I have been primarily shooting landscape, although sometimes I also do family and candid pictures. I have a 5D II, 24-70, 70-200 (non-IS), and a 50 1.8. I will get a “grant” of around $6,000 soon and plan to invest the money into three L-primes. I probably will start with a mid-range one and then, extend into each end. I have never owed an L-prime before and would really like those of you who primarily shoot with primes to give me some advice on which three to invest and which one to start with. I heard people say that it is a good idea to buy every other focal length (e.g., 24, 50, and 135, or 14, 35, and 85), but I do not know whether it is indeed a good idea. For those people who have used both Canon 50 1.2 and Sigma 50 1.4, I would also like to ask for a comparison, because if Sigma 50 1.4 is as good as some people praised, I might save some money there and use the money for another L-level prime. Thanks a lot in advance.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Advice on Three L-Primes
- Thread starter My300D
- Start date
Psychic1
Senior Member
35L and 85L produce excellent results on every Canon body and I use them constantly.
The 70-200L negates the 135L and 200L, but the 400L 5.6 might be bandy.
--
The 70-200L negates the 135L and 200L, but the 400L 5.6 might be bandy.
--
KCampbell
Senior Member
Have you looked at the EXIF from your zoom shots to determine which focal lengths you use most? I would use that to guide your thinking.
Having said that, I can't imagine a prime lineup that didn't include the 35mm f1.4L. I use this on full frame much, much more than I ever use 50mm and it's a very, very good lens.
I seldom shoot at very long focal lengths, and for me the 70-200 f4L and 400 5.6L cover those needs.
Kevin
Having said that, I can't imagine a prime lineup that didn't include the 35mm f1.4L. I use this on full frame much, much more than I ever use 50mm and it's a very, very good lens.
I seldom shoot at very long focal lengths, and for me the 70-200 f4L and 400 5.6L cover those needs.
Kevin
gdanmitchell
Veteran Member
If your main goal for these lenses is, let's say, sharper landscape images... this is not going to be money well spent in most cases.
Dan
---
G Dan Mitchell - SF Bay Area, California, USA
Blog & Gallery: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/gdanmitchellphotography
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdanmitchell/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/gdanmitchell
IM: gdanmitchell
Gear List: Cup, spoon, chewing gum, old shoe laces, spare change, eyeballs, bag of nuts.
- There are a number of non-L primes that will produce exceptionally sharp images when stopped down to typical landscape apertures. (They also produce very good images at larger apertures as well.) Among these - and I use all three for landscape work - are the 35mm f/2, the 50mm f/1.4, and the 85mm f/1.8. You could buy all three for the price (less, actually) of one of the L primes in this FL range.
- Even a prime that is a bit sharper than a L zoom may not gain you anything of real value in many cases. In addition to shooting non-L primes I also shoot some L zooms. Some of the L zooms (the 70-200 L lenses are a great example) are more than sharp enough to produce outstanding prints at sizes like 24" x 36" - while you might be able to see a slight difference in side-by-side on screen comparisons of 100% magnification samples you would not see a difference in a single well-shot and well-made print.
- That said, I'll use a prime for landscape when a) I have plenty of time to shoot (not always the case with landscape), and b) the focal length of my primes allows me a perfect or near perfect composition that will not require cropping in post. In this "best case" there can be a small improvement in detail resolution for some subjects in very large prints. That said, don't forget that...
- The resolution advantage of the prime diminishes or reverses with compositions that will require cropping in post. For example, if the right FL for a shot is 75mm I can't use my 85mm lens; I'll have to use my 50mm and crop. On the other hand, I can "crop in camera" with a zoom and I won't lose anything from the capture in post.
Dan
--
---
G Dan Mitchell - SF Bay Area, California, USA
Blog & Gallery: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/gdanmitchellphotography
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdanmitchell/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/gdanmitchell
IM: gdanmitchell
Gear List: Cup, spoon, chewing gum, old shoe laces, spare change, eyeballs, bag of nuts.
nycandre
Forum Enthusiast
My300D: if you are shooting landscapes you might also want to look at the 17-40L, not a prime but indispensible methink, to cover it all. And a very decent lens even wide open.
It is reallly sharp and can even produce decent bokeh on occasion
See full size at http://www.flickr.com/photos/nycandre/4281528461/
--
NYCandre - http://www.flickr.com/photos/nycandre/
It is reallly sharp and can even produce decent bokeh on occasion
See full size at http://www.flickr.com/photos/nycandre/4281528461/
--
NYCandre - http://www.flickr.com/photos/nycandre/
verybiglebowski
Senior Member
I will select Carl Zeiss Distagon T 21 f2.8, Canon TS-E 24 MII and TS-E 90, Just a little bit different thoughts.
Katherine Lud
Forum Enthusiast
I shoot a lot of landscapes and once I got my wide angle lens, it opened a whole new world for me. I have the 10-22, which is not L but is a fabulous lens, especially at f stops above 4.
Katherine
Katherine
Thanks! Many people like 35L and 85L.
35L and 85L produce excellent results on every Canon body and I use them constantly.
The 70-200L negates the 135L and 200L, but the 400L 5.6 might be bandy.
--
I heard a lot good things about 35L. The only concern I have is that the II version might come out any time.
I would start with the 50L. There are alot of folks who like the sigma I didnt. The sigma is optically excellent AF was typically sigma so I returned mine. The 50L and 35 I use most. If im shooting portraits I find the 50 more versatile as I can do head shots to full body w/o issue. The 85 the mfd is too long to get tighter than head/shoulder. I find getting too close with the 35 give facial distortion.
Thanks a lot for your lengthy response. I also want to benefit the shorter DOF of the primes too. But your point is well taken. Expecially for landscape photograpy, the benefits from L primes are really limited. The picture quality might be only marginally better at an expensive cost, plus the inconvenience of carrying/changing multiple lenses.
The 14mm is INSANELY wide on a full frame camera. If you currently don't haven anything wider than 24, you'd be in for quite a shock. 16mm is quite wide, and it's still a bit wider than that. The lens is nice and sharp, but if there's anything close, especially in the corners, there's going to be distortion (not from the lens itself, but rather just the perspective.)
If I were you I'd start by looking at the images you've already shot with your zooms and see what focal lengths you keep coming back to, or what focal lengths your favorite images were shot at. That will give you a good idea of what focal lengths you should be looking at. Having the metadata there in the images makes it easy to know if you have a favorite focal length.
For landscape I might advise looking into one of the lenses from the TS-E line. They're manual focus and a bit bulkier, but they are unbelievably sharp and you can use the movements to control perspective and focus.
For portraits the 85L and the 135L are both gorgeous. The 135 is nice and sharp, the 85 has that super think DOF and dreamy bokeh. Other than that it's a matter of how close you like to frame your portraits.
Personally I'd probably go 35, 85, and 24 TS-E (or maybe the 17 TS-E, haven't played with that one yet.) But that's me.
--
~K
If I were you I'd start by looking at the images you've already shot with your zooms and see what focal lengths you keep coming back to, or what focal lengths your favorite images were shot at. That will give you a good idea of what focal lengths you should be looking at. Having the metadata there in the images makes it easy to know if you have a favorite focal length.
For landscape I might advise looking into one of the lenses from the TS-E line. They're manual focus and a bit bulkier, but they are unbelievably sharp and you can use the movements to control perspective and focus.
For portraits the 85L and the 135L are both gorgeous. The 135 is nice and sharp, the 85 has that super think DOF and dreamy bokeh. Other than that it's a matter of how close you like to frame your portraits.
Personally I'd probably go 35, 85, and 24 TS-E (or maybe the 17 TS-E, haven't played with that one yet.) But that's me.
--
~K
CrapCamera
Well-known member
An ultra wide is ultra fun, I'd go extremes, the 14mm.
Then the other extreme, Ideally the 200mm f1.8, but it may blow your budget. Superb for subject isolation. Failing that I'd get the 135mm or the 85mm.
For the 3rd, I'd choose the 35mm over the 50mm, great indoor low light, the 50 is too long.
And as for L over non L, it is not just the sharpness. Better colour & micro contrast cannot be photoshop'd in, and faster gives better low light, better subject isolation, better bokeh, better build, better weather sealing, better handling....just better in every respect. You get what you pay for.
Then the other extreme, Ideally the 200mm f1.8, but it may blow your budget. Superb for subject isolation. Failing that I'd get the 135mm or the 85mm.
For the 3rd, I'd choose the 35mm over the 50mm, great indoor low light, the 50 is too long.
And as for L over non L, it is not just the sharpness. Better colour & micro contrast cannot be photoshop'd in, and faster gives better low light, better subject isolation, better bokeh, better build, better weather sealing, better handling....just better in every respect. You get what you pay for.
Since you're primarily into landscapes, I would pick the 24mm TS-E II for a WA lens. It is a superb landscape lens. I would get the Sigma 50mm f1.4 for a "normal" lens, fabulous color/contrast/bokeh and it's a relative bargain compared to the Canon 50mm L. For a telephoto, look at the EXIF data from the best images you are shooting with your 70-200 to see what focal length you are using most often with the best results and pick either the 85L or the 135L.
You'll have some money left over. Invest in a really good tripod/head for landscapes if you don't already have one (or use this opportunity to upgrade what you have), and possibly some other accessories that you may find useful.
You'll have some money left over. Invest in a really good tripod/head for landscapes if you don't already have one (or use this opportunity to upgrade what you have), and possibly some other accessories that you may find useful.
Arthur Stanley Jefferson
Leading Member
In addition to what you have I'd recommend
20 F2.8 / 35 F1.4 / 100 macro F2.8LIS / 1.4x TC / replace 2.8 non IS with 70-200 F4 LIS
you already have a 24-70 L which is great at 50, cheap 50's don't last, and the L is heavy and slow.
20 F2.8 / 35 F1.4 / 100 macro F2.8LIS / 1.4x TC / replace 2.8 non IS with 70-200 F4 LIS
you already have a 24-70 L which is great at 50, cheap 50's don't last, and the L is heavy and slow.
Rick Knepper
Forum Pro
Zeiss has several 50s that are slightly better than the 50L at infinity but you may not be shooting at infinity that much with a 50mm. The 50L provides more versatility than the Zeiss 50s.
Although the 24L f1.4 is much more versatile, the TS-E 24 would be more helpful in your primary pursuit.
You can not find sharper corners than the Zeiss 21mm.
For anpother $600, you could get the 35L also.
Although the 24L f1.4 is much more versatile, the TS-E 24 would be more helpful in your primary pursuit.
You can not find sharper corners than the Zeiss 21mm.
For anpother $600, you could get the 35L also.
Jan Madsen
Senior Member
the vid guy
Forum Enthusiast
If you are primarily shooting landscape, then go with wide angle lens which you already have at 24-70L in FF. I don't really see why you would need the 24 prime unless you're going for f/1.4. What's your audience? Are you printing these above 8x10?
For portraits, I shoot primarily 35mm f1.4L prime on mine and pull out the cheapo 50mm f1.8L if needed. Extreme low light fun. Here's a more recent example of my 35mm f1.4 in video action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7p_kF1BwP8
If I had $6k though, I'd invest in glass and a backup camera like a 7D. I have both the 5D and the 7D. The extra 1.6x crop factor's helpful if you want to do close ups on your 200mm shots, no converter needed.
So in summary: 35mm f/1.4 + a nice telephoto prime (400mm) if you want to reach out a bird at some point + backup camera.
For portraits, I shoot primarily 35mm f1.4L prime on mine and pull out the cheapo 50mm f1.8L if needed. Extreme low light fun. Here's a more recent example of my 35mm f1.4 in video action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7p_kF1BwP8
If I had $6k though, I'd invest in glass and a backup camera like a 7D. I have both the 5D and the 7D. The extra 1.6x crop factor's helpful if you want to do close ups on your 200mm shots, no converter needed.
So in summary: 35mm f/1.4 + a nice telephoto prime (400mm) if you want to reach out a bird at some point + backup camera.
Alister Pollock
Active member
The Mark II will be another 25% more expensive and I honestly doubt that it can be that much better considering how good the Mark I is. It's good enough that I can't see it being high on Canon's priority list and I'd doubt it would be replaced this year, now watch as Canon launch the mark II next month with the 1Ds IV 
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum