Going from L zooms to non L primes

richpips

richpips

Messages
1,687
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
Yes
I've sold a load of stuff with a view originally of getting a 70-200 f/4 IS zoom.

Having just searched through my exif data I see that I've actually shot very little over 105mm which is the limit of my other L zoom.

Hot spots are 24mm , 50mm, 80mm , 105mm then 200mm

I also find that quite often I'm shooting wide open at f/4 with slow shutter speeds and highish iso which suggests that I might do better buying a selection of L and non L primes?

For the record shooting on a 40D

My proposed shopping list

28mm 1.8
50mm 1.4
85mm 1.8
135mm 2l
200mm 2l (possibility)

Anyone done this?

Cheers Rich
 
It depends how much you like primes I suppose Rich.
On your list I've got the 135mm and 200mm and they're superb! And from what I know about it the 85mm f/1.8 is truly excellent (OK I've got the f/1.2 and I'm a little biased).

I won't get into the primes versus zoom argument, there really is a need for both. But I do prefer a prime if I know in advance what I'm likely to be shooting. Which I think is fair comment.

cheers

EDIT: sorry mis-read your post. The 200mm I have is the f/2.8 prime. And YES I'd love the f/2 version!
 
I use the 85mm 1.8 and love it, I also have the sigma 30mm 1.4 which I don't use as much as I should, I tend to whack on the 10-22 and use that despite the inferior aperture.

Am heading to Chester Zoo tomorrow - having been a couple of time over the last 3 months I might try something new and use only my 30mm and 85mm to see what I can come up with. Even have two bodies so won't need to chop and change
 
hey :) now im very biassed... as i have an un-natrual love for primes... spent the first year of owning a dslr with just a nifty fifty, as it was either that or a kit lens... Im not sure why, but for me... a prime always wins, id prefer to cover a focal gap in 3 primes than 1 zoom (that said, this rarely happens due to money :p).... only just brought my first zoom now... 2 and a half years on, and that was just cos i couldnt afford an ultra-wide prime :p... just my opinion
 
It depends how much you like primes I suppose Rich.
Click to expand...

I liked the nifty I had, and got some good shots with it. Just no quite robust enough build for me.

But I do prefer a prime if I know in advance what I'm likely to be shooting.
Click to expand...

I've two bodies, so could take two lenses to cover most eventualities in the same situation.

Im not sure why, but for me... a prime always wins
Click to expand...

I'm beginning to think the same. :)
 
EDIT: sorry mis-read your post. The 200mm I have is the f/2.8 prime. And YES I'd love the f/2 version!
Click to expand...

You misread right. I meant the 2.8
 
on the other hand the 70-200 f4l is is quite literally as good as any prime (at f4) at any focal length anyway. So it's a question of speed I guess. How about the 2.8?
 
Hmmmm, good point that you looked at your own data first!

I have the 70-200 f4 and to be honest I keep it for shooting family stuff where I can happily get away with f4.

For professional stuff I have a Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 which is permanently on one camera during a wedding. The other body I happily use primes. :)

I've got 35mm f2, 50mm f1.8, 85mm f1.8 and 100mm f2.8 macro.

I have to say the best prime i have used was the 35mm f1.4 that I hired from lensesforhire. I utterly loved it. But needs must and I have a range to cover so I chose the more budget conscious versions until I settle on which ones I really, really need. The 85mm f1.8 being my pick so far. It out performs anything I have ever produced with a zoom.

(do shoot on full frame though)
 
on the other hand the 70-200 f4l is is quite literally as good as any prime (at f4) at any focal length anyway. So it's a question of speed I guess. How about the 2.8?
Click to expand...

The f4 is great for the price new or used, but it doesn't compare with the 135mm f/2 @ f/4 for sharpness. At least in my tests. I'm not knocking zooms though, they are great.
 
That's interesting as the inevitable "lab test" reports show only a fag paper between these two at 135mm F4. Might be time for me to visit lensesforhire!
 
That's interesting as the inevitable "lab test" reports show only a fag paper between these two at 135mm F4.
Click to expand...

I cerainly haven't got a lab, but I took a series of shots with one copy of each lens mounted on a tripod, and there was a noticeable difference.

Yesterday I borrowed a Canon 50mm f/1.4 to do the same. I won't be buying one of them now.
 
Richpips, you sound like you're going to end up where I am. I've got the 135 and 200 but went for the 24-70 f/2.8L for the wider stuff rather than a series of primes.
Click to expand...

I'll not be getting rid of my 24-105L. It's a great walkabout lens when light is ample.
 
I used to have the 24-105 but switched to the 24-70 for the extra stop as I do a lot of low light work.
 
I have the 24-70L (use it as my walkabout), 50 f1.4, 85 f1.8, 100 Macro, 135L and I use the EF 1.4x & 2x converters when I need a bit more length, believe it or not they are not even too bad stacked on the 135L for very occasional use.
 
and I use the EF 1.4x & 2x converters when I need a bit more length, believe it or not they are not even too bad stacked on the 135L for very occasional use.
Click to expand...

I'd not thought of stacking them. Good idea.
 
I was actually refering to the IS version although looking above I see I didn't actually type that. They look pretty close to me!
Click to expand...

Not much difference there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top