primes.
- Thread starter ab2012
- Start date
- Messages
- 3,807
- Name
- Lee
- Edit My Images
- Yes
i have the 135L, 85, 50 and soon to have the 35L all for wedding/portrait work. How you use them is some what down to your style. Its hard to define each lens as they are used in different ways for different shots.
I'm really loving primes at the moment and the 2 zooms are mainly for back up now.
I'm really loving primes at the moment and the 2 zooms are mainly for back up now.
- Messages
- 3,807
- Name
- Lee
- Edit My Images
- Yes
sharper, maybe, depends on the zoom and the prime, straight forward, no, you have to think harder about your shot, there is no twisting the barel to shoot wider and rescue with a crop in post. The DOF is a lot thinner, technique is different.
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
if you want sharper images, go to full frame. Simple as really.
Some people bestow primes with some magical and largely imagined properties, but in terms of hard facts, the one thing that primes can do that zooms cannot, is low f/numbers.
Generally primes are sharper due to the their uncompromised design, unlike zooms. Having said that you get both in various quality. For instance my 24-70 runs ring around the 50mm at comparable lengths and appertures, similarly the 85mm wide open kills the 70-200.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 3,959
- Name
- Adrian
- Edit My Images
- No
The thing I like about primes is that they are generally lighter, smaller & cheaper than the zoom equivalent. Also it helps me to "visualise" the shot if I know I'm working with a single focal length, and it makes the process much simpler as there is no faffing about deciding what zoom setting to use.
KIPAX
Seriously Likeable
- Messages
- 21,431
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
I have the canon 70-200 f2.8L mkII thats one of the latest canon L zoom lens..
When i am shooting low light or indoors the 135mm prime gives me better results..it gives cleaner pictures at very high iso and i use the 135mm at f2.8
the 35mm prime is perfect for me when shooting boxing or other ring or cage combat type sports... everyhting is so fast its a perfect length to shoot everyhting in a boxing ring and not need to take time zooming in and out.. again also better at high iso
the 85mm is perfect for basketball.. it doesnt give better pics then the 70-200 at high iso but is faster
never had the 100
When i am shooting low light or indoors the 135mm prime gives me better results..it gives cleaner pictures at very high iso and i use the 135mm at f2.8
the 35mm prime is perfect for me when shooting boxing or other ring or cage combat type sports... everyhting is so fast its a perfect length to shoot everyhting in a boxing ring and not need to take time zooming in and out.. again also better at high iso
the 85mm is perfect for basketball.. it doesnt give better pics then the 70-200 at high iso but is faster
never had the 100
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
The sensor is more than twice the area - 2.56x in fact, crop factor 1.6x squared.
Sensors aside and noise/ISO/colour etc, the main contributor is the lens MTF. Basic physics of 'sharpness' is a combination of resolution and contrast. As resolution goes up, so contrast goes down, fact of optical life - and contrast arguably contributes most to what what we perceive as sharpness.
If the sensor is larger, so the lens has to work less hard (ie deliver less resolution) for a given size of output. Therefore contrast is higher and the image looks sharper.
It's not a small difference either. Compare a 7D with a 5D2, with roughly the same number of pixels. Or a Nikon D300 with a D700, likewise. Full frame wins easily.
I was brought up on prime,when zoom were not about,or not very good,but theses day they are much better.
I know a lot of people hark back to primes,me i am sticking to my zooms
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 44,056
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
Primes do two things that I don't think any zooms can do... wider aperture and macro. Besides those things I think that a good prime might be better than a good zoom but that in reality you'd have to look very closely to see it.
KIPAX
Seriously Likeable
- Messages
- 21,431
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
at stupidly high iso? you dont have to look that close..
- Messages
- 7,314
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
In answer to the original question not pointless argeuement over which is better, There is no specific use for a prime, unless it's a Macro one. I have 24, 50 and 135mm and al lare used for Landscape. Fast 85s and 100s tend to be considered portrait lenses because they are a good combination of attributes you'd normally want in portraiture, doesn't mean you can't use them for sports or landscape etc.
Simply put the wider you go the more exaggerated perspective and features become - you then pass through the normal zone and move into the compressed persepctive zone, where distant things appear closer and you gte a sort of neutral but with depth feeling to an image (hard to explain but you should be able to recognise it quite obviously).
Simply put the wider you go the more exaggerated perspective and features become - you then pass through the normal zone and move into the compressed persepctive zone, where distant things appear closer and you gte a sort of neutral but with depth feeling to an image (hard to explain but you should be able to recognise it quite obviously).
- Messages
- 9,438
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Just one thought springs to mind from reading Richards post. Don't put a 50mm lens on a crop and ff and take the picture from exactly the same position and then crop the FF so it looks the same picture as the crop. If you do, you're effectively making the FF camera a crop camera and making the lens work just as hard for a given output. Either put the same lens on and change distance to your subject or put a longer lens on the FF camera. For his theory to hold true, you need to be printing the full image you capture to a given size and not part of it....
Apologies if this is obvious....
Last edited:
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 44,056
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
Before you crop the FF image it may look sharper as any object in the picture will be smaller and small things often look sharper. Once you've cropped the FF image it may still look sharper as there'll probably be fewer pixels as APS-C generally have higher mp densities and the transition and borders may be more sudden.
- Messages
- 9,438
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Who's suggesting cropping anything?
- Messages
- 9,438
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Sorry to be a pedant, but it's not the lens that affects perspective, it's the shooting distance. It's just that wide lenses tend to be used closer to the subject, and longer focal lengths from further away that creates this (technically incorrect) assuption.
Apologies, for the benefit of others. I'm sure you know this
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Well it's not Richard's theory, though thanks anyway
It's a fundamental fact. If you check the MTF graphs that Canon publishes for all of their lenses, you will see two sets of curves, at 10 lines-per-mm and 30 lines-per-mm. The height up the graph is the % contrast, and note how much further down it is at the higher resolution. Bigger is better. Always was, and always will be - in this area at least. As an aside, I can't wait to see what we get out of the new Canon 1DX. Even though it's 'only' 18mp, it's the first new full frame sensor we've seen for a few years and Canon has really worked hard on it. Pretty sure it's going to be fantastic.
Getting back to the OP, who said it was better sharpness he was after with primes and what prompted me to bring full frame into this thread, I mentioned before my own introduction to full frame.
I had a 40D (10mp) and went to Jessops to try a 7D (18mp). I wasn't expecting an 80% improvement, but I was hoping for more than the marginal a-bit-better-if-you-look-closely result that I got in side by side comparisons.
They also had a 5D2 (21mp, basically the same as the 7D) with 24-105L so I decided to try that, and shot the same subject (outside the shop) on the 40D, 7D and 5D2, same f/number and ISO, and just adjusted the focal length to maintain identical framing. 5D2 was simply streets ahead - sharpness, noise, colour, dynamic range, everything. It turned out quite a costly experiment
Last edited:
KIPAX
Seriously Likeable
- Messages
- 21,431
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
stoppit!!!!!
mines on pre order... i was so happy wiht my two mkIVs... Now I am doing jobs (low light indoor no flash) and thinking how much better it would be with a 1dx .... the wait is killing me..
- Messages
- 9,438
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
<sigh> We're on the same side you knowWell it's not Richard's theory, though thanks anyway
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
35, 85, 100,135
How would you differentiate their uses,apart from focal lengths?What shots do you/can you use them for?Want one as I've had such good reports on here.
Thanks.
35 - wide - get a bit more in - on a crop equivalent (almost) to what your eye sees... sorta. Group pics
50 - portrait, with a step back
85 - a bit longer
100 - approx 3x optical (on those pns cameras
) can be a little further away135 - moving further away again...
CanonFoV Simulator might be helpful?
OP
- Messages
- 667
- Name
- alan
- Edit My Images
- Yes
This was more what I was after.So you can still use, say, a 35 prime for landscapes. So although some primes are considered ideal for portraits, they have wider uses too.Thanks.
Looks like an interesting debate has been started by my initial post.Great to see many people contributing, some, if not all, with vastly superior photographic knowledge than myself.
So, another question, would, for example the 85 do portraits AND landscapes?Would the 35?I have spent some time looking at flickr groups and most seem portraits though there are landscaoes too (from what I've seen)Could the 135 be used for portraits?
OP
- Messages
- 667
- Name
- alan
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Thanks,ecniv.35 - wide - get a bit more in - on a crop equivalent (almost) to what your eye sees... sorta. Group pics
50 - portrait, with a step back
85 - a bit longer
100 - approx 3x optical (on those pns cameras
135 - moving further away again...
CanonFoV Simulator might be helpful?
What do you mean by " moving further away"?
I'm asking questions which may seem silly to some, but I'm trying to learn
All replies much appreciated.
And to Hoppy, I need a translator to understand your post
But interesting reading nonetheless.Thanks for the time put in.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
You can use any focal length lens for any subject. It depends on the subject and how much of the scene you want to include, and how far away you are.
It's just that, for example, generally speaking you will tend to use a wide angle for landscapes so you can get everything in, and something around 50-100mm (on your crop-format camera) for portraits - assuming you want a typical head shot at a comfortable working distance that gives natural looking perspective.
And a long lens for sport and wildlife as you usually can't get close to the subject, but you can equally use a long lens to pick out details in a landscapes, or a wide angle for sport if you can get right in there and shoot close.
Focal length is focal length regardless of whether it's a prime or a zoom, so if you have say a 50mm prime and a zoom set to 50mm, you'll get the same framing. The biggest difference with primes is that the simpler optical design allows them to be made with much lower f/numbers, like f/1.4 instead of f/2.8 - which is two stops difference, or 4x more light, or much shallower depth of field depending on how you want to look at it.
Edit: 135mm is probably too long for portraits on a 50D. It will work well enough, but you'll be right at the far side of the room.
Thanks,ecniv.
What do you mean by " moving further away"?
I'm asking questions which may seem silly to some, but I'm trying to learn
All replies much appreciated.
And to Hoppy, I need a translator to understand your post
LOL Keep reading and learning and you'll soon get there
Going back to my first post on this thread, if your main aim is to get sharper pictures than you can achieve with your 50D, then a move to full frame, eg 5DMk2, is the shortcut to that. But you will need to output quite large to really see the benefit, like A4 or larger. 50D is capable of very sharp images, and you don't necessarily need a prime lens to do it.
Last edited:
Hi,
I was going to ask what lens you have for your 50d... If its a zoom (turns and you get closer/further away) then try setting it at various mm and see what you can get in the picture.
Literally you have to move further away to get the same scene in the picture.
eg. 35mm @ 1.5 meters from a person, might be more like 2-3 meters with a 50mm and 10 meters with a 100mm (approx figures to give you an idea).
If you engage a sales person in the camera store, with hints you may buy, then you can put a few different lenses on your camera and look at the same place in the store. This should give you more of an idea.
Good luck hunting for lenses..!!
Alternatively - join in on a local meet/photography group and see whether there are different canon lenses you could borrow.
I was going to ask what lens you have for your 50d... If its a zoom (turns and you get closer/further away) then try setting it at various mm and see what you can get in the picture.
Literally you have to move further away to get the same scene in the picture.
eg. 35mm @ 1.5 meters from a person, might be more like 2-3 meters with a 50mm and 10 meters with a 100mm (approx figures to give you an idea).
If you engage a sales person in the camera store, with hints you may buy, then you can put a few different lenses on your camera and look at the same place in the store. This should give you more of an idea.
Good luck hunting for lenses..!!
Alternatively - join in on a local meet/photography group and see whether there are different canon lenses you could borrow.
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 44,056
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
No.. I said don't crop...
Silent scream and feeling the temptation to weep.... :bang:
When the subject of cropping was "mentioned" I thought that it might also be worth "mentioning" that small things can look sharper and that big fat pixel images may also look sharper.
However, as often happens on these forums I now think that doing so was more trouble than it was worth
:bang: