Canon primes

pragmatist

pragmatist

Messages
2,134
Name
Matty
Edit My Images
Yes
I take it primes are still more widely regarded for their sharpness and IQ over zooms? Have been mulling over the 24-70 F2.8 however am now wondering if i should get a couple of primes instead. The 35mm F1.2 looks great.
I need optimum sharpness and IQ for the 5D mk2
 
In general, primes are indeed sharper than zooms. With a full frame body though, you'll probably need L glass to get the border sharpness at wide apertures. I have the 35mm f/2 and 50mm f/1.4 and they're fantastic, even wide open, but the borders are a fair bit softer than the centre, and that's on a crop body (40D). The L versions are much sharper at the borders and extreme borders.

If you're unsure, you could always try renting a couple for a week or so and see how you get on.

George.
 
Hi. I have the 50mm 1.4 and the 85mm 1.8 both of which are great and I use them a lot for gig photography. The only drawback is having to zoom with your feet, which is not always possible in confined places. I've also got the 24-70L which produces equally good photos. Just how often are you wanting/needing the shallow dof from the primes?
 
pragmatist said:
. The 35mm F1.2 looks great.
I need optimum sharpness and IQ for the 5D mk2
Click to expand...

Shouldn't that read F1.4 ? :)

I use primes a lot (on 1Ds MKII), and my most used are 50 f1.4 , 135mm f2 and 200mm F2.8.

I have a 85mm F1.2, while it's a dream lens, it doesn't get used as much as the others.

My least used is 24mm F1.4, generally preferring 17-40 F4L

Apart from the wide end, I can't ever see me going back to zooms, the quality of primes is in another league.
 
different reasoning here but.. I ahve the canon 24-70 and would rather have a 28 or 35mm prime purely because thats about the focal i would use it but mostly because its smaller and space is a premium in my camera case.... 24-70 is used every game i go to but only for pre match and half time presentations.. a small prime makes more sense :)
 
I ditched the 24-70 as i rarely used it. Found i was using the 50mm 1.4 more for crowd shots and half time stuff. The sale of the 24-70 funded the purchase of the 16-35 MKII. the only zoom lens i currently own and probably the only zoom i will own. I much prefer primes. Lighter, faster and faster to AF and better cropping ability, you might have to think more about your positioning but in turn that makes you think more about composition :)

The only possible situation where i may buy another zoom is if canon release a 70-200 to rival the Nikon version.
 
The 35L is a stunning lens. It's insainly sharp, offers smooth OOF blur, works brilliantly in dim/dark conditions and has the best colour reproduction I have seen in a lens. I took the jump a few years ago, and haven't looked back. I also have the 24-105 and 70-200 F4 IS, and find myself using the 35L the most. And all this on a crop camera! I expect it to be even more amazing on full frame.

Nick
 
sorry just googled it.. should have done that before asking... its not a small lens though is it...
 
Nick there have been some interesting comments on here and most seem to go with the primes. I have been looking at the 35L a bit more tonight and am going to hire it, I want to do some nice studio flower photography and think this lens may just do the job. After that it will more than likely be a purchase. What is close focusing like on this lens?
 
pragmatist said:
What is close focusing like on this lens?
Click to expand...

MFD is 300mm giving a working distance of 170mm. It's native magnification is 0.18x but tubes quickly give an increase due to the short focal length. 16mm worth of extension will get you to half life size and 27mm will give you a full 1:1 although the working distance gets a little restrictive.

Bob
 
Canon Bob said:
MFD is 300mm giving a working distance of 170mm. It's native magnification is 0.18x but tubes quickly give an increase due to the short focal length. 16mm worth of extension will get you to half life size and 27mm will give you a full 1:1 although the working distance gets a little restrictive.
Click to expand...


May I be the first to say .. "Eh" ?
 
When/if I eventually sell my 1D MkII I am going to buy a 200L f2.8 to fill my gap between my 100L Macro and my 300 f2.8 Tokina.

Kerso has it at the moment for £559 delivered which seems a really good price.
 
KIPAX said:
May I be the first to say .. "Eh" ?
Click to expand...

Eh what Tony?

A nice lens for flowers but also adaptable if close-up detail is needed....hence the details of how close and what repro ratio might be possible by adding a little tube or two behind the glass bit.

Bob
 
Canon Bob said:
Eh what Tony?

A nice lens for flowers but also adaptable if close-up detail is needed....hence the details of how close and what repro ratio might be possible by adding a little tube or two behind the glass bit.

Bob
Click to expand...

Honest to god truth i have no idea what you wrote.. he was asking about a 35l prime and you answer seemed to be 300mm which may be explained by MFD but I ahve no idea what that means either.. and I dont know what a tube does..

Hats off to anyone who followed your post but I certainly didnt... not a compalint BTW as the faults probably wiht me for not knowing my stuff :) although i bet nothing explained would be anything a sports photographer would know on a daily basis so thats my excuse :)
 
MFD minimum focussing distance.

Tube is an extension tube which allows the lens to focus closer than the MFD.
 
EdBray said:
MFD minimum focussing distance.

Tube is an extension tube which allows the lens to focus closer than the MFD.
Click to expand...

MFD - Duh I really should slap myself for that one... sorry..

I probably need to look up tubes... but 300mm ?
 
300mm (1ft) is the minimum focussing distance of a 35L f1.4

add an extension tube (or more) and you can reduce that thus giving you a greater magnification ratio and allowing nr macro shots.

Too much extension (too many tubes) and your focussing distance will be so reduced as to make using the lens more awkward.
 
EdBray said:
300mm (1ft) is the minimum focussing distance of a 35L f1.4

add an extension tube (or more) and you can reduce that thus giving you a greater magnification ratio and allowing nr macro shots.

Too much extension (too many tubes) and your focussing distance will be so reduced as to make using the lens more awkward.
Click to expand...

Clearly Eddie uses his spare time to research the more scientific aspects of this genre whilst Tony, on the other hand, is out womanising and exercising his sexual prowess....choices eh :shrug:
 
Canon Bob said:
Clearly Eddie uses his spare time to research the more scientific aspects of this genre whilst Tony, on the other hand, is out womanising and exercising his sexual prowess....choices eh :shrug:
Click to expand...

I think I got the fancy end of the stick :)

TP is better than Google for anything remotely photo related... Asking daft questions in here gets a better return than googling.

I am still ashamed of myself over the MFD thing though... tsk
 
Canon Bob said:
Clearly Eddie uses his spare time to research the more scientific aspects of this genre whilst Tony, on the other hand, is out womanising and exercising his sexual prowess....choices eh :shrug:
Click to expand...

I blame it on the tablets :p
 
pragmatist said:
I take it primes are still more widely regarded for their sharpness and IQ over zooms? Have been mulling over the 24-70 F2.8 however am now wondering if i should get a couple of primes instead. The 35mm F1.2 looks great.
I need optimum sharpness and IQ for the 5D mk2
Click to expand...

The main benefit of primes isn't sharpness these days, it's low f/number.

pragmatist said:
Nick there have been some interesting comments on here and most seem to go with the primes. I have been looking at the 35L a bit more tonight and am going to hire it, I want to do some nice studio flower photography and think this lens may just do the job. After that it will more than likely be a purchase. What is close focusing like on this lens?
Click to expand...

35mm on full frame doesn't strike me as the obvious choice for flower close ups, but each to their own ;)

Have you seen the review of the new 100mm 2.8 L IS macro on DPReview? Having just said sharpness is not the main benefit, take at look at how friggin sharp that thing is :eek: Here you go http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_100_2p8_is_usm_c16/

KIPAX said:
I am still ashamed of myself over the MFD thing though... tsk
Click to expand...

What's MFD?
 
nickwatson said:
A great source of photographic inspiration for the 35mm lens can be found here ...

http://www.flickriver.com/groups/27449914@N00/pool/interesting/

Once you hire the lens, you'll find a 35mm shape hole in your bank balance!
Click to expand...

He speaks the truth.

While the hole has not made it to my bank balance - it is more like a black hole sucking some of it in...

...and I only borrowed Nick's 35mm F1.4 for a night earlier this year!

I dread to think what would happen if I had one for any longer!
 
Whilst I have been singing the praise of the 35mm, I agree with Hoppy that the lens will not be the best for flower photography. A dedicated macro lens such as the 100 F2.8L would be a better choice, and would also compliment your 17-40, since you have the 35mm range already covered. Just a thought ...
 
nickwatson said:
Whilst I have been singing the praise of the 35mm, I agree with Hoppy that the lens will not be the best for flower photography. A dedicated macro lens such as the 100 F2.8L would be a better choice, and would also compliment your 17-40, since you have the 35mm range already covered. Just a thought ...
Click to expand...


I also agree totally however i sold my 17-40 and want to build up some primes and did see some fantastic flower photographs with this lens. Could you tell me why it would not be great for flowers? How does it hold up to portraits out of curiosity? I suspect if it is too sharp it could have the opposite effect:thinking:
 
My thoughts were that if the 35mm lens was to be purchased just for flowers, then there would be better alternatives.

Before I bought the 35mm lens, I had the 17-40, 50 1.8 and 70-200 F4. I was quite new to digital photography and thought that I needed to "cover a wide range of focal lengths". In the end I tended to use the long end of the 17-40 about 50% of the time, the 50 1.8 about 40% of the time, and the occasionally the 70-200. I loved the creativity allowed by the 1.8F lens, but also liked the "feel" of the more substantial 17-40. I also felt that the 50mm focal length was slight too long (on a crop camera), so I traded all of my 3 lenses in for the 35mm. I used this as my only lens for almost a year, and loved the results. On a crop sensor I use it to take portraits (but not too close up, as there is a slight distortion effect of making closer objects such a the nose look slightly exagerated), landscapes, weddings (as a friend of the B&G, not the pro), and everything in between. I still love using it today as I did when I first got it.

To answer your question, flowers and portraits are possibly not the best subjects for this lens, it will do it, but there will be better individual alternatives. Have you considered the 50mm as you have a full frame camera?
 
I've just read though what I wrote above, and it sounds a bit negative. I think what I mean is that the 35mm makes an excellent all rounder, but is not really a specialist lens.
 
nickwatson said:
Whilst I have been singing the praise of the 35mm, I agree with Hoppy that the lens will not be the best for flower photography. A dedicated macro lens such as the 100 F2.8L would be a better choice, and would also compliment your 17-40, since you have the 35mm range already covered. Just a thought ...
Click to expand...

Yes i did have a brief look at the 50mm but that 100mm F2.8L macro you mentioned looks sublime. That may do me as i can do my flowers and portraits. What i liked about the 35mm for flowers was the almost 3d effect, Choices choices :thinking:
 
Matty

I've dug out a flower photo shot with the 35mm lens. It's the only one I can find. Taken at F2.8 ...

IMG_5395.JPG


Hope it makes your decision more difficult!

Nick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top