Canon's forgotten primes

[I-S]

Canon's prime lens lineup has a few lenses in it that seem to have been forgotten by many. I've owned one of them, and my father has a couple of them and they're not bad lenses. All of them are still current too... I'm curious as to other people's experiences with them.

1) Canon EF 20 F2.8 USM

This is the one I had. It perfectly rounded out my kit, at the time, of 24-85, 70-200 F4L and 300 F4L IS. By no means a bad lens, the build was nice and it was a great 32mm equivalent on digital also. USM focus was fast, and manual focus ring was nice to use.

It's easy enough to see why this one barely registers though - even at the time it lived in the shadow of the 20-35 F3.5-4.5 USM. Although that was not a great lens it was a zoom. And that's the problem even now - the 17-40 in particular must take much of the blame (and that's what I have now too).


2) Canon EF 50 F2.5 Macro

The first macro of the EF system, and for a long time the only one. By modern standards the spec is unimpressive - extension while focusing, noisy and slow AFD motor, 1:2 maximum ratio unless you buy the Life Size Converter. Crop-frame users will flock to the EF-S 60 F2.8 macro instead, no doubt, but the 50 should not be overlooked.

This was one of the first two EF lenses my father bought when he traded in his FD system in 1990 (the other being the 28-70 F3.5-4.5). He still has it now and uses it a lot - it's a very good lens for botanical work, and also for photographing paintings (extremely low distortion). It's sharp and produces good results.

Perhaps shorter macros have gone out of fashion, perhaps this would sell if updated to a formfactor like the 60mm, who knows?

3) Canon EF 85 F1.8 USM

The 85 F1.8 is in a real bind. Even though it's a great lens - compact, light, fast AF, great quality - it's stuck between its more imposing big brother, the 85 F1.2L, and the excellent L-series 70-200s. It's a shame as it's a great portrait lens. Most people will plump for the zoom though.



Of course, there are others too - the 100 F2 USM, the 28 F1.8, 28 F2.8. Some of the old primes have had a resurgence - the 35 F2 and 24 F2.8 notably, while 50s are perennially popular. But there are other decent and interesting lenses in the EOS system that seem to get shuffled out of most people's thinking.

 

[woof woof]

2) Canon EF 50 F2.5 Macro

I have one and it's a good lens and I'm sure that I've read on line is some review or other that some think that despite it's age it's one of canon's sharpest lenses.

PS.
1) Canon EF 20 F2.8 USM
I don't see the point of lenses like this these days unless they're very cheap. To me the advantage of primes is either fast aperture or macro and this lens doesn't seem to have either. The Siggy 20mm f1.8 seems more attractive and that's what I bought.

Also... I have a 20-35mm and although it gets so-so reviews I can't see anything wrong with it and I've used it for film and on my 20D. I bought it for my film body and now that I no longer use it it's sat in a draw just in case I use film again or get a full frame DSLR. It seems to be a nice lens, cheap too.

 

[magicaxeman]

When I bought my DSLR I purposely only bought primes with the body, a 50mm F1.8 and a 85mm F1.8, the kit lens was useless to me as it was too slow and that slot was eventually filled with a Tamron 17-50mm F2.8.

I agree there's a lot of scope with primes and as zooms cover most of the range now, they tend to get ignored, as you rightly say the 85mm is a hidden gem, its capable of producing really sharp images with a lovely creamy bokeh.

28mm's also seem to be ignored now as the range is covered by most standard zooms, yet I always found the 28mm primes to be very useful, especially for self portraits, landscapes and skyscapes.

Sadly the 135mm's seem to be to a large part ignored, but for someone using FF they're very good for portrait work and for the crop user provide a nice medium telephoto as they give a FOV of approx 216mm, at F2.8 that can be handy.

 

[trencheel303]

I'd hardly describe Canon's 85/1.8 as a forgotten prime. However, their 100/2, which is almost identical in appearance, is certainly a lot more scarce than the 85. Probably because it's a good deal more expensive!

 

[Rolleikin]

Forgotten? Like these gems (fit to your EOS with a converter)
http://www.mir.SPAM/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/earlyfdlenses/50mmfd.htm

Or even
http://www.antiquecameras.net/canon50mmf12ltm.html

Those are forgotten, the rest are in camera shops near you....

 

[Canon Bob]

The EF50/2.5 is indeed a gem . It's excellent to use in a copy stand and doesn't do a half bad job for portraits either. I've also got the Life Size converter to get it to 1:1 and it trades very little in sharpness when attached.

Bob

 

[niv2]

I'm considering getting the 85mm F1.8 for indoor sports in very low light situations as if gives a stop advantage over my 70-200mm F2.8 and I might get away with if for relatively close work (show jumping)

 

[BacktotheFuji]

I don't see the point of lenses like this these days unless they're very cheap. To me the advantage of primes is either fast aperture or macro and this lens doesn't seem to have either.

To me, the point of primes is edge to edge sharpness, faster speed, lighter weight and less ca

 

[trencheel303]

I'm considering getting the 85mm F1.8 for indoor sports in very low light situations as if gives a stop advantage over my 70-200mm F2.8 and I might get away with if for relatively close work (show jumping)

Go for it. The 1.8 is very sharp and usable even at f/1.8.

That's a 100% crop, by the way - and no one ever needs images to be pin sharp at 100% in real world use. If the 1.8 is that sharp wide open, think how well it can do stopped down a little.

To me, the point of primes is edge to edge sharpness, faster speed, lighter weight and less ca

I can see his point though. Zoom lenses are very good these days, whereas most primes are still of an age old design. I can't think of any of Canon's cheaper, popular primes that were made after the year 2000. The two cheaper fifties, 35, 85, 28, et al were all made in the 90s or 80s. Most zooms that people use nowadays though are under 10 years old, so the technology has obviously moved on. Taking into consideration these facts, I'd never use an f/2.8 prime lens - why would I, when there are f/2.8 zooms that will almost certainly cover the range of the prime anyway? The only reason I have a prime is because it is faster than any zoom - not because it promotes "skill" or "foot zoom" which frankly, is a load of tosh.

I will agree that they are weight saving though, but really that and the faster F stop (of most primes) is all they have going for them nowadays.

 

[cuthbert]

Taking into consideration these facts, I'd never use an f/2.8 prime lens - why would I, when there are f/2.8 zooms that will almost certainly cover the range of the prime anyway? The only reason I have a prime is because it is faster than any zoom - not because it promotes "skill" or "foot zoom" which frankly, is a load of tosh.

I will agree that they are weight saving though, but really that and the faster F stop (of most primes) is all they have going for them nowadays.

agreed. the workhorse zooms (24-70, 70-200) are very sharp across the frame and have excellent colour and contrast. i read a lot of reviews where it was stated either lens was "not as sharp as a prime", but like i have said in other threads, in real world use, the difference between say a 100mm 2.8 prime and my 70-200 f2.8 at 100mm is just imperceptible. there is just nothing in it in iq terms really and the added benefit of instant reframing completely mitigates any minuscule difference in sharpness at 100% magnification on a monitor.

 

[Musicman]

Petteri Sulonen in Finland wrote a nice piece entitled Ugly Ducklings: The Early EF Primes.

Worth a read.

 

[woof woof]

"To me, the point of primes is edge to edge sharpness, faster speed, lighter weight and less ca"

With modern primes yes, sometimes, but some of the best primes are designed for centre sharpness and have relatively poor edge to edge sharpness and that's an equally valid and equally useful design criteria as edge to edge sharpness. Also as has been said some primes are decades old and things have moved on and I'm a believer in most modern lenses being good enough. If you don't do severe cropping, print things to the size of a wall and then stand six inches from it or pixel peep for the sake of it who'll really see the difference?

It's just my own personal view but take away the fast aperture and the ability to focus close and I personally would struggle to justify the selection of a prime over a modern compact and lightweight zoom like the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 and others of equal worth.