First prime lens HELPPPPP

[dubaiphil]

Unless you want to be conspicuous, sometimes in poorer areas, with an f2.8 zoom and a flash!

[Colin Southern]

One person's "Ruin" is another person's shallow DoF that they might be after.

We'll argue until the cows come home on this one, Colin, but there's no substitute for a fast prime in low light when travelling.

Yep - with a fast prime in a low light when travelling you need never miss another razor thin DoF - poorly lit - inappropriate focal length shot again.

[Manfred M]

Hi GrumpyDiver! Thanks for your help. My dilemma is defintitely firstly the focal distance, quality of image and build and lastly the aperture. Personally I am considering getting a Nikon body instead in the future, thus the consideration of getting nikon primes instead. Or should I be worrying about lenses for the nikon when I actually get it, instead? Also, may I ask, why nikon over canon for you?

When I decided to get a serious digital camera around four years ago, I had been shooting film for decades on an SLR and had gone through a number of iterations of digital point & shoot and super-zoom cameras. I had been shooting a Leica SLR, and they had no plans to introduce a full-frame or crop frame SLR, so I had a clean slate as I would be building a new system from scratch. I spend a lot of time on line and at my local camera stores doing research.

I looked at all formats; mirrorless designs from Olympus and Panasonic (mainly micro 4/3). These were quickly eliminated as the lines were quite new and the lens options were quite limited. I was rather unimpressed with the quality of their electronic viewfinders, which I considered to be their other main weakness.

I had a broad look at all of the DSLRs that were out as well; the Samsung, Sigma, Pentax, Sony and of course the Canon and Nikon lines. At the time all of the lines other than Canon and Nikon had significant weaknesses, from where I was coming from, so I basically broke my final selection down to these two brands. From a technical standpoint they were very evenly matched and if anything Canon probably was probably slightly stronger at the time, but this was offset by a small price premium versus Nikon. The bottom line is I just did not like the way Canon handled. I didn’t like the control layout, the bodies just felt slipperier and easier to drop in my hands. It was just a number of little things related to handling that pushed me into the Nikon camp. Essentially, ergonomics are the reason I ended up going Nikon rather than Canon.

I still get to shoot Canon from time to time, and when I do, my initial impressions are still there and I feel that I went in the right direction, for me. As you are a Canon shooter, you may find sticking with that brand may be better for you in the long run. I certainly would not buy a lens for a camera body that I don’t own to use on my current camera bodies.

[dubaiphil]

Yep - with a fast prime in a low light when travelling you need never miss another razor thin DoF - poorly lit - inappropriate focal length shot again.

Obstinate and ever so 'mightier than thou'

Especially for an administrator! Live and let live, man!

[Colin Southern]

Obstinate and ever so 'mightier than thou'

Especially for an administrator! Live and let live, man!

Obstinate and ever so "mightier than thou"? - not at all - I'm serious.

It's a fact that wide apertures give small DoF is it not?

And it's a fact that a fixed FL is seldom going to give the ideal perspective and composition compared to a zoom is it not?

And it's a fact that most primes are not Image Stabilised is it not? (so one HAS to have 3 to 4 stops higher shutterspeed compared to a IS zoom to counter the potential for camera shake).

I think that in many cases today prime lenses are a "solution in search of a problem". In days gone by they were necessary due to the fact that zooms weren't as sharp and we didn't have ISO 128,000 film, and we didn't have Image Stabilised lenses, but times have changed - these days we DO have extremely sharp zooms and we have cameras capable of ISO 128,000, and we do have Image Stabilised lenses.

In a low-light situation just use a (preferably IS) zoom and crank up the ISO a bit -- on most occasions you'll and up with a sharper image (due to less camera shake) - a better perspective (due to less perspective change due to having to "zoom with ones feet") (or alternatively less image degradation due to cropping), and a far better DoF.

For all but situations where a razor thin DoF is desired, the advantages of a prime have been wiped out -- the disadvantage (namely DoF at their wide apertures) however remain.

Time to let go of the past, and move on in to the future.

[Glenn NK]

Prime lenses - interesting discussion.

I use primes because I have to, not because I want to.

If someone made a good zoom macro lens and a good zoom TS lens, I wouldn't have to be stuck with any single focal length lenses.

My TSE 24 is a great landscape lens, but it seems to be stuck at 24 mm - maybe that's why I added a 2.0 extender.

Glenn

[pnodrog]

Yep - with a fast prime in a low light when travelling you need never miss another razor thin DoF - poorly lit - inappropriate focal length shot again.

My lens selection tends to reflect agreeing with Colin's sentiments BUT there are many highly skilled photo journalism style photographers that like to operate as unobtrusively as possible with a fast prime lens.

With a 40mm f1.4 lens at 2m you will have about 13cm DOF - at least enough for nose to ears with the people I meet. Razor thin? No.

[tomdinning]

Obstinate and ever so "mightier than thou"? - not at all - I'm serious.

It's a fact that wide apertures give small DoF is it not?

And it's a fact that a fixed FL is seldom going to give the ideal perspective and composition compared to a zoom is it not?

And it's a fact that most primes are not Image Stabilised is it not? (so one HAS to have 3 to 4 stops higher shutterspeed compared to a IS zoom to counter the potential for camera shake).

I think that in many cases today prime lenses are a "solution in search of a problem". In days gone by they were necessary due to the fact that zooms weren't as sharp and we didn't have ISO 128,000 film, and we didn't have Image Stabilised lenses, but times have changed - these days we DO have extremely sharp zooms and we have cameras capable of ISO 128,000, and we do have Image Stabilised lenses.

In a low-light situation just use a (preferably IS) zoom and crank up the ISO a bit -- on most occasions you'll and up with a sharper image (due to less camera shake) - a better perspective (due to less perspective change due to having to "zoom with ones feet") (or alternatively less image degradation due to cropping), and a far better DoF.

For all but situations where a razor thin DoF is desired, the advantages of a prime have been wiped out -- the disadvantage (namely DoF at their wide apertures) however remain.

Time to let go of the past, and move on in to the future.

Dear Colin.
That's quite a revelation you have expressed there. I wonder if the lens manufacturers know about your 'facts', or all the photographers, young and old, who still use such an archaic piece of equipment as a fixed focal length lens. I know you said you were serious but honestly, can we really take a NZer serious?
Irrespective of the quality and sharpness of the lens in question, we each have our own way of approaching the photograph. Once we have accomplished the skills of manipulation of the tools we select from that those components and methods which best suit our personal needs. Experimentation helps us to come to grips with what is available and what it can help us to achieve.in choosing a lens, be it first or last, the photographer with extensive knowledge will consider price, function, quality, and size among other mysterious things such as brand, colour, and market hype. There are some who even believe that they can keep the economy of an entire country running by buying as many lenses as that country can make.
All these are worthwhile reasons for buying a lens. But to suggest that it is a bit old hat to buy a prime lens is narrow and ill informed a view as I have heard for some time, even from a NZer.
I'm not going to go into the reasons why one might choose a fixed focal length lens over a zoom. I don't wish to devote that much time here. You can find an expanse of reasons on the web. What I would suggest though, is to listen and learn from others and be a little more absorbing of other points of view. You might even learn something useful.

[pnodrog]

Dear Colin.
That's quite a revelation you have expressed there. I wonder if the lens manufacturers know about your 'facts', or all the photographers, young and old, who still use such an archaic piece of equipment as a fixed focal length lens. I know you said you were serious but honestly, can we really take a NZer serious?
Irrespective of the quality and sharpness of the lens in question, we each have our own way of approaching the photograph. Once we have accomplished the skills of manipulation of the tools we select from that those components and methods which best suit our personal needs. Experimentation helps us to come to grips with what is available and what it can help us to achieve.in choosing a lens, be it first or last, the photographer with extensive knowledge will consider price, function, quality, and size among other mysterious things such as brand, colour, and market hype. There are some who even believe that they can keep the economy of an entire country running by buying as many lenses as that country can make.
All these are worthwhile reasons for buying a lens. But to suggest that it is a bit old hat to buy a prime lens is narrow and ill informed a view as I have heard for some time, even from a NZer.
I'm not going to go into the reasons why one might choose a fixed focal length lens over a zoom. I don't wish to devote that much time here. You can find an expanse of reasons on the web. What I would suggest though, is to listen and learn from others and be a little more absorbing of other points of view. You might even learn something useful.

Tom, Colin comes from the what he will call the mainland so please do not confuse that as being a NZer. But there are a few rugby players down there we eagerly embrace as NZers.

[Colin Southern]

I give up. Bye all.

[William W]

I own a canon 650d/T4i as well as the 18-55 kit lens and the 55-250 zoom. I find that images from zooms are not really what i'm looking for and after some research, i think what i am looking for is really a prime lens. I like to take pictures of people, candids, sceneries, and shots of anything and everything when I travel. [Edit: Forgot to include that i may face low light situations when i travel. I do own an external flashlight though.] I find that I mostly shoot around 30 and 55mm on my 18-55 (which makes it 48 and 88 on my x1.6 crop) My budget is around USD 450, and I live in Singapore.

1. Keep your EOS650D and the two kit lenses and buy two Primes: the EF35 F/2 and the EF50 F/1.8 MkII.

OR

2. Sell the lot and buy a 5DMkII and the EF35 F/1.4L and the EF85 F/1.8

***

On three very small matters:

• BOKEH is not affected by the Shutter Blades when the lens used wide open; and not affected very much, when used close to wide open.
• The noise of the AF does not affect the AF
• The Plastic of the EF50 F1.8MkII does not affect its optics

WW

[tomdinning]

I give up. Bye all.

Aw, gee, Colin. It was such fun. You'll never win a test with an attitude like that.

[nimitzbenedicto]

Hi Y'all,

I agree with Colin because I have shaky hands. Hands down, I need VR.

[pnodrog]

Aw, gee, Colin. It was such fun. You'll never win a test with an attitude like that.

Tom, I don't think you lot would make the mistake of thinking anybody would give up in a test otherwise why would you be prepared to humiliate yourselves by bowling an underhand? (I know you can take it mate)
I suspect we have wandered off the subject - sorry Andria and Bill.

[William W]

Tom, I don't think you lot would make the mistake of thinking anybody would give up in a test otherwise why would you be prepared to humiliate yourselves by bowling an underhand? (I know you can take it mate) I suspect we have wandered off the subject - sorry Andria and Bill.

Not "off the Subject" just "another Subject".
Not "underhand" but 'underarm' - though I suspect that 'underhand' was a pun intended, but perhaps I give my Kiwi friend too much credit.

None of this banter lessens the value of the content of post #31, which obviously contains the correct answers to the OP's question.


WW

[tomdinning]

Tom, I don't think you lot would make the mistake of thinking anybody would give up in a test otherwise why would you be prepared to humiliate yourselves by bowling an underhand? (I know you can take it mate)
I suspect we have wandered off the subject - sorry Andria and Bill.

Even us lowly Aussies considered Chapel's underarm underhanded. Just not cricket.
One does tend to get off the topic once some of the participants have departed and a definitive answer such as that which WW provided is forthcoming. Unfortunately it fell on deaf ears here since I have been a Nikon user since 1973. Nevertheless, the equivalent is available for me and is often my lens/body combination of choice. Not that that means much here or anywhere else for that matter. I do what I bloody well please most days.

[William W]

Just because one made the mistake of staying with Nikon, when, with the advent of digital the obvious choice was to move to Canon, would not necessarily mean that one would not recognize the correct answer to a Canon Question.

Anyway, do you guys actually play a lot of Cricket up there?

WW

[tomdinning]

Just because one made the mistake of staying with Nikon, when, with the advent of digital the obvious choice was to move to Canon, would not necessarily mean that one would not recognize the correct answer to a Canon Question.

Anyway, do you guys actually play a lot of Cricket up there?

WW

Stupidly, yes, but mid year when the weather is more temperate. It provides an opportunity for the masses to drink more beer. Not that most need an excuse, reason or special occasion. I have spotted the odd game on passing but it seems a thorough waste of time with very unenthusiastic participants and even fewer lookers on.
It seems sport is not taken all that seriously in the tropics. Obviously the heat plays an integral part in its demise. Southerners do attempt to revive it from time to time by flying up and making a spectacle of themselves in the humidity and the local population pretend to be proficient at such things as soccer and AFL. But at a moments notice, most will prefer fishing and a good fight at the Humpty Doo pub over anything as organized as a match.
Personally, I abhor anything where grown men and women argue over a ball of some description. In a world where children are encouraged to participate for its own sake, the idea of adults beating the **** out of each other for money and glory does seem a tad hypocritical.

[andria]

1. Keep your EOS650D and the two kit lenses and buy two Primes: the EF35 F/2 and the EF50 F/1.8 MkII.

OR

2. Sell the lot and buy a 5DMkII and the EF35 F/1.4L and the EF85 F/1.8

I love my 650d swivel screen. The 5d is a hugeeee upgrade too. My pockets can't afford to get burnt I think I'll be getting the Sigma 30mm 1.4!

[Glenn NK]

I think I'll be getting the Sigma 30mm 1.4!

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/29...review?start=1

It isn't a stellar lens - note the comments under MTF (resolution), and Chromatic Abberations (CAs).

Second sentence under Introduction: "It has a reduced image circle so it's not compatible to 1.3X or full frame DSLRs." So although it may fit FF bodies, it would vignette terribly (it vignettes on the APS-C).

And finally under Verdict, it rates 2/5 for optics.

I'd be inclined to look around more. I think this lens could burn a hole in your pocket.

Glenn