Fixed Focal vs Zoom

Here are the lenses I have already gotten in ...what...three weeks that I have owned this camera? Actually, I don't remembe when I got it, but it's been about a month now or so.

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Zoom Lens
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Lens
Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Lens
Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Lens ( came with camera)

I am noticing that fix focal seems to be better suited to what I am shooting, which is mostly people and animals. The down fall is that you are stuck with a zillion lenses but the quality is just simply better in my eyes.

I looked at the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM Zoom Lens this weekend. The damn thing is so big I can't see myself lugging it around! I also don't know if I would ever use it. I'm sure I can but I wasn't ready to buy it quite yet. Maybe it's me, but I wasn't completely thrilled at the quality of the pictures I took with that lense (the store employee let me play with the lens for a while)

Thoughts??

It's all up to you and your style of shooting. Big bad zooms are very convinient to use and the 70-200L (both f/4 and f/2.8 ) produce excellent quality photographs - but if they are too heavy for you to walk around taking pictures you like, they will be useless.

The general rule is that the fixed-length lenses are generally a bit sharper (thought not always) than the zooms. Zooms represent a bit of a compromise since they need to be perfectly optomized for every focal length within their range. So there are tradeoffs related to the zooms.

What environment were you testing the 70-200 in? It is generally an excellent lens. The reason I ask what environment is that long telephotos present some issues that aren't nearly as prevalent in shorter-length lenses. The primary issue is that the longer the magnification of the lens, the more it amplifies body shake. That requires that you either use a tripod or monopod, steady yourself against something solid, or use a higher shutter speed. Otherwise, any little movement that may not show up on a shorter lens will be apparent on the longer lens.

What kind of shutter and aperture settings were you using with the 70-200?

Here's another idea - keep shooting with what you've got for a little while longer and see just what focal lengths you tend to use the most. Naturally, your 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 are highly suited to low-light situations, but when outdoors, see how you're using the two zooms. Take mental note of what shutter speeds and apertures you're most frequently using as well as what focal length you tend to use.

If you find yourself butting up against the 135 mm end of the 28-135 zoom frequently, that is an indication that a longer lens is needed. Also, if you tend to push the lower end of the shutter speed with that lens, you may need a bit wider aperture to allow yourself a faster shutter speed (and don't forget to use the ISO setting capabilities of the camera to "shift" the available shutter/aperture combinations when necessary). Just try to make a better assessment of your needs.

Then go out and test the 70-200 again, taking into account the issues of camera shake vs. aperture/shutter speed and all that. See if the focal length is right for the application and see if the lens has enough available aperture to let you use a faster shutter in the situations where you will use the lens.

And after all that, it might just be that you really have all the lenses that you need anyway.

Are you kidding us?
Have you tried to pick up the f/2.8 version?

*That* one is big and heavy.

Maybe get some exercise

PS: If you want a 200 mm prime, there's the 200/2.8 L that weighs 1.68 lb as opposed to the 1.56 of the 70-200 at about US$ 100 more (BH prices).

There are the 'consumer grade' Canon zoom lenses (80-200 and 75-300 w/wo IS) that are both lighter (0.5 lb and 1 lb) and cheaper (120$ and 300$), but also not as sharp/fast as the L versions.

Your choice, basically

Best regards,
Andy

I'm becoming more fond of primes, too. Lately I'm doing a lot of theater and auditorium shooting - school play, concerts, dance recitals, etc. and I'm getting good results pushing the ISO to 200 and using one of my primes with f2.0 or faster. The 24-70 L is usable, but I have to push the ISO more and/or suffer longer shutter speeds AND use a monopod. And for plays where the subject can be moving, the primes may be the only good option. Next up for me - the EF 135 f2.0 L.

Zooms provide a lot of flexibility, but they all 'stop' at 2.8 or slower. Sometimes that's not good enough, and when you have all of that good Canon glass available it makes sense to use it - zoom with your feet if necessary.

Tom W - Great advice as usual. I haven't been taking notice of what end of the 28-135mm I have been using lately. I have been shooting mostly with the 85mm and that has seem to fit most of my needs lately. But it wouldn't hurt for me to track what I am shooting at when using the 28-135mm. You are right. Perhaps I do have all the lenses I need. But I want an L lens! *laughs*

Andythaler
Yes, I did pick up the f2.8 lens. I had the guy show me both of those. I also had him put a battery grip on my camera body so you can imagine how heavy that got quickly! Yeah you are right. I am pretty out of shape, I gotta hit the gym now so I can build up enough endurance to get the f2.8 lens.

It's kind of funny. After shooting a wedding, with all of that running around with tripods and camera gear, and I finally get finished and make it home... my forearms ache a bit. Heavy cameras and lenses hung on a flash bracket make for quite an arm workout.

---Bob Gross---

I use primes almost always. And the biggest reason isn't optical quality, it's responsiveness. Primes focus much faster (per $), for two reasons: 1) They let in more light (like 10x more) which allows the camera to find the focus faster. 2)The focusing elements don't have to travel as far to focus.

Faster focus is worth everything when your subject is alive.

Other advantages:
Optical quality
Greater control over depth of field.
Smaller
Lighter
Cheaper
Less obtrusive

Yes, zooms have their advantages, but mine sit in my bag most of the time.

Man, you're not kidding. I shot an outdoor wedding last Saturday, the Altar was set up on top of a fairly steep hill facing downhill (THAT was a challenge, trying to find the vantage points). Up and down that hill about a bujillion times, wearing a suit and carrying a tripod mounted camera. When I first got there, I was walking up the hill with my light meter to read off of the Altar and I tripped...broke my middle toe on my left foot. Then I had to run around all day shooting with a broken toe. My foot was so swollen by the time I got home that when I took my shoe off, I couldn't put it back on. That's the first time I've ever done something like that at a job. Embarrassing.

G3, either sue your boss or claim workman's compensation. Oh, wait, you probably are your own boss.

Nevermind.

---Bob Gross---

I don't believe that is true of all lenses. All of my USM lenses focus very quickly, while my 50 is a little slow (not terribly slow, but not super quick like the others).

Yes, primes do generally offer wider apertures, better optical quality, and reduced size. But you give up a ton of convenience for those features, and depending on the lenses being compared, some of the advantages are essentially nil. Plus, you need 2 or 3 primes to cover the range of a zoom.

Don't get me wrong - nothing in my bag will shoot a larger aperture than f/2.8 except for the 50/1.4. And the 50 is the sharpest tool in the shed, but by only a small margin over the comparable zoom that covers that focal length. Plus, the 50 doesn't shoot at 24 nor at 70 mm.

Yeah, I've already filed the suit. Boy am I pissed. I'll probably fire me.

Actually, it was entirely my fault. I was looking down at my light meter changing the mode and not paying attention to where I was going. Hit a slick spot on the hill and with those dress shoes on (no traction at all) my feet came right out from under me. Luckily I didn't get muddy or anything..just a little small grass stain on the elbow of my white shirt. However, I do have this big festive-looking purple toe now.

How are primes cheaper?

For a 70-200 if you used just 3 primes (70, 135, 200) I can't see how they'll cost less.

For a 24-70 you would really need a 24, 35, 50 and 70 to equal what it can do, the zoom is definately much cheaper.

Of course the primes have their advantages, but to cover the same focal lengths the primes will be dearer, heavier and take up more space in your bag.

If I want to buy a 24-70 f2.8L and a 17-200 f2.8L IS, what would it cost to have a wider aperture by using primes to cover the same focal lengths?

As Andy said, you may consider a 200/2.8L. It is smaller but a bit heavier than 70-200/4L. And the 200/2.8L is "black" that it might drew lesser attention.

Are you already considering EF 70-300 DO IS USM ?

here's why:

1. same quality with L lenses
2. small form factor, light weight
3. has IS feature
4. > 200mm focal length

regards,

Loekito