If you can only bring one PRIME lens...
- Thread starter ckiang
- Start date
- Status
Hmmm...I'm quite plesantly surprised there are a few individuals who actually opt for 28mm as their prime lens of choice.
Probably because 50 is the cheapest, and 28 is not as cheap. I'd prefer a 28/35 over a 50 tho. ;p
Regards
CK
actually if i had to get only ONE prime lens, i'd spend a bomb on it. however ultimately i'd get a lens that fits my needs and not just coz it's expensive.
i'll say again...20mm f/2.8 AIS rocks!! ;p
andrew
Hm.... look at the distribution. It's getting interesting. We have the bell shaped 'normal distribution' (?) now. 
Regards
CK
Regards
CK
I think it will be popular becos of it's low cost.
However, on Film SLR its is 50mm. On DSLR, it will be 75mm. Not sure if's anyone give that a thought?
Does anyone vote with cost in mnd?
well 35mm lens aren't that expensive either, just not that common. personally i find 75mm a bit hard to take photos, cos it's a bit "neither here nor there". that's my personal opinion. i'm sure the portrait shooters would love the 50mm on a DSLR
Hi
actually all the prime lenses are pretty cheap, fast, light and gives image quality better than zoom lenses, and on par (or maybe slightly better) with the expensive professional fast zooms.
Canon's 24 f2.8, 28 f2.8, 35 f2, 50 f1.8 are all very cheap and excellent lenses. The 28 f1.8, 50 1.4, 85 f1.8 are also around the same price range below $800.
I've owned the 28-70 f2.8L for a short while, and while convenient, i find the combination of a few good primes more functional and much more cost effective. The primes are easily faster, gives less distortion and often can focus much closer than the zoom. (35 f2 goes down to 0.25m). Image quality, the primes are just that wee bit sharper.
And it's actually fun to challenge yourself with prime lenses.
maybe we should have a poll to find out how many pple use prime lenses >80% of the time in their photography
actually all the prime lenses are pretty cheap, fast, light and gives image quality better than zoom lenses, and on par (or maybe slightly better) with the expensive professional fast zooms.
Canon's 24 f2.8, 28 f2.8, 35 f2, 50 f1.8 are all very cheap and excellent lenses. The 28 f1.8, 50 1.4, 85 f1.8 are also around the same price range below $800.
I've owned the 28-70 f2.8L for a short while, and while convenient, i find the combination of a few good primes more functional and much more cost effective. The primes are easily faster, gives less distortion and often can focus much closer than the zoom. (35 f2 goes down to 0.25m). Image quality, the primes are just that wee bit sharper.
And it's actually fun to challenge yourself with prime lenses.
maybe we should have a poll to find out how many pple use prime lenses >80% of the time in their photography
Originally posted by Red Dawn
maybe we should have a poll to find out how many pple use prime lenses >80% of the time in their photography
hear! hear!
i recently had the chance to try the EOS 85mm f1.2 prime. boy was it a doozer - just looking into its large optics made me go dizzy
the bugger's huge and heavy! The heaviest prime in the sub-200mm category, did i mention huge optics?
but apparently reviews of it haven't been that glorifying. for some reason ppl think its 'slow' - compared to even its f1.8 cousin. i didn't get to use it much but it sure left an impression on me.
I would think it would be excellent for low-light conditions and probably an over-kill as a portrait lens. some reviewers mentioned that they even use this lens for indoor sports events. however its weight alone is a major turn-off. i do wonder about the other EOS 85mm f1.4 that apparently got discontinued or is no longer produced. i would like to see how well it performs under low-light conditions.
the bugger's huge and heavy! The heaviest prime in the sub-200mm category, did i mention huge optics?
but apparently reviews of it haven't been that glorifying. for some reason ppl think its 'slow' - compared to even its f1.8 cousin. i didn't get to use it much but it sure left an impression on me.
I would think it would be excellent for low-light conditions and probably an over-kill as a portrait lens.
some reviewers mentioned that they even use this lens for indoor sports events. however its weight alone is a major turn-off. i do wonder about the other EOS 85mm f1.4 that apparently got discontinued or is no longer produced. i would like to see how well it performs under low-light conditions.Originally posted by pyre
i recently had the chance to try the EOS 85mm f1.2 prime. boy was it a doozer - just looking into its large optics made me go dizzy
the bugger's huge and heavy! The heaviest prime in the sub-200mm category, did i mention huge optics?
but apparently reviews of it haven't been that glorifying. for some reason ppl think its 'slow' - compared to even its f1.8 cousin. i didn't get to use it much but it sure left an impression on me.
I would think it would be excellent for low-light conditions and probably an over-kill as a portrait lens.
f/1.2 and f/1.4 isn't gonna make a hell lot of difference in low light conditions. It's only 1/3 stop. I'd guess the 1.4 and 1.2 will have a better bokeh than the 1.8 version.
Wedding Photographer Bambi Cantrell uses the Canon 85/1.2 a lot in her shots.
Regards
CK
huh? other than the slower AF (though it has USM), reviews of it are mostly very positive where optics and sharpness are concerned. The bokeh and sharpness is why this lens is often quoted when compared to Leica's fast 90mm lens offerings....
I would think it would be excellent for low-light conditions and probably an over-kill as a portrait lens.
not really. the bokeh - you can only get similar from medium format systems.....................:devil:
the weight is probably nothing compared to using a bulky 70-200 f2.8L and then still having to fight for increased shutter speeds due to the slower f2.8 aperture. f1.2 is more than 2 stops faster than f2.8, which means from a measly 1/60 you can go up to 1/250 or less, making it possible to freeze those basketball players / gynmasts in mid air
thx for the comments guys. yes - i left out the 'sharp and fast' part
what RD wrote is very true. its one fast lens! very very speedy in lowlight conditions - to the point where u can handhold without worrying about cam shakes. im pretty sure u can develope muscles with that lens.
RD - one thing though. reviewers have mentioned that the rear optics for that lens is abit exposed - so abit more care has to be given when mounting it.
oh well - personally i think the 85mm f1.2 is a dreamy lens right now besides the weight (ok ok... so im a whimp :embrass: ) the cost is a major issue as well. :dent:
what RD wrote is very true. its one fast lens! very very speedy in lowlight conditions - to the point where u can handhold without worrying about cam shakes. im pretty sure u can develope muscles with that lens.
RD - one thing though. reviewers have mentioned that the rear optics for that lens is abit exposed - so abit more care has to be given when mounting it.
oh well - personally i think the 85mm f1.2 is a dreamy lens
right now besides the weight (ok ok... so im a whimp :embrass: ) the cost is a major issue as well. :dent:Originally posted by Red Dawn
Hi
actually all the prime lenses are pretty cheap, fast, light and gives image quality better than zoom lenses, and on par (or maybe slightly better) with the expensive professional fast zooms.
Canon's 24 f2.8, 28 f2.8, 35 f2, 50 f1.8 are all very cheap and excellent lenses. The 28 f1.8, 50 1.4, 85 f1.8 are also around the same price range below $800.
I've owned the 28-70 f2.8L for a short while, and while convenient, i find the combination of a few good primes more functional and much more cost effective. The primes are easily faster, gives less distortion and often can focus much closer than the zoom. (35 f2 goes down to 0.25m). Image quality, the primes are just that wee bit sharper.
And it's actually fun to challenge yourself with prime lenses.
maybe we should have a poll to find out how many pple use prime lenses >80% of the time in their photography
i am currently looking for a 28-70mm lens for my D60... the thought of one lens kills all range and also the hassle of changing lens motivates me to get one of that range... but after hearing your message... i am now torn between a 28mm or a 35mm... hmmm... besides the reasons that I have given for a 28-70 length.. are there any other views I should take into consideration guys?
thanks
28-70 on your D60 becomes 40+ - 110+? I think it'll be far from being a "one lens kills all range" lens.
if u REALLY want a one lens fits all solution, i guess your choices for a D60 would be:
- some kind of 24-70 zoom. This should give you around 38mm to 98mm
- some kind of 17-35 / 16-35 zoom. This is actually better in my opinion. this gives you around 27-56mm. It also focuses closer than the standard zooms.
it really depends on wat u shoot. I prefer wider angles, so i would have picked a 17-35 / 16-35 class lens to pair up with the D60 as a standard do all lens. You can always add a cheap 50mm to round up your collection - in that way u have focal lengths from 27mm to 80mm - a very standard and usable range. Besides, the 50mm can be used in low light situations, since it goes to f1.8. (f1.4 if u have the dough and need)
Personally, when i had the D30, i used all primes for the wider angles. I had a 20mm as my major use lens (about 32mm equivalent), plus a 35 f2 (56mm eqivalent) and a 50 f1.4 (80mm equivalent). I get about the same coverage as the above combo i mentioned, and yet faster lenses to shoot in available light without flash. There isn't a need to change lenses all the time - i shot a lot with the 20 by moving myself physically. the 35 is good for medium distances and those times when u dun want to get too close to the subjects. 50 is great for the occasional portraits and longer lens work. the 20 and the 35 has the added advantage of being able to focus VERY close, making them great for close up work (NOT macro, closeup)
For a DSLR, i would think the 35 f2 would be more appropriate than the 28mm. it's not that much more money (the same i think) for a one stop increase in speed. For film bodies, however, there's a noticeable difference between the 28 and the 35 - the 28 being more dramatic than a 35 in terms of perspective and field of view.
- Status
Similar threads
