prime vs L series zoom

stumac

stumac

Messages
3,369
Name
stuart
Edit My Images
Yes
i mainly shoot landscapes but want to get into portraiture a bit more

for image quality purposes only do you think i would be better with the canon 24-70 2.8 or get a sigma 50mm 1.4 and a canon 85mm 1.8.

to go with the primes i will probably save a bit of money aswell
i know the zoom will be more versitile but with a 50mm and 85mm prime i think i should be well covered anyway


what do you all think
 
I've never done any portrait photography but from what I've read on this forum the primes would probably be your best bet, although not sure if these two primes specifically.
 
It's highly subjective and you'll get people preaching either way and swearing one is better than the other.

I prefer primes personally but I have a Nikon 2.8 17-55 for work purposes. Given the choice I'd shoot solely prime lenses

edit - and think of your landscape to portrait ratio so to speak. If you shoot mainly landscape, sure 24-70mm is fine, but for portraiture I personally wouldn't go for that focal length unless your shooting space is very restricted. Go long, the perspective distortion is much more flattering. Again, someone will probably pipe up saying that's BS...
 
Last edited:
yeah the 2 primes i have picked are based on price and reviews only.
i have a 1d mk2 and a 5dmk2 so i suppose i can chop and change the lenses to get a different focal length from them using the 1d crop factor
 
thanks danny at the moment i have a 17-40 and a 100-400.so thats why i have went in at 50 and 85mm.so i should be well covered for pretty much anything.
 
stumac said:
thanks danny at the moment i have a 17-40 and a 100-400.so thats why i have went in at 50 and 85mm.so i should be well covered for pretty much anything.
Click to expand...

They're fine for full length (50mm) and maybe as tight as torso for the 85mm but I wouldn't want to get any closer than that on a FF sensor. I've seen some seriously beautiful work with the 100mm and 135mm canon primes. I'd sack off the Sigma 50mm personally. 85mm + 135mm Canon = Niiiiiice :D
 
I have the Siggy 50mm f1.4 and it's a lovely lens but I have a 20D which is APS-C. If I had a full frame camera I think I'd look at the Siggy 85mm f1.4 which some say is better than the much more expensive Canon L...

http://hofferphotography.com/2010/11/16/my-sigma-85-f1-4-vs-canon-85l-review/

I wouldn't be without a 50mm though and as a 20D user I have a Siggy 30mm f1.4 which fills the same role.

On the general subject of zooms v primes I think that most lenses are very probably good enough so in some senses it doesn't really matter what you use but some primes do offer options that no zoom offers, namely a faster aperture or macro, but zooms offer flexibility of use.
 
Last edited:
forgot to mention if it makes any difference but so far 90% of my portrait shots are on location and for that reason i feel the 50mm has its uses for me very very little of my shots would be head and shoulders only and if i really need to shot like that although big and heavy i could use my 100-400.
thats my line of thinking anyway
 
With lenses of that standard, you will not want for image quality with any of them.

The big difference with the primes is the lower f/numbers, and what you can do with that in terms of creative depth of field and low light.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top