2.8 to be enough of a difference that I want the 1.8 more often. Even though I most commonly shoot at f2 on both my primes.

I took the Sigma gamble on the 30mm 1.4 art, and lost. The autofocus was terrible. I couldn't fix it with the USB dock either. Since you're in a situation where you cannot do returns, etc, and don't want the hassle of problematic lenses, I would probably suggest you skip Sigma for now, since this is all about fun and learning. Maybe stick to Canon, Tamron, Zeis, Rokinon, Samyang, Tokina, etc.

Since you say you're doing outdoors, landscapes, bad light, indoors (low light), etc, a wide angle wide aperture prime sounds right up your ally. Your current 100mm prime will handle portraits and people just fine. You'll have both essential focal lengths basically with just two lenses to play and learn from. Look for 24mm to 50mm perhaps in primes. The EF 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 40mm and 50mm specifically. Go with the best deal. But if no deal is obvious, go for latest revision glass, with best coatings, IS if possible (or equivalent), and widest aperture (you can always stop down!).

Very best,

If you are going to add in zeiss, look at the 50 1.4 and the legendary 85mm 1.4

Based on your two post, then I think I would try the 35mm range (or Sigma 30mm since you are on a crop camera). Right now while you are experimenting, I think that is far enough away from your 100L to see some significant differences in your images (the 85mm and 135 may be to close to that 100).

I picked that/those rather than the TS-E or the Zeiss only because when possible I'd rather have AF (but that is me). I'd rather have the TS-E if I were going to go with a MF lens. But I would be more tempted on a 24mm f/1.4 L before the TS-E (I think I'd get more out of it). I think the eventual triplet of 24L, 50L, and the 100L is not a bad series of lenses. (IMO) It ranks with the 35, 85, 135 triplet (in someways it may beat it).

Personally I do think there is a difference with f/1.2. Though I also think you get a better (much) effect with these faster primes on a FF rather than a crop camera.

ceriltheblade wrote in post #16476373
thanks for the opinion. it seems very reasonable



I am in a phase where I want to experiment and explore a lens. I do not need a reason to buy it except for that. What I *do* want is a good to great lens so as to fully enjoy the experience.
yes - I will be shooting indoors, outdoors, people, landscapes, portraits, and more. good light and bad light. pretty much whatever I want. because I don't have a goal except to play and explore and learn.

Ok, then buy all the lenses you listed and experiment.

MalVeauX wrote in post #16476417
I went from Zooms to Primes mainly because the cost of a very good quality zoom is simply enormous. Instead, I can get a good prime lens that costs way less and get all benefits, with the only con being that I cannot zoom (change focal length on the fly) and that I have to carry several lenses instead of just one lens.

Realistically, one zoom lens is usually functionally two or three primes though. Like the classic wide angle lens such as most 24-70 zooms on a FF camera functions in the place of a 24mm and 50mm prime at the least, while offering a bit more reach too. That's just an example.

What I mean is that saying that primes are more affordable may be a false economy depending on the lenses in question, but for sure you should not really be thinking of a zoom lens as equivalent to one prime.

For the OP, I would suggest getting a prime at one of three focal lengths, depending on your typical vision.

1) Wide. This would be 24mm or 28mm on a FF. Since you have a 1.6X format camera there really are not a lot of fast and great options here, this is a range most 1.6X shooters cover with zooms.

2) Wide-normal. This would be 35mm equivalent on FF, so about 20mm to 24mm for you, and there are some choices here. A lot of people really like this field of view, and if it is for you then this is a good place for a prime.

3) Normal. For you this is a 28mm or 30mm lens, and there are several choices here.

Most people when working with primes wind up with something where the focal length steps are 2X between them. This would be either the (classic) sets (on FF) of:

24mm - 50mm - 100mm -or-
35mm - 85mm - 135mm

And the deciding factor between these is generally how wide you want to be on the wide end and whether or not you really like a normal field of view or not.

Of course, you can own 24-35-50-85-100-135 etc but that is expensive and not real easy to carry around.

I would suggest trying your zoom lenses set at fixed focal lengths to try and determine which focal lengths would work best for you with primes. Each of us has different focal length preferences.

When I shot with crop bodies, my most used primes were a EF 28mm f/1.8 and EF 85mm f/1.8. I did not have much use for a 50mm prime. Since you stated that you do not care for 50mm on your 7D either, I would suggest fixing your Tamron 28-75 at 28mm, 30mm and then 35mm to get a sense if any of those lengths works for you. If none of those lengths are wide enough, then try your 10-22mm or 24-105L in the 20mm - 24mm range.

JeffreyG wrote in post #16476460
Realistically, one zoom lens is usually functionally two or three primes though. Like the classic wide angle lens such as most 24-70 zooms on a FF camera functions in the place of a 24mm and 50mm prime at the least, while offering a bit more reach too. That's just an example.

Heya,

While that's true to an extent, you still are losing out on the shallow depth of field gained with even only partially wider apertures. Not having access to F2 or wider, f1.8, f1.4, etc, kind of defeats a lot of why people want primes to begin with. Everyone can get functional handy zooms that cover tons of focal ranges with F2.8, f3.5, and higher. But a good zoom with F2?

So you're not quite getting all the functionality of a prime in a zoom. The prime difference is that wider aperture. Even though it's not a massive stop difference, it's subtle enough for me, for example, that I want that shallower depth of field, and f2.8 and f3.5 simply were never interesting enough to me, but f1.8 and f2 are much more interesting in the shots they take. Totally preference.

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #16476417
Heya,

One other thing I would definitely look into, is that even a mid-tier prime is going to have outstanding image quality. Even entry primes have amazing image quality. One of the big draws, to me, of primes is the wide aperture you can get and sharp quality, but without the high cost that a zoom with similar properties would draw. Plus, zooms just don't get as wide as primes do really (close, but not quite). Someone might say that it's only a stop or two difference in aperture, but that makes a world of difference to your final image if you're playing with blade thin depths of field due to wide aperture. And this is often the lure of primes to begin with! Super shallow depths of field for very interesting photos. The wide aperture makes them very useful in low light, and even more useful if they have IS (or 3rd party equivalent) in low light.

I went from Zooms to Primes mainly because the cost of a very good quality zoom is simply enormous. Instead, I can get a good prime lens that costs way less and get all benefits, with the only con being that I cannot zoom (change focal length on the fly) and that I have to carry several lenses instead of just one lens. But I just put my lenses in a bag and carry two or three total lenses and I'm good. So that's not a con for me. I can see it being a problem for some though and appreciate that. The con of not being able to change your focal length on the fly? Not a problem for me unless I'm shooting moments that last seconds, instead of scenes that are relatively unchanging. Portraits and landscape for example aren't changing much in general.

So whatever lens you choose, I would stress that you get a prime with the widest aperture you can. That's part of the learning and fun of primes, is having access to that 1.2, 1.4, 1.8, 2, etc, apertures, instead of only 2.8 or higher which is common for "really good" zooms for wide aperture. I find the difference in the final image of something at 1.8 and 2.8 to be enough of a difference that I want the 1.8 more often. Even though I most commonly shoot at f2 on both my primes.

I took the Sigma gamble on the 30mm 1.4 art, and lost. The autofocus was terrible. I couldn't fix it with the USB dock either. Since you're in a situation where you cannot do returns, etc, and don't want the hassle of problematic lenses, I would probably suggest you skip Sigma for now, since this is all about fun and learning. Maybe stick to Canon, Tamron, Zeis, Rokinon, Samyang, Tokina, etc.

Since you say you're doing outdoors, landscapes, bad light, indoors (low light), etc, a wide angle wide aperture prime sounds right up your ally. Your current 100mm prime will handle portraits and people just fine. You'll have both essential focal lengths basically with just two lenses to play and learn from. Look for 24mm to 50mm perhaps in primes. The EF 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 40mm and 50mm specifically. Go with the best deal. But if no deal is obvious, go for latest revision glass, with best coatings, IS if possible (or equivalent), and widest aperture (you can always stop down!).

Very best,

that was really a useful post. Thanks so much!

eddie3dfx wrote in post #16476427
If you are going to add in zeiss, look at the 50 1.4 and the legendary 85mm 1.4

I hadn't considered the 85 1.4. Thanks a lot. i am not interested in the 50 as mentioned above. Thanks.

jimewall wrote in post #16476429
Based on your two post, then I think I would try the 35mm range (or Sigma 30mm since you are on a crop camera). Right now while you are experimenting, I think that is far enough away from your 100L to see some significant differences in your images (the 85mm and 135 may be to close to that 100).

I picked that/those rather than the TS-E or the Zeiss only because when possible I'd rather have AF (but that is me). I'd rather have the TS-E if I were going to go with a MF lens. But I would be more tempted on a 24mm f/1.4 L before the TS-E (I think I'd get more out of it). I think the eventual triplet of 24L, 50L, and the 100L is not a bad series of lenses. (IMO) It ranks with the 35, 85, 135 triplet (in someways it may beat it).

Personally I do think there is a difference with f/1.2. Though I also think you get a better (much) effect with these faster primes on a FF rather than a crop camera.

Thanks for your post. you made some great points. Thanks.

Jerobean wrote in post #16476444
Ok, then buy all the lenses you listed and experiment.

i hope that my response didn't insult you (??) but while I may be able to afford a couple of the lenses at once... I am less interested in a mass purchase - but rather to buy one (max two) and then experiment.

Have a great day and thanks for taking the time to answer

I recently started experimenting with primes as well. I picked up the 85mm f/1.8 in the Summer, and it has been on my 6D most of that time. I also picked up the 35mm f/2 IS last week while on vacation, and I love it as well. I'd definitely recommend those two lenses.

I'm thinking about selling my 24-105 and picking up a couple more primes in that range.

Get the 24L and let the quest for more L primes begin.

MalVeauX wrote in post #16476475
Heya,

While that's true to an extent, you still are losing out on the shallow depth of field gained with even only partially wider apertures. Not having access to F2 or wider, f1.8, f1.4, etc, kind of defeats a lot of why people want primes to begin with. Everyone can get functional handy zooms that cover tons of focal ranges with F2.8, f3.5, and higher. But a good zoom with F2?

So you're not quite getting all the functionality of a prime in a zoom. The prime difference is that wider aperture. Even though it's not a massive stop difference, it's subtle enough for me, for example, that I want that shallower depth of field, and f2.8 and f3.5 simply were never interesting enough to me, but f1.8 and f2 are much more interesting in the shots they take. Totally preference.

Very best,

Of course, and I do know what you mean. I own a set of lenses that include both primes and zooms, and every one of my prime lenses is actually within the zoom range of at least one of my zoom lenses. (Come to think of it, I have three different lenses I can use to shoot 24mm.) I use the primes most commonly when I want the faster apertures available.

But when it comes to travelling light, I will generally go for a zoom since one lens can then do the job of two or three....presuming I can live with the slower maximum aperture of the zoom lens for the intended subject matter.

But anyway....I just wanted to address the idea of just what exactly one prime is relative to a zoom. Again, assuming for the moment we can live with f/2.8 to f/22 for the given shot and we want to replace a 24-70 with prime lenses:
We need a 24mm prime to shoot from 24mm to 49mm. And really......in the range of 35-49mm we will wish we were not cropping so much.

And then we need a 50mm prime to shoot from 50mm to around 85mm or so, and again the prime cropped out past ~75mm field of view is getting cropped a bit much. This is again where the zoom is helpful since it can reach 70mm before we start cropping.

So......a single 35mm or 50mm prime is not really a replacement for a 24-70, which I have seen some people in this forum suggest a time or two.