2 Primes/No Zoom?

I get somewhat blown away by my primes and a yawn from my zoom. Does anyone use something like what I have - a 28 1.8 and 85 1.8 for everything inside and outside and, if so, would a lens hood prolly be a good move outdoors?

If I go this route, a telephoto zoom might top it off one day, but feel free to also discuss a 135 L especially for indoor sports from the stands (on a crop body). Not sure if 135 would be enough, but any experience out there would be appreciated.
Thanks a lot and apologies if this has been discussed before.

What DSLR body are you using?

In my case, I've been trying to stick to single focal lengths while running around at the beach/boardwalk. I've been too spoiled playing with zooms.

But, primes are so light weight, I want more opportunity to use a small/light kit and take fewer, more thought out shots.

From the time I started taking pictures in the late 70's, I thought I was in heaven with an FD 28 mm f2.8 and a 50 mm f 1.4 on my old AE-1 and A-1's.. What i didn't know did not exist re: zooms till I got my first Vivitar 70-200 (I think). I look back and it wasn't so hot ! Stick with what you enjoy and explore other primes. You may just start a trend ! Maybe I'll be the first and dust off my 50 1.4 EF.

carolyn

--
Ranger a.k.a chammett
http://www.pbase.com/chammett

'elegance is simplicity'

35 f2 85 1.8 on a 5dc is a great combo

I have the canon 450d with a 50mm 1.8

I only ever use the 50. I can't afford any other lenses

I get thousands of great looking '50 style/cool DOF' shots. What I miss are all the other styles of shooting, ie wide landscapes etc. But for my needs - shooting the kids - my setup is pefect and it's all I've used for years...

MMACory said:

I get somewhat blown away by my primes and a yawn from my zoom. Does anyone use something like what I have - a 28 1.8 and 85 1.8 for everything inside and outside and, if so, would a lens hood prolly be a good move outdoors?

Click to expand...

Yes, get the respective lens hoods! They will protect the exposed front elements in falls, from side light sources and accidental finger grease smearings.

MMACory said:

If I go this route, a telephoto zoom might top it off one day, but feel free to also discuss a 135 L especially for indoor sports from the stands (on a crop body). Not sure if 135 would be enough, but any experience out there would be appreciated.

Click to expand...

I suggest you look beyond 135mm, as it is pretty clsoe to your 85mm lens. The lovely Canon EF 200mm f2.8 L USM II, in my opinion, might be a more interesting lens for you. An excellent lens that gets way too little attention.

And ... I would also look at the 24mm f2.8.... Not as fast as your 28mm, but more contrasty and a bit wider.. might be a nice complement to it.
And if you ever want a wide angle, the Samyong 14mm f2.8

MMACory said:

Thanks a lot and apologies if this has been discussed before.

Click to expand...

I couldn't get a Canon hood for the 85f1.8 so I bought a cheap Chinese one but it kept falling off. Couldn't get the Canon last time I was in Australia either so I bought a Marumi and its very loose as well.

there are some metal screw on hoods you can get off ebay, I have one permanently attached to my 135L, and it works perfectly, I don't even use a lens cap anymore, just treat it as part of the lens, face down into the camera bag it goes

the photo was from some tests i'm doing in the samsung forum, but it shows the 135L with the hood. the canon one for the 135L is almost as much of a pain as the one for the 24-70L





--

I have the 15-85mm, 50mm f1.4 and 200mm f2.8 for my 60D. I feel that I have everything that I need right now. The 200mm is a fantastic lens.

Thanks for pointing in the direction of a 200 2.8. That could top it off over a zoom. Nice.

I have the 28f1.8, 85f1.8 and 135f2 on FF works quite well...I replaced the all the big plastic canon hoods with B&W screw in metal hoods.
Boris
--

http://public.fotki.com/borysd/

I use the 28 1.8 the 85 1.8 and the 200 2.8!!! Love the combo.

I shoot entire weddings with just the 28 and 85!

I use 135 f/2 on 400d and Sigma 10 2.8 HSM fisheye on 50d.
It's a nice combo.
--
Feel free to visit my photo sites:
http://tom.st , http://www.foto.tom.st

MMACory said:

I get somewhat blown away by my primes and a yawn from my zoom. Does anyone use something like what I have - a 28 1.8 and 85 1.8 for everything inside and outside and, if so, would a lens hood prolly be a good move outdoors?

If I go this route, a telephoto zoom might top it off one day, but feel free to also discuss a 135 L especially for indoor sports from the stands (on a crop body). Not sure if 135 would be enough, but any experience out there would be appreciated.
Thanks a lot and apologies if this has been discussed before.

Click to expand...

I find that taking a bag with three primes is a great setup. I often do 28/1.8 + 50/1.2 + 135/2. When I want to have the option of ultra-wide, the 28/1.8 gets replaced by the 16-35/2.8. For a lighter setup I sometimes take only the 28/1.8 and 85/1.8. If it's one lens only, it's the 50/1.2 more often than not.

But I'm on a 35mm frame (5D), I think you're on 1.6x crop? In that case you now have 45mm- and 135mm-equivalent focal lengths. If you want to add a third prime, you'd gain the most by adding a wide angle. Unfortunately, the selection of wide-angle primes for crop is essentially non-existent, so you may want to consider the 10-22 zoom to complete a three-lens kit.

if money isnt an issue, and weight isnt a issue, then you may want to consider how much you really gain from buying only primes.

most primes are not terribly good at max aperture, this includes all non-L non-macro primes and a few L primes too. yet several modern F2.8 zoom lens are in fact very sharp, even wide open. look at 200 F2.8 vs 70-200F2.8IS II at 200, you will not be able to tell any difference.

similar comparison can be made between 17-55 and several non-L primes in that range, such as 28 F2.8, 35 F2.8 and 50 F1.4.

also note that canon aps-c lose around 40% light when using F1.4, and about 10% when using F1.8, that further undermines the value of buying fast primes.

ultimitsu said:

if money isnt an issue, and weight isnt a issue, then you may want to consider how much you really gain from buying only primes.

most primes are not terribly good at max aperture, this includes all non-L non-macro primes and a few L primes too. yet several modern F2.8 zoom lens are in fact very sharp, even wide open. look at 200 F2.8 vs 70-200F2.8IS II at 200, you will not be able to tell any difference.

Click to expand...

The 200mm f2.8 will have smoother bokeh and a bit better contrast. It also costs less than half and weights half.

ultimitsu said:

similar comparison can be made between 17-55 and several non-L primes in that range, such as 28 F2.8, 35 F2.8 and 50 F1.4.

Click to expand...

35mm f2 you must mean. the 35mm f2 is a LOT smaller, a LOT lighter, a LOT cheaper.

ultimitsu said:

also note that canon aps-c lose around 40% light when using F1.4, and about 10% when using F1.8, that further undermines the value of buying fast primes.

Click to expand...

Of course it does not. Not only do the primes allow for much shallower DOF, they also still are much faster than f2.8, even if there is a slight loss of light due to the sensor. And a lot less heavy still too.

Sure, for some the zooms are preferable. For others the primes (also on APS-C). And for some a mix (like me).

ultimitsu said:

also note that canon aps-c lose around 40% light when using F1.4, and about 10% when using F1.8, that further undermines the value of buying fast primes.

Click to expand...

This is an odd argument. Sure, the primes lose light if restricted to the APS-C frame -- but then so do the zooms, so the relation between the two remains the same.

If anything, it's an argument for primes: if you're using less of the light, a bright lens becomes that much more important. If you feel that you need f/2.8-equivalent light-gathering capability, you need a lens that's at least f/1.8 to achieve that in APS-C.

misolo said:

ultimitsu said:

also note that canon aps-c lose around 40% light when using F1.4, and about 10% when using F1.8, that further undermines the value of buying fast primes.

Click to expand...

This is an odd argument. Sure, the primes lose light if restricted to the APS-C frame -- but then so do the zooms, so the relation between the two remains the same.

If anything, it's an argument for primes: if you're using less of the light, a bright lens becomes that much more important. If you feel that you need f/2.8-equivalent light-gathering capability, you need a lens that's at least f/1.8 to achieve that in APS-C.

Click to expand...

you are not understanding this particular point. it has nothing to do with crop factor.

brightcolours said:

ultimitsu said:

if money isnt an issue, and weight isnt a issue, then you may want to consider how much you really gain from buying only primes....

Click to expand...

... It also costs less than half and weights half.

Click to expand...

keyword: " if money isnt an issue, and weight isnt a issue"

brightcolours said:

brightcolours said:

look at 200 F2.8 vs 70-200F2.8IS II at 200, you will not be able to tell any difference.

Click to expand...

The 200mm f2.8 will have smoother bokeh and a bit better contrast.

Click to expand...

this is news to me, I was under the impression that 70-200F2.8IS II used better elements than 200 F2.8 so it produces equally good IQ in all aspects. would you mind give me a link that shows this?

brightcolours said:

brightcolours said:

similar comparison can be made between 17-55 and several non-L primes in that range, such as 28 F2.8, 35 F2.8 and 50 F1.4.

Click to expand...

35mm f2 you must mean. the 35mm f2 is a LOT smaller, a LOT lighter, a LOT cheaper.

Click to expand...

thanks for the correction, I did mean 35 F2. and again, keyword is " if money isnt an issue, and weight isnt a issue"...

but on the issue of price and weight. my view is (which I know is not shared by everyone) buying a high end zoom is almost equivalent of buying several primes, which in the long run if you were to buy all these primes, you would have spent more money and if you wanted to use them all it would mean carry more weight.

by buying 17-55 F2.8, I do not have to buy 28 F2.8 35 F3, 50 F1.4 and the non-existent 17 f2.8, to me that is 4 primes in one. yes I lose around 1 stop of light on average, but I gain ring USM and 3 stops of IS, on top of the versatility of a zoom.

by buying a 70-200, one can avoid buying 85 f1.8, 100 f2, 135 f2, 200 f2.8 and if you buy a x2 extender you can also avoid buying 100-400. again there are trade offs but overall i think it evens out pretty well.

brightcolours said:

brightcolours said:

also note that canon aps-c lose around 40% light when using F1.4, and about 10% when using F1.8, that further undermines the value of buying fast primes.

Click to expand...

Of course it does not. Not only do the primes allow for much shallower DOF, they also still are much faster than f2.8, even if there is a slight loss of light due to the sensor. And a lot less heavy still too.

Click to expand...

the word "undermine" does not mean "completely negate". I am fully aware of other advantages of larger aperture, I believe OP understands them as well, therefore there was no need to discuss that in depth.