PLA: Prime Lovers Anonymous

35mm f/2 is reasonably priced and is pretty sharp too. I'd look at that over the 28mm

jpbimages wrote in post #10445153
i am curious if 28mm is going to be wide enough for me on my 20d.... I'll guesstimate where that is on my 18-55 and then tape it down for a day... just outta curiosity. whats the cheaper lenses in the 20-30 range there?

I second the 35 f/2.

L primes are addictives ! ! ! !

sebr wrote in post #10445920
L primes are addictives ! ! ! !

I see a macro lens that needs to get a red ring!

bsaber wrote in post #10445379
I second the 35 f/2.

would it be wide enough on a crop body though?! Hmmmm I guess I'll try it both places... a 20 f/2.8 or something like that would be PERFECT but... it would probably cost a fortune! lol

**edit**
"off-brands" (siggy etc) are good too, I don't HAVE to have all canon stuff!

jpbimages wrote in post #10448265
would it be wide enough on a crop body though?! Hmmmm I guess I'll try it both places... a 20 f/2.8 or something like that would be PERFECT but... it would probably cost a fortune! lol

**edit**
"off-brands" (siggy etc) are good too, I don't HAVE to have all canon stuff!

The Sigma 30mm will give you a 50mm FF equivalent. The 35 f/2 will give you about 56mm. It depends on what you're comfortable with.

After using my 18-55 for quite a while, I noticed how often the lens ended up near 24mm (and 55mm)so I started looking for a used 24mm/f2.8 . I couldn't be happier with this little lens.
...Terry
ps. I also found a used 60mm/f2.8 macro, another excellent purchase!

Overkill-F1 wrote in post #10451076
After using my 18-55 for quite a while, I noticed how often the lens ended up near 24mm (and 55mm)so I started looking for a used 24mm/f2.8 . I couldn't be happier with this little lens.
...Terry

The Canon 24mm ƒ/2.8 is a nifty little lens, I like it a lot

That_Fox wrote in post #10451101
The Canon 24mm ƒ/2.8 is a nifty little lens, I like it a lot

Hey! We have the 'nifty fifty' and the 'nifty two-fifty', I think we should call the 24mm f/2.8 the 'nifty half-fifty' ( well almost half ! ).
...Terry

Overkill-F1 wrote in post #10451265
Hey! We have the 'nifty fifty' and the 'nifty two-fifty', I think we should call the 24mm f/2.8 the 'nifty half-fifty' ( well almost half ! ).
...Terry

The nifty twelve/twenty-fifths fifty, it has a ring to it

that looks like it's exactly what I am looking for
my line up is so pitiful right now lol, I can't wait to actually start buying up some of these... hopefully it will look like this soon:
nifty half-fifty (i love that name!)
nifty fifty
85mm 1.8
200mm L
400mm 5.6 (tokina or tamron... i don't remember which was the one i was *really* looking at)
any suggestions?

My "Unholy Trinity" is working out just great, couldn't be happier.

I owned a Sigma 30/1.4 for a day. Great lens when I used it at MFD, or when manually focussed. Not so great for me when used in AF beyond MFD. I did not want to go through the whole "Sigma Back-Focussing Dance"...again, so I returned it.

I then apologized to my 35/2 and reassured it that I won't try those nasty old Sigmas again...

Jason C

I'm addicted to primes. Here's my story.

I started out on an 18-55 IS. Gross.

Then I spent $1000 total on a 28 1.8 USM, 50 1.4 USM, and 85 1.8 USM. The 50 and 85 were heaven, but the 28 was a piece of junk for the price (it cost 400 alone!) - terrible blurriness and CA even stopped down.

Then I managed to pick up a 28/2.8 for $140. What a fantastically sharp lens for the price. Well, now I had a set of non-matching lenses. I also found a 50mm f/1.8 II for $75. I found I wasn't really using my 85 - that it was either too long for most situations, or not long enough.

But the 28 was not quite wide enough, and the 50 1.8 II was too cheap to downgrade to permanently from the 50 1.4, even with the $250 savings..

So now I've got a 24/2.8 ($225) and a 50/1.8 Mk I ($150). Happiness.

I sold the 28/1.8, 28/2.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, and 18-55 for a grand total of $1300, which I've had to spend on surprise non-photography expenses since then. Good thing I downgraded, I guess.

I'm now looking for a 100 f/2.0 USM to fill the tele void. It's fast and long enough to suit all my needs in that range, I believe. I've missed the 85 when doing outdoor portraits..

I want to go wider than the 24, but man - it is just so damn sharp, and I've seen the charts for the 10-22 - it can't keep up with the 24. I don't think I could go third-party, it feels gross - especially because they're not really that well-priced. I think the 15mm fisheye is too expensive, otherwise I'd be all over that with some rectilinear correction.

I think the real solution is to eventually go full-frame with a 5D Mark I, and keep these babies.

As for why anyone would downgrade from a full USM set to a couple of older "ugly duckling" primes - I love the classic look and feel of the older ones. The 85 was the only one of the USM lenses I owned that had both wonderful build quality and image quality to back it up, but I think 100mm would be better for me.

Plus, the 24 has an actual hard infinity focus - finally, no issues for low-light landscape - no using 10x Live View to get focus.

WHAT IS MY PROBLEM? Why do I spend so much time thinking about lenses and waffling on them? Why do I think even Prime Lovers Anonymous will care? Sure, I'm happy with the 24 2.8 and 50 1.8 Mk.I, but I still have terrible prime lens lust!

Dawud wrote in post #10445991
I see a macro lens that needs to get a red ring!

I would not put a ring on the macro. It is my least used lens and I dont shoot macro often enough to justify the extra cost.

schmalpal wrote in post #10452336
I'm addicted to primes. Here's my story.

I started out on an 18-55 IS. Gross.

Then I spent $1000 total on a 28 1.8 USM, 50 1.4 USM, and 85 1.8 USM. The 50 and 85 were heaven, but the 28 was a piece of junk for the price (it cost 400 alone!) - terrible blurriness and CA even stopped down.

Then I managed to pick up a 28/2.8 for $140. What a fantastically sharp lens for the price. Well, now I had a set of non-matching lenses. I also found a 50mm f/1.8 II for $75. I found I wasn't really using my 85 - that it was either too long for most situations, or not long enough.

But the 28 was not quite wide enough, and the 50 1.8 II was too cheap to downgrade to permanently from the 50 1.4, even with the $250 savings..

So now I've got a 24/2.8 ($225) and a 50/1.8 Mk I ($150). Happiness.

I sold the 28/1.8, 28/2.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, and 18-55 for a grand total of $1300, which I've had to spend on surprise non-photography expenses since then. Good thing I downgraded, I guess.

I'm now looking for a 100 f/2.0 USM to fill the tele void. It's fast and long enough to suit all my needs in that range, I believe. I've missed the 85 when doing outdoor portraits..

I want to go wider than the 24, but man - it is just so damn sharp, and I've seen the charts for the 10-22 - it can't keep up with the 24. I don't think I could go third-party, it feels gross - especially because they're not really that well-priced. I think the 15mm fisheye is too expensive, otherwise I'd be all over that with some rectilinear correction.

I think the real solution is to eventually go full-frame with a 5D Mark I, and keep these babies.

As for why anyone would downgrade from a full USM set to a couple of older "ugly duckling" primes - I love the classic look and feel of the older ones. The 85 was the only one of the USM lenses I owned that had both wonderful build quality and image quality to back it up, but I think 100mm would be better for me.

Plus, the 24 has an actual hard infinity focus - finally, no issues for low-light landscape - no using 10x Live View to get focus.

WHAT IS MY PROBLEM? Why do I spend so much time thinking about lenses and waffling on them? Why do I think even Prime Lovers Anonymous will care? Sure, I'm happy with the 24 2.8 and 50 1.8 Mk.I, but I still have terrible prime lens lust!

Nice going! That's a cheap, light, compact and a good quality setup!
Which body do you use?