-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Are primes even sharper than L zooms?
- Thread starter my_rebel
- Start date
Because of this: http://www.resellerratings.com/seller1995.html
--
--joe
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/
Please feel free to criticize, make suggestions, and edit my photos. If you wish to use any of my photos for any purpose other than editing in these forums, please ask.
The gap between 20 and 85 is not really much of a problem.
20 or 24 is a great general walkaround, indoor, outdoor,
landscape...a general purpose length like the classic
35mm walkaround length. The 85 is great for portraits
and sports. Works very well with a 1.4x TC as well.
Personally, I walk around with a Sigma 20mm f1.8
(got a great copy) and an 85/1.8 and almost never
use my 50mm. I don't miss L zooms either, I get
sharper results, better contrast and aren't limited by
slow zooms (I found f4 to be very limiting).
You may want to consider the Canon
20/2.8 or 24/2.8 instead if you want to avoid the
Sigma "bad copy" syndrome (be prepared to test
and return if you get a bad copy).
20 or 24 is a great general walkaround, indoor, outdoor,
landscape...a general purpose length like the classic
35mm walkaround length. The 85 is great for portraits
and sports. Works very well with a 1.4x TC as well.
Personally, I walk around with a Sigma 20mm f1.8
(got a great copy) and an 85/1.8 and almost never
use my 50mm. I don't miss L zooms either, I get
sharper results, better contrast and aren't limited by
slow zooms (I found f4 to be very limiting).
You may want to consider the Canon
20/2.8 or 24/2.8 instead if you want to avoid the
Sigma "bad copy" syndrome (be prepared to test
and return if you get a bad copy).
tko
Forum Pro
The 10-22 F4 has got to be the best for any landscape photographer. I use it 90% of the time, not only for hiking, landscape, but for general vacation street photography. Last vacation to Thailand was maybe 3000 pictures, 80% were the 10-222MM. Sound silly? Well, street vendor candids from 3 feet away, inisde a Tuk-Tuk, inside a pagoda, in crowds. Remember, 22 MM is only 35MM w/1.6 crop, so it's a very normal lens on the far end.
Throw in the 85MM for portrait, 3rd lens is your choice.
Throw in the 85MM for portrait, 3rd lens is your choice.
Ross_Curtis
Active member
So your no closer to finding a solution then?
I too am in a similar situation, I already own a 70-200mm F4 I recently sold my Sigma 10-20 to buy this I havn't regretted this, yes the UWA is nice but IMHO has limited use and is no walkabout unless its for landscape work.
I want to cover wide to 70mm so after a lot of deliberation decided the 17-40 plus the 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 would be great okay there are comprimised like will I find 17mm wide enough (on 1.6 crop)( for me I think its okay ) which leaves me a gap from 40 to 70 which would be covered with the 50mm. I felt I needed a few fast primes if I were to buy F4 L's.
My main problem was deciding if I should get either
a) 2nd hand 28/24-70
b) 24 to 105
c) 17-40
With either A or B I felt I would need a wide lens which would be all my budget, and I KNOW I would crave those primes although B would be the perfect lens for a trip! So the best choice for me is the 17-40 plus 50mm and 85mm. Seeing as I'm still on a 1.6 crop camera I am also trying to future proof my lenses so this is the best option. Although I know I will always look at the 24-70 and 24-105 as the ones I really wanted.
BTW I havn't bought them yet so there is always time for me to change my mind ;-)
I too am in a similar situation, I already own a 70-200mm F4 I recently sold my Sigma 10-20 to buy this I havn't regretted this, yes the UWA is nice but IMHO has limited use and is no walkabout unless its for landscape work.
I want to cover wide to 70mm so after a lot of deliberation decided the 17-40 plus the 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 would be great okay there are comprimised like will I find 17mm wide enough (on 1.6 crop)( for me I think its okay ) which leaves me a gap from 40 to 70 which would be covered with the 50mm. I felt I needed a few fast primes if I were to buy F4 L's.
My main problem was deciding if I should get either
a) 2nd hand 28/24-70
b) 24 to 105
c) 17-40
With either A or B I felt I would need a wide lens which would be all my budget, and I KNOW I would crave those primes although B would be the perfect lens for a trip! So the best choice for me is the 17-40 plus 50mm and 85mm. Seeing as I'm still on a 1.6 crop camera I am also trying to future proof my lenses so this is the best option. Although I know I will always look at the 24-70 and 24-105 as the ones I really wanted.
BTW I havn't bought them yet so there is always time for me to change my mind ;-)
I like Plan C the most. UWA + reasonably fast (2.8) walkaround.
I have the 10-22mm, 35L, 50 1.8 & 70-200 IS ...+ waiting for a possible upgrade for 85mm 1.2L @PMA.
Most used for vacations, scenery etc is the 10-22mm. Cant leave home without it.
I have the 10-22mm, 35L, 50 1.8 & 70-200 IS ...+ waiting for a possible upgrade for 85mm 1.2L @PMA.
Most used for vacations, scenery etc is the 10-22mm. Cant leave home without it.
itzhak_
Well-known member
Bbos
Forum Enthusiast
Exactly! STAY AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Deal with B&H or Adorama or 17th Street or Norman Camera or Canoga Camera or....
just someplace reputable.
Bos
TJ176933
Leading Member
Great Plan. This is the plan I am approaching.
My Fun to Use Flash-Based Photo Gallery
http://www.holdren.org
--
My Fun to Use Flash-Based Photo Gallery
http://www.holdren.org
I think for your stated purpose, Plan A seems reasonably well thought out and could work very well for you. The earlier suggestion to replace the 17-40 f/4L (as it is aguably redundant with the 18-55 kit lens) with the 10-22 (or the Tokina 12-24 if the 10-22 blows the budget), I think you could be pretty happy with the images those lenses produce.
I don't see any stinkers in that group. Even the kit lens is a capable when used properly and you'd have an excellent lanscape lens (with either the Canon 10-22 or Tokina 12-24) which is where the kit lens may disappoint. Lots of bang for your buck.
Good luck and regards,
I don't see any stinkers in that group. Even the kit lens is a capable when used properly and you'd have an excellent lanscape lens (with either the Canon 10-22 or Tokina 12-24) which is where the kit lens may disappoint. Lots of bang for your buck.
Good luck and regards,
Thank you so much for so many insightful suggestions. As some of you pointed out, this is an extremely difficult decision. The fact that my wife only gave me $1,000 budget makes this replacement project even more difficult. I think I will take some of your advice, i.e., to wait for the PMA in Feb. Perhaps, Canon decides to make things easier for us and come up with ONE convenient L lens, something like 17-85 IS F4.0L. This will make a lot of us very happy, as least for a while. Once again, thank you!
RLH1861
Senior Member
the portrait of the sikh was taken with a 200mm f2.8 L prime
the guy in the baseball cap was taken with the 70-200mm f4 L
I first bought the prime and shot that picture i think it is very ery good. but i returned it because i decided i wanted the zoom and it is also very good and was a bit cheaper too.
by the way... in the picture with the baseball cap....are those vertical lines some sort o banding that people talk about????
--
RLH1861
the guy in the baseball cap was taken with the 70-200mm f4 L
I first bought the prime and shot that picture i think it is very ery good. but i returned it because i decided i wanted the zoom and it is also very good and was a bit cheaper too.
by the way... in the picture with the baseball cap....are those vertical lines some sort o banding that people talk about????
--
RLH1861
They did just about that with the 24-105L, and it can be had for scant over the budget if you look around. I would NOT hold breath for the lens you mention, as it appears they are moving towards full frame with faster lenses and it also appears that lens rumors are finally about new primes.
There are professional reviews that show the 17-85 IS is a good lens for all that it does, and there are owners who say and know the same. If you have a budget of $1000 you can get that lens and an EX flash for a high level of capabilities.
I think there is an L obsession and status situation that drives some, and I'm not there. I think there's more status for the money I don't spend and I get nice photos whether it's a camera that cost me $49 or my latest stuff. I am also not putting down L and professional gear. I'll buy one the moment a professional circumstance dictates it just like I spent a hunk of money for a multi and off-camera flash setup when the need arrived.
One more thing: You said your wife gave you a $1000 budget. I think the rule that says when Mom's happy everybody is happy was written a long time ago and as true as ever.
I think there is an L obsession and status situation that drives some, and I'm not there. I think there's more status for the money I don't spend and I get nice photos whether it's a camera that cost me $49 or my latest stuff. I am also not putting down L and professional gear. I'll buy one the moment a professional circumstance dictates it just like I spent a hunk of money for a multi and off-camera flash setup when the need arrived.
One more thing: You said your wife gave you a $1000 budget. I think the rule that says when Mom's happy everybody is happy was written a long time ago and as true as ever.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum