Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 01 Jan 2009 (Thursday) 18:38
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

PLA: Prime Lovers Anonymous

 
blindshooter
Member
229 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 20
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Tampa
     
Feb 16, 2011 12:29 as a reply to  @ post 11855096 |  #1576

Woo. A club for prime peeps.

I recently got a 5DII and 35L and I've taken pictures of just about everything in my house, just because it's SOOO SHARP!

Now I'm considering the Sigma 85 1.4 based on all I've read and seen. I'm normally a Canon only guy, but I think I may give the Sigma a try for this FL.

My poor old 70-200 IS II is literally collecting dust since I've gotten the 35L. I don't think I'm to the point of replacing that with primes (135 or higher) but maybe...




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
DigiNon
Senior Member
Avatar
885 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Feb 2010
Location: Tampa
     
Feb 16, 2011 13:10 |  #1577

DigiNon wrote in post #11852468 (external link)
Ok so i'm having a real dilemma right now.. I am planing on making a big investment soon. I bought a new car so I'll be selling the other car and using that money to buy a ff camera and 3 lenses. The lenses I have planned to purchase are the 70-200L 2.8II, 24-70L, and 17-40L. The things I plan to shoot are cars/motorcycles, studio/on location portraits both with or without flashes, and some landscapes.

Now from watching the photo sample threads for a while I have seen enough to convince me that those lenses are a great choice for what I need. But... the sound of faster, larger aperture lens really is tempting to have since I won't always want to shoot and f8+ with flashes. Sharpness is a plus too but from what I have seen, the 24-70L and 70-200L 2.8II are very sharp as well.

This may be a biased thread to ask but here it goes anyway lol. Should I stick to that lineup or should I get this: 17-40L, 85L, 135L. Reason for having the 17-40L is mainly for car photography and landscapes and I could also use it for some wider portrait shots when needed. Eventually I would love to invest in the 35L as well, but for now this setup is in the budget. What do you guys think? I really can't make up my mind and I need to very soon.

Could someone please help me out here ^^^


l Mario l AE-1P l EOS 5 l 5Dc l 5DII l 17-40L l 35L l 50 1.4 l 100L l 70-200L II l

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
namasste
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,876 posts
Likes: 60
Joined Jul 2007
Location: NE Ohio
     
Feb 16, 2011 13:15 |  #1578

DigiNon wrote in post #11855465 (external link)
Could someone please help me out here ^^^

Mario, I own a 17-40, 85 (non L) and 135 so obviously, I chose that for a reason. The 17-40 is a fantastic and often wrongly vilified lens in my opinion. f4 ain't fast but it sure can produce an nice image. From what I've read, the 70-200II is as sharp as the 135 so for your needs, maybe just the 17-40 and 70-200II?


Scott Evans Photography (external link)
SportsShooterProfile (external link) l MaxPreps Profile (external link)
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
m.shalaby
Goldmember
3,443 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Dec 2009
     
Feb 16, 2011 13:21 as a reply to  @ namasste's post |  #1579

I hate primes and think this thread is stupid!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hieu1004
Goldmember
Avatar
3,579 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jul 2010
Location: Seattle
     
Feb 16, 2011 13:22 |  #1580

^Primes hate you and deplete your bank account.


-Hieu
Gear | Blog (external link) | flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DigiNon
Senior Member
Avatar
885 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Feb 2010
Location: Tampa
     
Feb 16, 2011 13:25 |  #1581

namasste wrote in post #11855491 (external link)
Mario, I own a 17-40, 85 (non L) and 135 so obviously, I chose that for a reason. The 17-40 is a fantastic and often wrongly vilified lens in my opinion. f4 ain't fast but it sure can produce an nice image. From what I've read, the 70-200II is as sharp as the 135 so for your needs, maybe just the 17-40 and 70-200II?

I've also given that some thought but one of the most important reasons for me to consider primes was the fact I can get 1.2 with the 85mm for outdoors shots. And also, another reason I didn't mention was the fact that primes are supposed to make you a better photographer. If this is true I would be very willing to get them just to improve myself.


l Mario l AE-1P l EOS 5 l 5Dc l 5DII l 17-40L l 35L l 50 1.4 l 100L l 70-200L II l

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
m.shalaby
Goldmember
3,443 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Dec 2009
     
Feb 16, 2011 13:27 |  #1582

hieu1004 wrote in post #11855538 (external link)
...and deplete your bank account.

yes they do! the latest 135L wasn't tooooo bad though :)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
namasste
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,876 posts
Likes: 60
Joined Jul 2007
Location: NE Ohio
     
Feb 16, 2011 13:29 |  #1583

DigiNon wrote in post #11855561 (external link)
I've also given that some thought but one of the most important reasons for me to consider primes was the fact I can get 1.2 with the 85mm for outdoors shots. And also, another reason I didn't mention was the fact that primes are supposed to make you a better photographer. If this is true I would be very willing to get them just to improve myself.

I'm not 100% sure on that last part but I do feel strongly that I have improved by using them. I shoot primarily sports and if nothing else, primes force you to be patient and allow the action to develop and come to you rather than chasing it. That alone makes a tremendous difference.


Scott Evans Photography (external link)
SportsShooterProfile (external link) l MaxPreps Profile (external link)
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hieu1004
Goldmember
Avatar
3,579 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jul 2010
Location: Seattle
     
Feb 16, 2011 17:18 |  #1584

m.shalaby wrote in post #11855575 (external link)
yes they do! the latest 135L wasn't tooooo bad though :)

Yeah, no doubt - especially compared to the 85L...that thing is quite expensive. I loved the 135L when I had it, it is a downright amazing lens. The only reason I don't own it anymore is because when I shoot beyond 85mm, my subject is usually moving (my dog, sports, etc...) so a zoom works a little better for me in the telephoto range. Enjoy it man!


-Hieu
Gear | Blog (external link) | flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hieu1004
Goldmember
Avatar
3,579 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jul 2010
Location: Seattle
     
Feb 16, 2011 17:26 |  #1585

DigiNon wrote in post #11855561 (external link)
I've also given that some thought but one of the most important reasons for me to consider primes was the fact I can get 1.2 with the 85mm for outdoors shots. And also, another reason I didn't mention was the fact that primes are supposed to make you a better photographer. If this is true I would be very willing to get them just to improve myself.

It doesn't necessarily make you a better photographer, but it CAN contribute to other factors that can help accelerate the learning process. You'll learn to be patient, be forced to use your feet, it may help drive creativity by forcing you to see at that focal length....the list goes on.... BUT, just keep in mind, a zoom does not inhibit creativity or one's ability to learn. I don't want to get into a prime vs zoom debate, but there are definitely pros and cons for both. It is purely preference and in the end, if it helps you achieve your photographic goals, then use whatever you like.

PS: For your intended purposes, a zoom set might be better for you. For landscape shots, the versatility a zoom provides is helpful for framing and by stopping down, you're not going to leverage the advantages of a wider aperture.


-Hieu
Gear | Blog (external link) | flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
m.shalaby
Goldmember
3,443 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Dec 2009
     
Feb 16, 2011 17:28 |  #1586

hieu1004 wrote in post #11857190 (external link)
Yeah, no doubt - especially compared to the 85L...that thing is quite expensive. I loved the 135L when I had it, it is a downright amazing lens. The only reason I don't own it anymore is because when I shoot beyond 85mm, my subject is usually moving (my dog, sports, etc...) so a zoom works a little better for me in the telephoto range. Enjoy it man!

thanks.

I see the 70-200 mkii IS in your future ;)
more bank account depleation :) lol...




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hieu1004
Goldmember
Avatar
3,579 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jul 2010
Location: Seattle
     
Feb 16, 2011 17:35 |  #1587

m.shalaby wrote in post #11857250 (external link)
thanks.

I see the 70-200 mkii IS in your future ;)
more bank account depleation :) lol...

Lol, I've entertained the idea quite a few times. My 70-200mm is my hiking/general purpose lens so I'd like to keep it light. But....who knows... :lol::lol:


-Hieu
Gear | Blog (external link) | flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tjbrock42
Senior Member
944 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Indiana
     
Feb 16, 2011 17:36 |  #1588

DigiNon wrote in post #11855465 (external link)
Could someone please help me out here ^^^

This is a tough one as I don't have experience with most of the lenses you are asking about, but maybe I can help you think it through.

The 135L is pretty awesome. As close to perfect as I can imagine. Smooth buttery focus ring, blazing fast AF, and fantastic IQ (colors,sharpness, etc.). You can add a 1.4x tc and get close to 200mm 2.8 too.The 70-200 2.8 is pretty highly regarded, but it is too big, expensive, and white for me. I would choose the 135L.

There is another active thread of someone asking about 135L or 70-200 2.8, maybe search for it and check it out.

I don't think I would get 17-40 and 24-70 if it was me.The 17-55 on crop (similar to 27-88 on ff) was almost always wide enough for me. There were times when I wanted wider but not that often. The Sigma 8-16 was too wide and just didn't get enough use by me personally. Plus 24-70 is f/2.8. I think I would choose the 24-70 if I was picking between the two. Having said that, I rented it once and much preferred the 17-55 on my 40D.

The 85L is supposed to be the ultimate portrait lens and you mentioned portrait/studio stuff. However, I tried my friend's once and the AF is surprisingly slow (It is very sharp though). Without question the slowest of any high quality lens I have ever used. Don't get this one for sports. the 85 f/1.8 is better for sports and moving subjects from what I understand. If your cars and motorcycles are moving, choose the 85 f/1.8.

I'm just not sure what to tell you about the wide-normal focal length range. I do miss the 17-55 sometimes. If they would just make a 24-70 IS for you ff zoom people, the choice would be easy. I can see it now. Every single signature in the Zoom Lovers Anonymous forum would be: 24-70L IS, 70-200 2.8L Mk II.:)

Also, I am probably going to purchase the 35L tonight, so... I think you know where I stand.

You will likely be happy whatever you choose.

Good luck, let us know what you pick.


6D
24-105L, 50 STM, 135L, 430EX II
For Sale: 40D

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
m.shalaby
Goldmember
3,443 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Dec 2009
     
Feb 16, 2011 17:42 |  #1589

hieu1004 wrote in post #11857286 (external link)
Lol, I've entertained the idea quite a few times. My 70-200mm is my hiking/general purpose lens so I'd like to keep it light. But....who knows... :lol::lol:

go read the "70-200MkII IS is too heavy" thread... lots of entertainment, lol....




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DigiNon
Senior Member
Avatar
885 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Feb 2010
Location: Tampa
     
Feb 16, 2011 18:51 |  #1590

Thank you Hieu and tjbrock42. It's a tough decision...

Would it make sense to have both 85L and 70-200? I understand the zoom covers the FL of the 85 but I would like to have the large aperture for low light scenes or maybe some better backgrounds on my outdoor portraits.


l Mario l AE-1P l EOS 5 l 5Dc l 5DII l 17-40L l 35L l 50 1.4 l 100L l 70-200L II l

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

409,589 views & 0 likes for this thread
PLA: Prime Lovers Anonymous
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Cyberbo60
934 guests, 339 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.