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.
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.
thanks for this perspective. I have been seriously considering the wide-normal (as you above call it). It may be that I jump on one of those. For the fast glass it seems that the 24 1.4 ii is the fastest (i forgot to put that on the list)
Scott M wrote in post #16476461I 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.
thanks for the idea, but i already tried that and I can see myself enjoying multiple focal lengths. I even went a step forward and looked at the practical pics that I have and, as I mentioned in the OP, i am pretty even through the 10-200 range. ok - it isn't down to the decimal point even, but the tendencies to spread out is there. It seems though that many people start on the 24-28 range and the 85-100ish range like you mentioned.
MalVeauX wrote in post #16476475Heya,
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,
thanks again for your vantage point. One notable exception that I can think of is the newest 18-35 f1.8 by sigma which is getting impressive reviews frim reviewers as well as fellow POTN-ers
shedberg wrote in post #16476533I 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.
thanks for your personal experience. I suppose the question is this: WHY did you start with the 85 1.8. Just BECAUSE. or because it was a FL that you used most often? most affordable? good deal at the time? you stole it from a friend? 
That first step is where I am....
kevinstinks wrote in post #16476555Get the 24L and let the quest for more L primes begin.
thanks. it is on the new and revised list now.....
Jerobean wrote in post #16476652your answer doesn't offend. It's just your question is so vague, and you already know what each lens provides, that it's kind of ridiculous for anyone to recommend anything to you without narrowing down what exactly you are trying to achieve.
you seem to want everything, primes don't do everything, that's kind of the point. A prime is a specific tool for a relatively specific use. they generally give you speed and IQ for no flexibility. zooms give you flexibility and sacrifice speed and sometimes IQ.
how can i tell you to buy a 24TSE over the 135mm when you just want to experiment.
tilt shift is landscape architecture. 135 is telephoto portrait.
you can't go wrong with any of the lenses, so just pick a couple.
again thanks for your clarification. I am glad that i didn't offend since it surely wasn't my goal at all. In regards to the vagueness of my question - you are right. It is vague. My situation is vague. I don't have a specific goal except to try something new that I haven't done before with a tool I haven't used. But unlike a tool like a hammer or screwdriver, I feel that up until the time that zooms became a decent alternative, photographers were forced into thinking around the "limitation" of a single FL for their work/art. I am going to try to introduce the issue and learn something about my own photography. maybe even grow! I have the luxury of choosing a good to great lens and the number of choices is quite astounding. I don't think any person is going to stop me from using the 135 in a landscape shot just as I don't expect gasps of shock and disapproval if i use the 24 tilt shift in a portraiit situation in my learning process.
Just trying things out and having fun. I earn my living in another field - and here I just want to play.
DreDaze wrote in post #16476714i feel like a lot of the lenses you are looking at are really more beneficial on FF cameras...so if you're sticking with a crop...look at the sigma 30mm f1.4 art...or maybe even thought it's not a prime, the sigma 18-35mm f1.8
you are probably right - in regards to the FF vs crop. But that is what I have. I thought about the 18-35 indeed. it is intriguing and very curious.
PH68 wrote in post #16477071If most people with a zoom lens check their meta data I reckon they'll find they only really use it as two primes for 90%+ of shots... zoomed right out and zoomed right in.
see above. i checked. i don't fit this template. thanks for taking the time to respond.
SkipD wrote in post #16477100Back in the mid 1960s, there were no affordable zoom lenses that could come close to competing with fixed focal length ("prime") Nikkor lenses for my Nikon F film cameras. Thus, I used four "prime" Nikkor lenses (28, 50, 105, and 300mm) for a variety of types of photography (from portraiture to motor racing and everything in between). In those days, I didn't really understand perspective control the way I do now.
Today, I try to find the best place to make an image from so that I can control all aspects of my image composition including perspective. THEN, I choose a focal length to frame my primary subject the way I want to. For this reason, I use three Canon zoom lenses (16-35, 24-70, and 70-200 plus a 1.4x extender for the 70-200) on my 7D (and I used these on my 20D before I replaced it with the 7D).
If I were doing the same type of photography a lot (such as daily portrait work as an example), I might choose to use a "prime" lens or two primarily to reduce the size and weight of the lens on the camera. However, since I shoot a little of this and a little of that, I find the zoom lenses to be a much better choice for me.
To learn a bit more about perspective control, please read our "sticky" (found in the General Photography Talk forum) tutorial titled
Perspective Control in Images - Focal Length or Distance?.
i will read up on it. thanks for reminding me of the sticky.
i too like the zooms and will continue to use them
i am just in the mood of trying something new for me.
thanks!
JeffreyG wrote in post #16477131That's still two primes in one lens. And if you use the middle range at all, three. That's often a bargain.
Incidentally, I generally don't find that for me this is true. I use a lens like the 24-105 or the 16-35 (both of which I own) in particular as lenses were I use the full range of the lenses pretty evenly.
Take the 16-35......16mm is a very wide AOV and not something you will want or use all that much. But the lens is very capable (low vignette, low distortion) at 24mm and 35mm. Plus the lens is good against flare. So when I mount the 16-35 I'm more likely to use it at 24mm, 28mm and 35mm that anything else.
OTOH, when I want 24mm and very low distortion, or very good corners (stopped down) or very fast (and to hell with everything else in IQ) then I use the 24/1.4L II. The 24/1.4L II compares well to the 16-35 at similar apertures I suppose, but it is
interesting at best when wide open with rather massive vignette.
thanks for this!
