I'm thinking of going all prime lenses... reccomendations?

skimmilk68 wrote in post #2062623
way back when I first started photography, I had the 17-55mm and a 50mm... i found myself using the 50mm 90% of the time..

now that i got back into photog, i dont want to waste my money on a zoom and not use it

the 17-55 was released this year and most guys say since getting it they quit using the 50mm.

do you mean the 18-55?

ed rader

"I'm thinking of going all prime lenses... reccomendations?"

Firstly: I would drop a "c", and add another "m".

Secondly: I wouldn't limit myself purely to primes (as much as i prefer primes myself )

You will find yourself in situations where the foot zoom is not available and end up missing the shot when changing lenses...

skimmilk68 wrote in post #2061217
Also, is it a pain in the butt to go from using zoom lens to all prime lens?

Absolutely. Especially if you don't have a second body, and even worse, if you're getting paid. Don't want to miss a shot because your lens was too wide/long. That sucks.

That said, primes are generally of a superior quality (image quality), and also last longer. They're generally faster focusing, and often don't need calibration like many zooms do, as there's far less moving parts.

Ha, this is a funny topic. I've been thinking of getting rid of my primes and going all zooms. I like to do the opposite of Dante.

mark

I have a nice blend of both. I'd recommend getting two sharp zooms to cover midrange and telephoto for the sake of versatility and then add primes. The 50 f/1.4 and the 85 f/1.8 are a good place to start in terms of prime lenses.

And I don't find using primes a pain at all. I have two camera bodies and a Rocket Blower to deal with dust.

You should really buy your lenses based on what you will be using them for. For example, if you will be shooting 90% of the time in good light, you really don't need FAST. This is a 100% crop from my 70-200 f4 L @ 200mm taken under a blazing sun:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

liza wrote in post #2063729
I have a nice blend of both. I'd recommend getting two sharp zooms to cover midrange and telephoto for the sake of versatility and then add primes. The 50 f/1.4 and the 85 f/1.8 are a good place to start in terms of prime lenses.

And I don't find using primes a pain at all. I have two camera bodies and a Rocket Blower to deal with dust.

Heh, interesting set of lenses you have there.

Right now I just have the kit lens and on the way is a sigma 70-300 APO until I work out my whole lenses dilemma (and I figure the 70-200 F4L Is is coming out so maybe a lot of them will go up for sale.)

I've been thinking of something similiar to your set
Tamron 28-75
Canon 70-200 F4L
Canon 50mm 1.4
And later on maybe add a Canon 17-40L or something, or a Canon 10-22 for wide.

Then for indoor sports later get like a 135 or 200 prime or something (can you use an extender on both?)

Get the 85mm f/1.8 for indoor sports. It's an excellent lens for gym sports.

There once was a time (30-35 years ago) when I could justify having only primes because zooms back then really were not very good opticly and/or speed wise. But many of the zooms are so good now that I use one as my walk-around lens (24-70L). My other lenses are primes though (15mm, 100mm macro, 135L and 1.4x TC).

skimmilk68 wrote in post #2061217
I know 50mm f1.4 is a must.. and I'm thinking of getting a sigma or tamron 100mm macro lens

what other lens should I consider?

Also, is it a pain in the butt to go from using zoom lens to all prime lens?

i am so curious to know that how people can answer your question before asking you what kind of photography you do, how many lenses you want to buy and how much budget you have? or perhaps they already know?

jr_senator wrote in post #2064175
There once was a time (30-35 years ago) when I could justify having only primes because zooms back then really were not very good opticly and/or speed wise. But many of the zooms are so good now that I use one as my walk-around lens (24-70L). My other lenses are primes though (15mm, 100mm macro, 135L and 1.4x TC).

i hear you. my AE-1 came with a 50mm lens. i was later able to afford a 28mm and then an 80mm lens mainly because a buddy was upgrading to nikon and he let me have them cheap.

that was a pretty screaming kit back then.

but this is now.

ed rader

wide:
ef 28mm f/1.8
ef 35mm f/1.4
ef 35mm f/2
ex 30mm f/1.4 dc

mid:
ef 50mm f/1.4
ef 50mm f/2.5

telephoto:
ef 85mm f/1.8
ef 100mm f/2
ef 100mm f/2.8
ef 135mm f/2
ef 135mm f/2.0

well, these are the more frequently used focal lengths. and i think liza's advice is good - get 2 zooms, and then even more primes. hehe. i started with zooms, but am now moving towards primes. simply sweet.

liza wrote in post #2063896
Get the 85mm f/1.8 for indoor sports. It's an excellent lens for gym sports.

I'm concerned the focal length is not long enough though.

JaGWiRE wrote in post #2064308
I'm concerned the focal length is not long enough though.

Why not? They don't call it "the basketball lens" for nothing. Unless, of course, you're shooting from the stands. In that scenario, you would need something longer. All my shooting is from baseline or sideline.

liza wrote in post #2064356
Why not? They don't call it "the basketball lens" for nothing. Unless, of course, you're shooting from the stands. In that scenario, you would need something longer. All my shooting is from baseline or sideline.

Yeah, probably first row of bleachers or something, still though, would I need to be running around the court to be getting photos? Perhaps 100% crops would do? I'll be taking a lot of photos, some probably for the school yearbook.

Does the 70-200 F4L do decent in stadiums and stuff for professional games?

PS, I probably would never be using flash when shooting indoor sports. Just for respect and all, I don't want to piss off the players . I guess that's sort of an obvious though.