Tell me about the primes you've used and what you liked and didn't like about them and what you primarily use them for.

I'm going to start buying a few primes and would like some impressions about strengths and weaknesses of Canon primes. I have no specific uses in mind yet that is why the question is so general.

EOS or FD? The only EOS prime I have is the 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro. I have used it for portraits, landscapes and some macro stuff. A very sharp lens, fast AF and feels really well built. It's been said that the only thing this lens is missing it the L rating, and the price tag that goes with the L series too. I think this lens is around $500 with the lens hood. A great lens at a great price. The lens doesn't come with the hood tho. I think the hood was aroung $40. Pretty expensive for a piece of plastic, but I'm glad I got it.

Are you looking for regular Fixed Focal Length (primes), ff macro's, super wide/fisheyes etc?

Are you tied too Canon strictly and as was asked are you looking for EOS mounts?

There's a post about the best portrait lens for Canon in this forum where you might find a lot of information regarding this topic.

I use various lens including the 50/1.4 for general shooting on a regular basis. The 50/1.8 though some want to write it off as a cheap lens (probably they haven't used one) is a very good cheap investment. I've used these over the years for just about everything where I didn't need a long lens.

For Macro type primes, it may depend on what you want it to do for you. For Wildlife and Nature shots I use as long a lens as I can by with for the compression. There are work shots that are documentary that require 1:1 capability or certainly a known macro ratio so that the whole images can be enlarged to specific size for reference. Some wildlife if you get to close they have a tendency to want to get away or you can't get enough light on the subject without ring flash because the camera and lens block the available light.

Canons 50/2.5 macro is a beautiful lens but it needs a converter to do 1:1's. Thus I usually take a Sigma 50/2.8 when I need to do this range of macro work. For absoulute color checking I stick with the 50/2.5 or the 50/1.4. I personally like the Canon 180/3.5 macro and I've used but don't own the 200/2.8. The latter, the 200/2.8, is a steal of a lens for less than a $700. Its a big lens but if you don't need the close/specific focus of a macro and need a long bright lens this is a good bet. I've photographed people with a 180 from 50 feet or so and had wonderful results in outdoor settings at everything from picnic to fairs and concerts.

Sigma makes a 180/3.5 and 150/3.5 that are both great units. And they are macros!

Some comments about shorter fixed focal lengths in the other post pretty much convey my thoughts on those lenths.

The wide/fisheye lens are for interiors and architectural rendering or illustration generally. They really need to be on a tripod so unwanted distortion and keystoning aren't introduced.

Does this give you a start?

mjs - EOS. I have a 20D

drg - I'm not necessarily looking at the moment, I'm just curious what others have, how they use it and how they like it.

I have the 50 1.8 and love it. I have trouble imagining how I will ever get my money's worth any better then I did the day I spent that $75.

The next lens I'm buying is the Sigma 70 - 200 2.8.

Thanks for the replies.

I've had the 85 1.8 for about 4 months, and I love it. I use it mostly for basketball in a poorly lit gym, and it works really well. I also use it for quick outdoor portraits for press releases and magazine head shots for the university I work for. Its the only lens I have faster than f4 so I don't have much to compare it to, but its very sharp and a great investment for about $300.

I bought the 300 f4 IS about a month ago and use it for DIII baseball, softball and golf. Fast autofocus with a 20D, but not ultra fast. Its pretty sharp in my opinion, and works well with a 1.4x TC. With that setup you've got 420mm for about $1300 that doesn't feel like you're lifting weights all day long. I think this combo is more flexible than the 400 5.6 and sharper than the 100-400.

A 50 1.4 is next on my list.

You can do some interesting portraits with the 50 1.4, particularly when you shoot it wide open. This is a sharp lens, even wide open. The DOF is small, so select your focus point carefully. This was shot in a dark bar at ISO 1600, wide open at 1.4. Focus point on the eye.

Stephen,

Good photo! Just happened to catch this while looking at some of the other responses!

Tell me about the primes you've used and what you liked and didn't like about them and what you primarily use them for.

I'm going to start buying a few primes and would like some impressions about strengths and weaknesses of Canon primes. I have no specific uses in mind yet that is why the question is so general.
The main reason I shoot primes is image quality. Zooms are much more convenient for me, mostly because I'm lazy and out of shape and I hate zooming with my feet, but I still prefer primes to zooms for image sharpness. FYI, my zooms are Canon 28-70 f2.8L, 70-200 f2.8L, but as great as these lenses are, I still think my primes have them beat by a country mile.
20mm f2.8 USM-hardly ever use this lens anymore.
50mm f1.4 USM/ 50mm f1.8/ 50mm f2.5 compact macro- I use these interchangeably as my all around prime on my 1D Mk II.
85mm f1.8 USM- I use this a lot for snaps of my kids in every day life, and in the studio for portraits.
135 mm f2 L USM, the ultimate portrait lens, and my go to lens when I want close cropping with serious bokeh (blurred background).
400mm f5.6-my basic wildlife lens ( I don't shoot a lot of wildlife so I haven't splurged on it's f2.8L sibling)
Hope that helps.

Fantastic replies. Thanks for all of the input. It will be a great help when I'm ready to get more into the primes.