A few lens questions.

[milhouse]

Now that I have my 30D I’m looking to start adding more glass to my arsenal. My first question has to do with primes. Is it really a bid advantage having all sorts of prime lenses versus having a few good zooms to cover the range? My thoughts are a few zooms and one 50mm prime.


Next I’m wondering what the advantages/disadvantages are of using EFS-S and non S glass on a 30D. My only lens so far is an L lens and I was thinking of the EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Lens or the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Lens.


Thanks for any help.

Dave

[another view]

Can't help you on Canon specifics as I'm a Nikon shooter. Isn't that 50 f1.2 really expensive though? That extra half stop might really cost some serious cash.

Years ago, primes would have won hands down. Zooms have gotten so much better that IMO the best (and almost only) reason to use them is just for speed (maximum aperture). A fast zoom is f2.8, but there are a few primes that will be at least two stops faster and that can easily be the difference between getting a shot or not.

If you don't shoot in low light, you probably don't need any primes - other than maybe a dedicated macro or tilt/shift lens. Zooms are very good, and the best are IMO as good as primes. Also, with a DSLR you'll have the advantage of having less chances for dust on your sensor because of fewer lens changes.

[milhouse]

Can't help you on Canon specifics as I'm a Nikon shooter. Isn't that 50 f1.2 really expensive though? That extra half stop might really cost some serious cash.

Years ago, primes would have won hands down. Zooms have gotten so much better that IMO the best (and almost only) reason to use them is just for speed (maximum aperture). A fast zoom is f2.8, but there are a few primes that will be at least two stops faster and that can easily be the difference between getting a shot or not.

If you don't shoot in low light, you probably don't need any primes - other than maybe a dedicated macro or tilt/shift lens. Zooms are very good, and the best are IMO as good as primes. Also, with a DSLR you'll have the advantage of having less chances for dust on your sensor because of fewer lens changes.

Yea, the 1.2 is pricy so I was going to get the 1.4. You have some good points which pretty much mirror what I was thinking. Thanks

Dave

[another view]

Cool! From what I know, the 1.8 is in the $100 range, the 1.4 close to $300 and the 1.2 is well into the four-digit arena. If you shoot a lot in low light, you could probably justify the f1.4 pretty easily (I used to do a lot of it so I did...) but the 1.2, well... If it has the look of shots from Canon's 85 f1.2 then I could see it being tempting if the cost wasn't a concern.

[JSPhoto]

Cool! From what I know, the 1.8 is in the $100 range, the 1.4 close to $300 and the 1.2 is well into the four-digit arena. If you shoot a lot in low light, you could probably justify the f1.4 pretty easily (I used to do a lot of it so I did...) but the 1.2, well... If it has the look of shots from Canon's 85 f1.2 then I could see it being tempting if the cost wasn't a concern.

I paid $79 for the f1.8 50mm at Roberts Distributors in Indy. Cheapest lens I ever bought but it gives great results....looks really funny on the 1D bodies though
I use it mainly for the Christmas programs the paper sends me to. I used it 5 times now in a year, but it's paid for itself a couple times over in those 5 uses.

JS

[milhouse]

Cool! From what I know, the 1.8 is in the $100 range, the 1.4 close to $300 and the 1.2 is well into the four-digit arena. If you shoot a lot in low light, you could probably justify the f1.4 pretty easily (I used to do a lot of it so I did...) but the 1.2, well... If it has the look of shots from Canon's 85 f1.2 then I could see it being tempting if the cost wasn't a concern.

I had a mistype. I may get the 1.4 instead of the 1.2. And yea I have seen some nice shots from the 50 1.2 and I think 60 1.2 and they make me think about keeping all the glass "L" series and getting the 1.2. As far as cost goes, its not like I have bottomless pockets but its also a business tool and tax write off.

[livin4lax09]

yeah, those 1.2 lenses are EXPENSIVE, and not really entirely worth it in my opinion. But look at how cool they look....





that's insanity!!

[JSPhoto]

I'm waiting to get another lens until Canon comes up with the f1.2 400mm USM IS


Now thats insanity!


JS

[drg]

The quality of the image aside, the main advantage most users find with the 'L' lenses is the the focusing is considerable faster and they are quieter.

Lens choice is about what you need to get the shots you are taking. In a controlled studio type setting, your needs will be different than at a basketball game.

In addition to the prime question, of course the 70-200/2.8 is one of the main tools in every Canon shooters arsenal. There is a F4 version that for well lit conditions is getting rave reviews and is much better as a 'walkaround' option with no less quality.

Another lens to consider is the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. Relatively new, it is the widest offering from Canon at this time and some folks don't want to take it off their camera. Photo John has been using one and has lots good to say.

The 1.2 seems to be another one of those, we can build it, so we did lenses from Canon. The 1.4 is fast, bright and quiet. The difference with a modern body and the ability to produce good images at high ISO greatly lessens the need for that tiny amount of extra light of the 1.2.

Good luck and happy shooting!

[gryphonslair99]

There is no sharper lens than a good prime lens. My Canon lenses currently include the 50mm f1.4, the 85mm f1.8 the 100mm f2.8 macro (still a prime) and the next addition will be the 135 f2. I love them for portrait photography as the techincal quality of the photo is unbeatable by any zoom. They are crisper, sharper and have better Bokeh.

The only EF-S lenses I would recomend are those that give you something you can't get with a standard EF lens. The 10-22mm is a perfect example. Only way to get a good ultra wide on a crop frame body.

[milhouse]

drg & gryphonslair99 - Thanks guys, This is very helpful. Im going to look at the EF-S 10-22mm because a wide is on my list.

livin4lax09 - great photo find and it happens to be on a 30D :thumbsup:

[yogestee]

I'm waiting to get another lens until Canon comes up with the f1.2 400mm USM IS


Now thats insanity!


JS

Wonderful idea...A crane is an optional extra to tote the beast around!!

Jurgen
Australia

[yogestee]

Dave,,,,the great thing about primes besides the image quality is that they really teach you heaps about photography,,namely composition...They teach you to move into (and away) from your subject...
When I started out in photography over 27 years ago zooms were just being released...Their image quality was so-so but got better as they developed...I have a number of quality primes and the Canon 50mm 1.8 is one I own...My 50mm 1.8 cost me the princely sum of a bottle of 12 year old scotch when an associate moved over to Nikon..
One of my favourite lenses is my Tamron 28-75 2.8 which is a ripper..
Non-brand name lenses are getting better all the time,,brands like Tamron and Sigma ofer great lenses in both zooms and primes..

My zooms are Canon 17-35 2.8L,,Canon 70-200 2.8L,,Canon 90-300mm 4.5-5.6,,Tamron 28-75 2.8,,Sigma 18-200 3.5-6.3 (great walk around lens)..

My primes are Canon 50mm 1.8,,Canon 50mm 2.5 Macro,,Tamron 90mm 2.8 Macro,,Tamron 14mm 2.8,,Tamron SP AF 1.4X Teleconverter..

Mounted on a Canon 20D and 350D..

If I were you I'd go for the Canon 50mm 1.4 or 1.8 for low light situations and two Canon L glass zooms like a 17-40 4.0L or 24-70 2.8L and a 70-200mm 2.8 or 4.0 L

Jurgen
Australia

[Didache]

[QUOTE=yogestee]Dave,,,,the great thing about primes besides the image quality is that they really teach you heaps about photography,,namely composition...They teach you to move into (and away) from your subject...

A thousand millions amens to that thought! Zooms are, of course, useful things but they CAN make people compositionally lazy. You get a similar effect these digital days with the ability to crop at will in Photoshop.

It reminds me of my own photographic god, Henri Cartier-Bresson who always printed the full frame of what he captured in his Leica.

It strikes me that it would teach people a LOT about composition and photography if they had to use a prime lens without cropping!

Cheers
Mike

[Glen A Ford]

a huge subject that has been going on for the past 20 years. very much depends upon:

- what you shoot, what style you are looking for, how much glass you are prepared to carry, your budget, when you will use your camera (family trips or professional). these are big questions to consider before you start to fork out huge amounts.

if you appreciate sharp pictures, then it is worth either sticking to canon L series or make sure the lens you are buying is well-rated. the main difference i have found with the better glass is that it is sharp at all aperture and across the whole of the picture.

i love primes because they are lighter / smaller for the same amount of light gathering power and they are usually faster / sharper. i also agree with the composition thing - it teaches you to frame better and stop worrying about how much to zoom in and out.

you could do an awful lot worse than the 50mm 1.8 to see how you get on. It is a sharp lens and bright. It is a cheap plastic frame but don't let this fool you into thinking it is hopeless, it is not and far from so. i have heard mixed reviews of the 1.4, mostly about how soft it is at 1.4. the 1.2 has had some good reviews but is a big investment. it is sharp at 1.2 and creates a wonderful bokeh

i have the 85mm 1.2 and the 35mm 1.4 and will end up getting the 50mm 1.2. i also have the 135mm f2. you can see i like to use ultra-fast primes. but that is because i do a lot of social photography and i like the effect you get with shallow dof, very sharp images (at wide apertures) and ability to use more ambient light and less flash.

i also have zooms, including the 24-70mm 2.8. but i tend not to use that much because it does not have the same level of effect that i get from the above primes. but when i'm out with the family, it is a zoom that gets in the bag.

[milhouse]

Yogestee,Didache & Glen A Ford,

All very good points about primes and Canon alternatives. For the most part I do subscribe to the idea of using and shooting for full frame and little as possible post processing. All this info gives me some good lenses to check out and that’s exactly why I started this thread. So thanks!

[another view]

Dave,,,,the great thing about primes besides the image quality is that they really teach you heaps about photography,,namely composition...They teach you to move into (and away) from your subject...

A thousand millions amens to that thought! Zooms are, of course, useful things but they CAN make people compositionally lazy. You get a similar effect these digital days with the ability to crop at will in Photoshop.

Although zooms are often used by turning the ring until you get what you want, this isn't the best way to do it. It's better to see the shot you want and decide if you want the perspective of a long or short lens, zoom to that focal length and then move yourself around to compose. Different focal lengths give us different perspectives and they can be used to make the composition stronger. Cropping in Photoshop really isn't the same thing (depending on how much is cropped) because it only changes the angle of view, not the perspective.

Try taking a shot of an object (anything) with a 50mm lens, leaving some room around it with some distance in the background. Now do the same with a 200mm (or 20mm for that matter) lens and frame that object so it's about the same size in the viewfinder as before. You'll have two different looks with your shots.

It's been said that HCB used a 50mm lens almost exclusively - I don't know if that's true but all of his work I've seen make it seem like a possibility. He knew exactly what he would get and where he would have to be before looking through the viewfinder. That may not work for everyone (or most people) but it's not a bad thing to try to learn. Yes, primes can be valuable tools...

[freygr]

Primes or Zooms: most zooms are in the F3.5 range and if you spend $$$ in the F2.8. Most primes can are much faster than a zoom but for the telephotos lenses.