PRIME LENSES

THE-BIG-MAN-SAYS

THE-BIG-MAN-SAYS

Messages
1,397
Name
Stevie
Edit My Images
No
I am considering an option of using primes on either a 50d or 500d:

EF 50 f1.8
&
EF 85 f1.8

Noticed 'Pearce_jj' using these...very fast

against the other option of:

EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS

I would need to add other shorter focal length lenses later...but the primes would cut the cost in half...ie I could add a EF 20 f2.8...

Are there many others out there shooting with primes...and would you say it would be good to learn to move about more to get the photo...especially for a DSLR Virgin...?

THANKS
 
It really depends on what you do the most.
I really enjoy using my 50mm but on a crop sensor you often find yourself too close, or at least I do.
 
The 50mm is one of those lenses everyone buys, uses for a few weeks and then sells again.

It's not really the most useable focal length on a crop sensor. A 1.8 is cheap though, especially at the price Kerso is doing them at....
 
i would stick to a zoom. the 17-55 is very sharp and pretty good in low light, and when learning it will help make things slightly easier. if you get the zoom, you can also better judge what focal lengths you will need in primes for your style of shooting
 
you may also want to look at the 35mm f2 or even the sigma 30mm f1.4 is a cracker
 
50 on crop is goo for portraits, its 85 on ff (ish actually closer to 80)

I want a sigma 30 f1.4 as I love my 50 on a 35mm body
 
Isn't the perspective the same regardless of the crop factor? Meaning ideally you would use a 50 but stand further back? Just thinking for portraits wouldn't you get big noses etc on a 30mm?
 
The main advantage of primes is low f/number, which gives you low light capability and shallow depth of field. If you need f/1.8, then the 17-55 2.8 doesn't come in to it.

On the other hand, if you want a range of focal lengths, then a prime isn't going to be very good at that at all!

Basically, the choices you have suggested are not comparable. But having said that, I can't imagine anyone embarking on DSLR photography, with a crop format camera, starting out with just a 50 1.8 and 85 1.8 and hoping to do much in the way of general photography. These are lenses to supplement your basic workhorse outfit, not replace it.
 
Not so long ago everyone shot with primes. Good quality zooms that can equal the image quality of primes are a fairly recent development.

Using primes makes you think more about what you are doing and what you are wanting to photograph in the scene as any change in framing is far more deliberate. ...you either foot zoom or change lens.

You do have to arrange your kit well as you will need more frequent access to your lenses.

The usual approach is to get a set of primes of doubling focal lengths. For example, building around a 50mm prime... 24/28, 50, 105, 180/200. Some people prefer to go wider and build around a 35mm. On a cropped digital body you'd want to shorten these to compensate for the 1.5x multiplier.

Using primes can give you a very compact kit covering the full range of focal lengths, even at f/2.8 or better. Having said that, modern zooms have great image quality and are undoubtedly convenient.
 
haha, puntastic!

I was under the impression that a 50mm lens would be just that, on any body, but the crop factor is just that, it crops the 50mm focal length view, not transforming it into say a 70mm view, just a cropped 50mm view?
 
HoppyUK said:
I can't imagine anyone embarking on DSLR photography, with a crop format camera, starting out with just a 50 1.8 and 85 1.8 and hoping to do much in the way of general photography. These are lenses to supplement your basic workhorse outfit, not replace it.
Click to expand...

Aside from the crop-factor part, on FF the 50mm and 85mm are the two lenses I use most - I honestly hardly ever use zooms. I've reached that conclusion after finding what my preferred style and subject is though.
 
steve.82 said:
haha, puntastic!

I was under the impression that a 50mm lens would be just that, on any body, but the crop factor is just that, it crops the 50mm focal length view, not transforming it into say a 70mm view, just a cropped 50mm view?
Click to expand...

50mm is 50mm focal length regardless of whether it's on full-frame or cropped-sensor. The cropped-sensor will affect the field of view, in a 1.5x case the field of view becomes 75mm.
 
It really depends on what sort of photos you're taking. I shoot with primes 95% of the time but I started out with the kit lens (18-55mm) to find out what sort of focal lengths I used most and the type of photos I liked.

Turned out that I only really used the mid-long end of the kit lens but needed a faster aperture as most of the photos I was taking were indoors in low light. Hence primes were a great choice and fitted with my budget at the time.

I bought the Canon 35mm f/2 and started getting far more keepers than with the kit lens. I then added the Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM for a bit of extra reach and larger aperture (although I do kinda wish I'd gone for the Sigma version). I'll be adding the Canon 85mm f/1.8 USM next unless Canon release an updated version of the 35mm f/2 with USM and maybe a slightly bigger aperture (f/1.8 or so), in which case I'll upgrade to that as I use that lens most.

The main reasons I've gone for primes instead of zooms, are because I very rarely find myself needing a long lens, need large apertures as I'm shooting indoors most of the time, they're incredibly sharp when used correctly, and I can upgrade gradually instead of dropping a load of cash in one go. By the time you've got all your focal lengths covered, a zoom might have been cheaper but the primes are nearly always a lot faster.

Hope this helps!

George.
 
HoppyUK said:
The main advantage of primes is low f/number, which gives you low light capability and shallow depth of field. If you need f/1.8, then the 17-55 2.8 doesn't come in to it.

On the other hand, if you want a range of focal lengths, then a prime isn't going to be very good at that at all!

Basically, the choices you have suggested are not comparable. But having said that, I can't imagine anyone embarking on DSLR photography, with a crop format camera, starting out with just a 50 1.8 and 85 1.8 and hoping to do much in the way of general photography. These are lenses to supplement your basic workhorse outfit, not replace it.
Click to expand...


i have to say, after spending the entire year so far with just a crop sensor camera and a 50mm, i have to agree. its extremely frustrating taking a range of photos with just this set up. all my photos taken this year have been with a 50mm lens (every one). it'd be even more limiting for someone just starting out and although ive made do, its definetely worth using a zoom first and maybe seeing what sort of focal lengths you prefer before investing in primes.

in an ideal world id use primes all the time, always loved them and they make me a better photographer for it.
 
Another way to go would be to get a couple of kit lenses to cover the full 18-200 range and drop in a couple of primes -- a 30 or 35, and an 85 or 50.
 
A bag full of primes I would love, but at the very least I would have a "main" wide to medium lens to overlap.
 
Focal length and perspective.

The focal length of a lens doesn't change between full frame and crop format, but the field of view does. The crop format sensor is much smaller and only captures a 'cropped' area from the centre - the lens hasn't changed but since you're getting less in the picture the effect is the same as if you'd fitted a 1.6x (Canon crop factor) longer lens on the full frame camera.

Unless you have two cameras with different sensor formats, you can pretty much forget about the crop factor. It is only relevant when comparing, say, a new DSLR against an old full frame film camera and need to know what the equivalent focal lengths are in terms of field of view.

Perspective has nothing to do with lenses as such - it is a function of distance. If you stand close, then near objects will appear relatively much larger than far objects. A wide lens will allow you to get them all in even when you're close, so wide lenses tend to give exagerated perspective in this situation. However, if you move back and shoot with a wide lens, then enlarge the centre of the image in post processing to give the same framing, the perspective will be the same as if you had stood back and used a longer lens.
 
sdb123 said:
Aside from the crop-factor part, on FF the 50mm and 85mm are the two lenses I use most - I honestly hardly ever use zooms. I've reached that conclusion after finding what my preferred style and subject is though.
Click to expand...

Me too, 85mm in particular (50mm on crop) probably serves over 90% of my photography.
 
Have a look at some image examples from the 85mm f1.8 and 50mm - especially the f1.4. They can be found on flickr and the canon site/forum. Out of all the images i have seen from the canon forum the 85mm f1.8 and 50mm f1.4 were the best for IQ.
 
I've now sold my zooms (Tamron 17-35 & Nikon 70-300 VR) and have gone to primes as I want to slow down/think about my process to get better pictures.

A 20mm f2.8 is on it's way and will join the AF-S 50mm (90% of shots taken) and 105mm VR (8% of shots taken).

Makes a lighter camera bag and I use available light 99% of the time.
 
ive taken some lovely shots with the 50mm on the cropped body, and havent had a chance to do much on the FF yet. i wouldnt advise getting kitting yourself up with mainly prime lenses. You would find yourself getting frustated from having to change them a lot and would miss a lot of shots due to the changing of lenses if you plan to do event photography.

Some say they buy the 50mm and then sell it on. my one is glued to one of my cameras and the mrs absolutely loves it. Id say get the nifty and a zoom.
 
Thanks for all the input guys...

I think I would be using a variety of sizes at least in the beginning...

Thinking about the 17-55mm f2.8 zoom...is this a reasonable f size for wide (17mm) end landscape...mid (50mm) general and portrait....

Is the f2.8 enough for internal portrait...or will the 50mm f1.8 make a massive difference...?

Will the f2.8 zoom make a massive difference in comparison to a cheaper lens (to a dramatic level) ie EF-S 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM

Think what I am asking here is at £700 for the EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM...compared with the EF-S 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM at £300 and a Canon EF 50mm f1.8 II at £80...Would I see a dramatic difference...I could then add more Primes later...and even sell off the zoom if I had a change of heart...

I feel my lack of DSLR skills and photography is showing here...so again I THANK all that are helping me...

I have shot with the Bridge FZ30 that has IS built in...so am used to it...and think a zoom would require it...for me anyway...the nifty 50 would let me hone my non-IS skills as time went on...

Plan to visit Jesspos on Sat morn for a wee play with the gear...and my SD card for a trial...photos will follow
 
f/2.8 should be well useable for portraits indoors. Indoors at night then everything will struggle and it's time to think about bounce flash anyway.
With 50mm indoors on a crop sensor you may run out of room pretty quickly (you need about 15 feet camera to subject to do full length and that'd be frame filling too.

You might be confusing zoom with telephoto, the zoom will be easier to hand hold at every length under 50mm (unless you're using the fast aperture to bump shutter speed).
 
Although the 17-55mm f2.8 is expensive...after reading most of the reviews from my past posts it is number 1 position...

This may push me back to the 500d instead of the 50d...

Defo Jessops for a play on Sat...
 
THE-BIG-MAN-SAYS said:
Although the 17-55mm f2.8 is expensive...after reading most of the reviews from my past posts it is number 1 position...

This may push me back to the 500d instead of the 50d...

Defo Jessops for a play on Sat...
Click to expand...

^^^ :thumbs:

If you need to cut back a bit in order to get the 50D, just buy the camera and 17-55 2.8 IS. This is a wonderful lens with a great range and a very low f/number throughout (for a zoom). It is sharp from end to end at all apertures - well you know what I mean, sharper than anything else out there.

You don't need anything else for starters, and maybe never want for a 50 1.8. I sold mine when I got the 17-55. I also think it will be good for you to explore the capability of what you've got before rushing out to make purchase decisions you might regret. You can only do so much on line; there's no substitute for actually using the gear yourself.

And if your user name is anything to go by, you'll find the 500D a bit small.
 
Its actually a quote/character from the Scottish TV Comedy...Chewin' The Fat

Plus I'm a bit of a fat B******...

On A side note...saw Inglorious Basterds tonight...if you like the work of The T...then go and see...
 
THE-BIG-MAN-SAYS said:
Will the f2.8 zoom make a massive difference in comparison to a cheaper lens (to a dramatic level) ie EF-S 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM

Think what I am asking here is at £700 for the EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM...compared with the EF-S 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM at £300 and a Canon EF 50mm f1.8 II at £80...Would I see a dramatic difference...I could then add more Primes later...and even sell off the zoom if I had a change of heart...
Click to expand...

Yes it will make a massive difference since you'll get a shallow DoF from the f/2.8 lens giving a professional look to portraits. Although on a crop body it will need to be wider still to get that totally diffused, creamy background blur, queue the primes!

This is what the 50mm lenses are all about, really shallow DoF. It is hard to master though, photographing head-and-shoulders on 85/1.8/FF the DoF is pretty much the length of an eye lash.

My suggestion - get the 17-55 f/2.8 and see how you get on. No need to get every option to start with.
 
I would look at the 50D over the 500D but if budget is tight, look at 3rd party 17-50 f/2.8 lenses
then save up later for the canon IS version, which I really rather want myself!
 
I notice your camera bag has these two...recommendations...???

Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 :Sigma 50-150 f2.8

Going for a wee play with soime stuff on Sat morn in Jessop...Ill also ask to see the Tamron for compatability...

THANKS
 
Both have a good reputation and together cover the all the main focal lengths.

If I had to pick just one of the two it would be the 17-50, simply because it's the most used range.
 
I have f2.8 glass because I shoot low light a lot
fight gigs and music gigs
the 17-50 tamron is a kit lens replacement and a 17-85 IS replacement.
I'd get the 17-55 IS if I could justify the expense, so maybe after xmas!
the 50-150 I bought after borrowing a friends, it's really quite nice
smooth and quick focusing, not as fast as the L glass I've tried but good for the budget.
shot some nice candids with it at a wedding (as a guest) last weekend.
unless you're into ranged candids though or gigs it might not be worth it.
the most used and best value for money glass i owe is the Tamron 17-50. rarely lets me down. focusing is good, but not amazing. However, when it gets it spot on the detail is amazing. I have missed the odd shot with it though
80% of the shots on here are mine, the top photo of celebration I missed the focus...gutted! would have looked even better if the lens had caught it. so the tamron, great for the money, but not perfect. I'm hoping the 17-55 canon IS is just that bit more reliable
 
These photos look great...especially without IS...did not think they would be so clear...

I would like to try a bit of everything to find my niche...prob start with landscape, macro, still life and models...

Might keep my Pannie FZ30 and Raynox for the Macro...just now...dont know how good the Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS would be...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top