Best Prime

Brian1121 · May 11, 2004

Dear all,

Do you know which is the best, in terms of image quality, prime lens in the range of 20 to 50, 50-135, and 135-300? Thanks!

Do you think 135 2L is too long as a general lens for portraits?

The last question, is 70-200 4L produce a good background blur for a portraits image? Thanks a lot!

Brian

BTP · May 11, 2004

The best in the:

20-50 would be the 50 f/1.4.
50-135 would be either the 85 f/1.2 or the 135 f/2.
135 to 300 would be either the 200 f/1.8L or the 300 f/2.8L IS

Brian1121 said:
Dear all,

Do you know which is the best, in terms of image quality, prime
lens in the range of 20 to 50, 50-135, and 135-300? Thanks!

Do you think 135 2L is too long as a general lens for portraits?
The last question, is 70-200 4L produce a good background blur for
a portraits image? Thanks a lot!

Brian

--
Brian

Petteri Sulonen · May 11, 2004

Brian1121 said:
Dear all,

Do you know which is the best, in terms of image quality, prime
lens in the range of 20 to 50, 50-135, and 135-300? Thanks!

Tough call. And a bit of a weird question, as you'll be hard-pressed to find a prime in any of these ranges that isn't very good. IOW, in almost all cases image quality will be limited by circumstances and technique rather than the lens.

But what the hell. Assuming you're talking Canon-mount lenses:

+ 20-50, my vote would go to either the 35/1.4L or the 50/1.4 USM.
+ 50-135, I vote the 135/2L.
+ 135-200, I vote the 200/1.8L.

Brian1121 said:
Do you think 135 2L is too long as a general lens for portraits?

With the crop factor, definitely. Without it... well, yeah. It's good for head-and-shoulders shots, but not much else.

Brian1121 said:
The last question, is 70-200 4L produce a good background blur for
a portraits image? Thanks a lot!

Good enough, although not as good as the primes.

Petteri
--

Portfolio: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/ ]
Pontification: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/ ]

The Big Bad · May 11, 2004

135mm is just alot lof lens for a 10D. Even on my 1D its a bit much and I find I need to always still step back farther than I want to.

Unless of coures im taking a cat photo or somthing smaller than a person =)

85mm is really alot better for portraits.

As for your somewhat odd lens question, since you didnt mention price its tough. I really like the 135 f2 for its optics but its not that useful. 85mm 1.8 is about 1/3rd the price and still a great lens and alot more useful so therefore its proably better. understand what im getting at ?

Basically though if i could pick one lens from each and have it given to me I'd take

35 f1.4L
85 f1.2L
300 2.8 IS
--
http://www.pbase.com/bigbad

mbv · May 11, 2004

Any of the Contax/Zeiss primes on an adapter will qualify. An additional benefit is that they are made for manual focusing (long and smooth focusing ring travel), and with that you can focus on what you want within the frame, rather than playing the AF-points game. My lowly 28/2.8 distagon and the 45mm and 50mm tessar and planar certainly outperform the DR sensor capability.
mbv

Brian1121 said:
Dear all,

Do you know which is the best, in terms of image quality, prime
lens in the range of 20 to 50, 50-135, and 135-300? Thanks!

Do you think 135 2L is too long as a general lens for portraits?
The last question, is 70-200 4L produce a good background blur for
a portraits image? Thanks a lot!

Brian

Dray · May 11, 2004

Brian1121 said:
Dear all,

Do you know which is the best, in terms of image quality, prime
lens in the range of 20 to 50, 50-135, and 135-300? Thanks!

Do you think 135 2L is too long as a general lens for portraits?
The last question, is 70-200 4L produce a good background blur for
a portraits image? Thanks a lot!

Brian

JoeSchmoe · May 11, 2004

I don't have and haven't tried all primes in the ranges you specified, but I love my 35/1.4L and 50/1.4 and 85/1.8. Each have their uses. The first for indoor candids, the second for tighter and/or more formal indoor shots, and the third for outdoor portraits. All fantastic performers in terms of color, contrast, sharpness, bokeh, and low-light performance. See my gallery under the Baby Second Year subgallery for samples from these lenses.

Joe

--
http://www.pbase.com/joeschmoe

Dray · May 11, 2004

that it is worth $500-$700 to get the IS version of the 300 2.8? I've located a non-Is lens for 2800 and I just passed on an IS version for 3500.00, which seemed a little steap to me. What should I expect to pay for a good 9-10 rated lens in either version? Just wondering what you might have seen out there. Thanks for your input.

Danny

The Big Bad said:
135mm is just alot lof lens for a 10D. Even on my 1D its a bit
much and I find I need to always still step back farther than I
want to.

Unless of coures im taking a cat photo or somthing smaller than a
person =)

85mm is really alot better for portraits.

As for your somewhat odd lens question, since you didnt mention
price its tough. I really like the 135 f2 for its optics but its
not that useful. 85mm 1.8 is about 1/3rd the price and still a
great lens and alot more useful so therefore its proably better.
understand what im getting at ?

Basically though if i could pick one lens from each and have it
given to me I'd take

35 f1.4L
85 f1.2L
300 2.8 IS
--
http://www.pbase.com/bigbad

Brian1121 · May 11, 2004

Would the Contax 28/2.8 maintain its high quality image production capability when it was mounted to Canon 10D by an adapter? Is it work in harmony with digital SLR like 10D?

Thanks for your kind opinion!

It seems to be quite a new and good ideas to have such 10D/Contax conbination to me!

Brian

mbv said:
Brian1121 said:

Dear all,

Do you know which is the best, in terms of image quality, prime
lens in the range of 20 to 50, 50-135, and 135-300? Thanks!

Do you think 135 2L is too long as a general lens for portraits?
The last question, is 70-200 4L produce a good background blur for
a portraits image? Thanks a lot!

Brian

Click to expand...

The Big Bad · May 11, 2004

the 300 2.8 is still a great lens but for me, the lack of IS limited its usefulness for several reasons.

First of which is that its a great lens with even a 2x TC, but a 600mm 5.6 lens is difficult to shoot with. I shoot wildlife as well and dont always go for the high shutter speeds that sports shooting would require. I may shoot at 1/125th iso 400 for good quality and low noise instead of the sio1600 that a sports shooot might use as the photos are for different purposes.

Secondly even when your shutter speed is high enough to stop action, the weight of the lens handheld can cause you to not keep the AF sensor steady. IS really is something I find helpful to keep the composition of the shot where you want it.

If your just doing sports, I think you can get by without it, but honestly, if your going to spend that much for a used a non Is versoin, might as well spend a bit more and get the best.

Oh, lastly its such an amazing lens optically that you'll probably want to use it for whatever you can. Ive done portraits and landscapes with mine and more. In these situations IS can be very handy
--
http://www.pbase.com/bigbad

Wilbert Chan · May 11, 2004

Brian1121 said:
Dear all,

Do you know which is the best, in terms of image quality, prime
lens in the range of 20 to 50, 50-135, and 135-300? Thanks!

Do you think 135 2L is too long as a general lens for portraits?
The last question, is 70-200 4L produce a good background blur for
a portraits image? Thanks a lot!

Brian

--
Regards,
Wilbert Chan

mbv · May 11, 2004

Brian

The Contax 28/2.8 performs fabulously on my DR: no distortion, no CA, no flare, contrasty and sharp corner to corner. I guess it should do similarly on 10D which has the same sensor. It is also quite modestly priced on the used market: the AE version goes usually for around 200 (you won't need the MM version which is supposed to work in program mode on 'later' contax bodies; for the purpose of mounting on the adapter the AE and MM are equivalent). As far as the adapter goes, I recently got one from cameraquest, although you can use search to find other sources. The adapters are on the pricey side though: I saw prices ranging from 150 to 250. I have few CZ lenses, so for me it was worth it.

The best thing about the CZ lenses is that there has never been an issue of good and bad copies: as far as I understand they all are individually tested in production. Also all of the manual CZ primes are exceptionally good (no bad design): you can pick any at will. This at least is true for the manual CZ lenses for the Contax/Yashica mount.
Cheers!
mbv

Brian1121 said:
Thanks for your kind opinion!
It seems to be quite a new and good ideas to have such 10D/Contax
conbination to me!

Brian

mbv said:

Brian1121 said:

Dear all,

Do you know which is the best, in terms of image quality, prime
lens in the range of 20 to 50, 50-135, and 135-300? Thanks!

Do you think 135 2L is too long as a general lens for portraits?
The last question, is 70-200 4L produce a good background blur for
a portraits image? Thanks a lot!

Brian

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

BirdsAndMore · May 11, 2004

Brian1121 said:
Do you know which is the best, in terms of image quality, prime
lens in the range of 20 to 50, 50-135, and 135-300? Thanks!

The 135/2 or the slower soft-focus version if it's specifically for portraits. 85 mm is too short, gives you funny big noses.

Brian1121 said:
Do you think 135 2L is too long as a general lens for portraits?
The last question, is 70-200 4L produce a good background blur for
a portraits image? Thanks a lot!

Sort of, but not in the same league.
--
Have fun! ;-)

Dray · May 11, 2004

The Big Bad said:
the 300 2.8 is still a great lens but for me, the lack of IS
limited its usefulness for several reasons.

First of which is that its a great lens with even a 2x TC, but a
600mm 5.6 lens is difficult to shoot with. I shoot wildlife as
well and dont always go for the high shutter speeds that sports
shooting would require. I may shoot at 1/125th iso 400 for good
quality and low noise instead of the sio1600 that a sports shooot
might use as the photos are for different purposes.

Secondly even when your shutter speed is high enough to stop
action, the weight of the lens handheld can cause you to not keep
the AF sensor steady. IS really is something I find helpful to
keep the composition of the shot where you want it.

If your just doing sports, I think you can get by without it, but
honestly, if your going to spend that much for a used a non Is
versoin, might as well spend a bit more and get the best.

Oh, lastly its such an amazing lens optically that you'll probably
want to use it for whatever you can. Ive done portraits and
landscapes with mine and more. In these situations IS can be very
handy
--
http://www.pbase.com/bigbad

fisheye · May 11, 2004

Hi

A popular UK magazines rates the 135 f2 as the best lens they EVER tested with the 200 f2.8 not far behind.

Regards

Jim

PeaceFrog · May 11, 2004

That is a high price for a used IS version. I have seen new ones selling for that price. I certainly think that it is worth the extra money for the IS version also. B&H had a used IS version for less than $3000 not too long ago in 9+ condition. If you are not in a huge rush I would keep watching all the used sections of the various camera stores and places like the fredmiranda.com used section. I would not pay more than about $3K for an 300mm f/2.8L IS in good condition.

Greg

--

BirdsAndMore · May 11, 2004

fisheye said:
A popular UK magazines rates the 135 f2 as the best lens they EVER
tested with the 200 f2.8 not far behind.

You know, it's hard to come up with a BEST lens. How do you compare the 135/2 against the 400/2.8? You could do test charts and such, but you have to throw in some personal experience about focus speed, bokeh quality, flare, all that stuff. And you just can't have comparable experience with evey lens; they're made for different purposes is why they have so many of them.

Still, I have to agree with this finding. The 135/2 is an amazing piece of kit. I really don't know if it has an equal. Cetrainly for portraits, short telephoto work, anything where 135 mm could be applicable, this is the best there is.
--
Have fun! ;-)

Maurice Joubert59901 · May 11, 2004

It's excellent even wide open.

Would be the ideal lens if it was not so heavy...

--
Maurice Joubert
http://www.pbase.com/joubert

eymar · May 11, 2004

The 200 2.8 is a quite light telephoto and it's image quality is very good. With a TC x2 you will have 2 telephotos with a good quality/weight ratio .

Example :
http://homepage.mac.com/eymar/album2/page_img_001.htm

With TC :
http://homepage.mac.com/eymar/album2/page_img_008.htm

--
Olivier

ioannis · May 11, 2004

Is this focal length too long for portaits? 135mm f/2L on the Drebel. It really depends on what type of portraits you are after. Both shots at f/2 this lens is too sharp at f/2, I had to smoothen the skin.

or this?

Yiannis

Show them Amato !!

http://www.pbase.com/ystasino

Best Prime

Well-known member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Leading Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Senior Member

New member

Veteran Member

Keyboard shortcuts