Zoom vs. Prime: My Revelation

[Eric Cohen]

Greetings,

I am an eager amateur, with a 10D. I use it primarily to take pics of my kids though I like to mess around with city and nature. I would say that the quality of my equipment vastly outpaces my skill as a photographer though I am (slowly) learning.

I had been firmly committed to zooms, for convenience:

• 16-35
• 24-70
• 70-300 (which replaced my 70-200 2.8)
• 100mm, used mostly for macro

My mindset was that the convenience of the zoom was more important than the quality of the prime. I do not like switching lenses at all. For some reason this simple process is a drag for me especially when taking pics with the family.

I wanted a lens for low light so I purchased the 50mm 1.4. I bought it 2 weeks ago strictly for low-light situations. Since buying it, it has not left my camera. I planned to use it sparingly on a recent trip to New Orleans and it is the only lens I used but for a few shots at a football game with the 70-300. I thought I'd post this in case anyone else was deciding between a zoom and a prime. I've read a bunch of posts here on the subject so I know there is a lot out there already so hope you don't mind one more post. And, if you have any suggestions for me I'd love to hear it!

So anyway, here is my revelation: I am a far less lazy photographer with the prime, because I do move my feet, and that makes me a better photographer. The thing that amuses me is that I have read this to be true in books, on dpreview, and plenty of other places but always figured it would not apply to me. Well, it does! No doubt about it, having the prime forces me to move more and compose more carefully. I am sure I'll wish for the zoom for some pics but I think that the tradeoff of fixed length outweighs the convenience of the zoom.

It is really interesting after sticking with a prime to see how it affects one's seeing. Not only am I less lazy with my feet, but I am less lazy with my eye. Perhaps because things are simpler (no need to worry about zooming) I am more concsious of the edges of the frame. I have no idea why I couldn't see this before, but, I couldn't! I guess it helps me become much more familiar with one angle of view so I can do much better with that view. In other words, the simplicity of having one focal length has given me a better understanding of the frame's edges, and that has helped me do more within it. I have not been able to 'see' that with the zoom.

So now I intend to follow the advice I should have heeded a long time ago. I am going to keep only primes on my camera for at least 3 months. Then I'll try my 24-70 again and see if I can stay active with the camera. I wonder if I'll fall back to old habits with the zoom?

It's also interesting how I did not feel a need to switch lenses. Once I had the fixed 50 on, I did not wish for a 24mm or a 70mm as I thought I might have. I just made it work with what I had. (Maybe that is justification because I don't like stopping to switch lenses!)

The other thing I have learned is how much I appreciate a fast lens. It comes in awfully handy and I love being able to limit the use of flash.

So now I am going to stick with the 50mm 1.4, with an occassional use of my 100mm 2.8 macro. I am getting an itch for the 35mm 1.4 as I have read only excellent things about it. That purchase might ultimately prompt me to sell the 24-70. I don't think I'll see a big diff between the 35 and the 50 so perhaps I can sell the 50 as well and go with the 35 as my primary lens. I can then use the 16-35 for city/nature, and the 70-300 for my kids' sporting events.

Note that I am only commenting on what the primes have helped me learn. I am ignoring all issues of optics. For me the use of the prime has been an education. If you are a dedicated zoomer, give a prime a shot. Doesn't matter in my opinion matter which one it is. I know I have learned more with the 50 than I would with just about any book, web site, etc.

I just wish I had not tried this sooner, considering how often I had been told this!

Anyway, thanks for listening. If you have any experience to share, let me know!!

Eric

 

[Petteri Sulonen]

...I hereby promote you to Colonel.

Suggestion: go for a 20 or 24 mm next -- e.g. the Sigma 20/1.8 or Canon 24/1.4L (if you can easily afford it). They're great for close-quarters situationals, and about twice as hand-holdable as your 50, as well as better differentiated from it. More DOF wide-open too.

Don't get me wrong, I love the 35, and if I had to pick just one prime that'd probably be it, but if I got to pick two, they'd be a 20 or 24 and a 50.

Petteri
--
Me on photography: [ http://www.prime-junta.tk ]
Me on politics: [ http://p-on-p.blogspot.com/ ]

 

[jackal]

A little verbose, but a good post. ;-)

I view zooms and primes as parts of a well-rounded toolbox. Sometimes I use a tool because it's better suited for the job, sometimes I use it to stretch my creativity. I go through phases of prefering one type of shooting or a specific lens to others, but having options is what SLRs are all about.

-jack

 

[brooke]

I find that when I have a zoom on the camera - not that often anymore - I'll forget in the moment that I have the zoom capacity and end up shooting as if it were a prime.

--

1DII and a rotating - and growing - collection of (mostly Canon) glass. D@mn these forums! ;-)

 

[noclue]

I started with zooms, thinking I'd cover all the focal lengths with just 3 lenses.

Then I bought a 135L, and everything changed. Even with it's odd focal length, I wanted to keep it on my camera all the time. It made me become a much more active & creative photographer. Additionally, I really liked the extra sharpness & bokeh. I also have become accustomed to having fast lenses. I now own the 35/1.4, 85/1.8, 135/2, 300/4 IS.

However, there are certain instances that I find zooms to be very helpful. An example would be the zoo where every other exhibit is at a different distance away.

My recommendation to people just starting is to get lenses with an equivalent focal length of 24mm, 50mm, and 135+mm . The primes will help people develop their photography skills much quicker.

More importantly, I think for many people it makes photography much for FUN, as it inspires more creative juices.

Greetings,

I am an eager amateur, with a 10D. I use it primarily to take pics
of my kids though I like to mess around with city and nature. I
would say that the quality of my equipment vastly outpaces my skill
as a photographer though I am (slowly) learning.

I had been firmly committed to zooms, for convenience:

• 16-35
• 24-70
• 70-300 (which replaced my 70-200 2.8)
• 100mm, used mostly for macro

My mindset was that the convenience of the zoom was more important
than the quality of the prime. I do not like switching lenses at
all. For some reason this simple process is a drag for me
especially when taking pics with the family.

I wanted a lens for low light so I purchased the 50mm 1.4. I bought
it 2 weeks ago strictly for low-light situations. Since buying it,
it has not left my camera. I planned to use it sparingly on a
recent trip to New Orleans and it is the only lens I used but for a
few shots at a football game with the 70-300. I thought I'd post
this in case anyone else was deciding between a zoom and a prime.
I've read a bunch of posts here on the subject so I know there is a
lot out there already so hope you don't mind one more post. And, if
you have any suggestions for me I'd love to hear it!

So anyway, here is my revelation: I am a far less lazy photographer
with the prime, because I do move my feet, and that makes me a
better photographer. The thing that amuses me is that I have read
this to be true in books, on dpreview, and plenty of other places
but always figured it would not apply to me. Well, it does! No
doubt about it, having the prime forces me to move more and compose
more carefully. I am sure I'll wish for the zoom for some pics but
I think that the tradeoff of fixed length outweighs the convenience
of the zoom.

It is really interesting after sticking with a prime to see how it
affects one's seeing. Not only am I less lazy with my feet, but I
am less lazy with my eye. Perhaps because things are simpler (no
need to worry about zooming) I am more concsious of the edges of
the frame. I have no idea why I couldn't see this before, but, I
couldn't! I guess it helps me become much more familiar with one
angle of view so I can do much better with that view. In other
words, the simplicity of having one focal length has given me a
better understanding of the frame's edges, and that has helped me
do more within it. I have not been able to 'see' that with the zoom.

So now I intend to follow the advice I should have heeded a long
time ago. I am going to keep only primes on my camera for at least
3 months. Then I'll try my 24-70 again and see if I can stay active
with the camera. I wonder if I'll fall back to old habits with the
zoom?

It's also interesting how I did not feel a need to switch lenses.
Once I had the fixed 50 on, I did not wish for a 24mm or a 70mm as
I thought I might have. I just made it work with what I had. (Maybe
that is justification because I don't like stopping to switch
lenses!)

The other thing I have learned is how much I appreciate a fast
lens. It comes in awfully handy and I love being able to limit the
use of flash.

So now I am going to stick with the 50mm 1.4, with an occassional
use of my 100mm 2.8 macro. I am getting an itch for the 35mm 1.4 as
I have read only excellent things about it. That purchase might
ultimately prompt me to sell the 24-70. I don't think I'll see a
big diff between the 35 and the 50 so perhaps I can sell the 50 as
well and go with the 35 as my primary lens. I can then use the
16-35 for city/nature, and the 70-300 for my kids' sporting events.

Note that I am only commenting on what the primes have helped me
learn. I am ignoring all issues of optics. For me the use of the
prime has been an education. If you are a dedicated zoomer, give a
prime a shot. Doesn't matter in my opinion matter which one it is.
I know I have learned more with the 50 than I would with just about
any book, web site, etc.

I just wish I had not tried this sooner, considering how often I
had been told this!

Anyway, thanks for listening. If you have any experience to share,
let me know!!

Eric

 

[mfurman]

I have also realized that I use my 17-40/f4L as a prime lens (I bought it mostly beacuse I did not want to get Sigma 10/f1.8). I set the focal length and then zoom with my feet forgetting about this funny ring on the lens. I stopped buying lenses just to fully understand what I need and I am certain that I would not buy another zoom. Getting ready for 135/f2L

Michael

I find that when I have a zoom on the camera - not that often
anymore - I'll forget in the moment that I have the zoom capacity
and end up shooting as if it were a prime.

--
1DII and a rotating - and growing - collection of (mostly Canon)
glass. D@mn these forums! ;-)

--
Michael

 

[momoftwins]

I agree with all this. I love zooms for convenience but the primes are fun to use - as they make you think differently about your subject. When I take pictures of my twins (candids) - I like the prime for indoors since I can get close or far quickly and I can use natural light.

Outside - I may lean more towards zoom since I may take a picture of my kids and then a picture of landscape and then something far away. So it is easier.

And for things where I have no idea how far or close - then a zoom.

But primes sure are fun. I have 50mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.8.

Jodi

I started with zooms, thinking I'd cover all the focal lengths with
just 3 lenses.

Then I bought a 135L, and everything changed. Even with it's odd
focal length, I wanted to keep it on my camera all the time. It
made me become a much more active & creative photographer.
Additionally, I really liked the extra sharpness & bokeh. I also
have become accustomed to having fast lenses. I now own the
35/1.4, 85/1.8, 135/2, 300/4 IS.

However, there are certain instances that I find zooms to be very
helpful. An example would be the zoo where every other exhibit is
at a different distance away.

My recommendation to people just starting is to get lenses with an
equivalent focal length of 24mm, 50mm, and 135+mm . The primes
will help people develop their photography skills much quicker.

More importantly, I think for many people it makes photography much
for FUN, as it inspires more creative juices.

 

[Robert Holloway]

I had the kit lens, 70-200 f4L and Bigma with my 300D and 20D.

Then my best friend returned me to my roots when he bought me a 50mm f1.8 for my bithday in June.

I used the 50mm for a month as an exercise and suddenly all the fun and creative urges of photography returned. it's ahrd to describe the difference. I am moving around more, at one with my subject and taking better photographs.

I decided not to buy the 24-70 or 17-40 and went with primes.

I purchased the following since June

20mm f1.8 Sigma
35mm f2
85mm f1.8
135mm f2

I now have 20-135mm covered at f2 and below. I don't mind changing lenses, in fact I enjoy it. I love shooting in low light. The only sad thing is that i bought the 70-200mm f4 L just before all this started and it sits on the shelf gathering dust!

Does that mean zooms are bad or worse? No absolutely not. It's just a very different experience for me and one that I dramatically prefer.

Kind regards
Rob

Greetings,

I am an eager amateur, with a 10D. I use it primarily to take pics
of my kids though I like to mess around with city and nature. I
would say that the quality of my equipment vastly outpaces my skill
as a photographer though I am (slowly) learning.

I had been firmly committed to zooms, for convenience:

• 16-35
• 24-70
• 70-300 (which replaced my 70-200 2.8)
• 100mm, used mostly for macro

My mindset was that the convenience of the zoom was more important
than the quality of the prime. I do not like switching lenses at
all. For some reason this simple process is a drag for me
especially when taking pics with the family.

I wanted a lens for low light so I purchased the 50mm 1.4. I bought
it 2 weeks ago strictly for low-light situations. Since buying it,
it has not left my camera. I planned to use it sparingly on a
recent trip to New Orleans and it is the only lens I used but for a
few shots at a football game with the 70-300. I thought I'd post
this in case anyone else was deciding between a zoom and a prime.
I've read a bunch of posts here on the subject so I know there is a
lot out there already so hope you don't mind one more post. And, if
you have any suggestions for me I'd love to hear it!

So anyway, here is my revelation: I am a far less lazy photographer
with the prime, because I do move my feet, and that makes me a
better photographer. The thing that amuses me is that I have read
this to be true in books, on dpreview, and plenty of other places
but always figured it would not apply to me. Well, it does! No
doubt about it, having the prime forces me to move more and compose
more carefully. I am sure I'll wish for the zoom for some pics but
I think that the tradeoff of fixed length outweighs the convenience
of the zoom.

It is really interesting after sticking with a prime to see how it
affects one's seeing. Not only am I less lazy with my feet, but I
am less lazy with my eye. Perhaps because things are simpler (no
need to worry about zooming) I am more concsious of the edges of
the frame. I have no idea why I couldn't see this before, but, I
couldn't! I guess it helps me become much more familiar with one
angle of view so I can do much better with that view. In other
words, the simplicity of having one focal length has given me a
better understanding of the frame's edges, and that has helped me
do more within it. I have not been able to 'see' that with the zoom.

So now I intend to follow the advice I should have heeded a long
time ago. I am going to keep only primes on my camera for at least
3 months. Then I'll try my 24-70 again and see if I can stay active
with the camera. I wonder if I'll fall back to old habits with the
zoom?

It's also interesting how I did not feel a need to switch lenses.
Once I had the fixed 50 on, I did not wish for a 24mm or a 70mm as
I thought I might have. I just made it work with what I had. (Maybe
that is justification because I don't like stopping to switch
lenses!)

The other thing I have learned is how much I appreciate a fast
lens. It comes in awfully handy and I love being able to limit the
use of flash.

So now I am going to stick with the 50mm 1.4, with an occassional
use of my 100mm 2.8 macro. I am getting an itch for the 35mm 1.4 as
I have read only excellent things about it. That purchase might
ultimately prompt me to sell the 24-70. I don't think I'll see a
big diff between the 35 and the 50 so perhaps I can sell the 50 as
well and go with the 35 as my primary lens. I can then use the
16-35 for city/nature, and the 70-300 for my kids' sporting events.

Note that I am only commenting on what the primes have helped me
learn. I am ignoring all issues of optics. For me the use of the
prime has been an education. If you are a dedicated zoomer, give a
prime a shot. Doesn't matter in my opinion matter which one it is.
I know I have learned more with the 50 than I would with just about
any book, web site, etc.

I just wish I had not tried this sooner, considering how often I
had been told this!

Anyway, thanks for listening. If you have any experience to share,
let me know!!

Eric

 

[Marco]

Hi Eric,

I completely agree with your thoughts.

The funny thing is that since I buy my first camera some twenty years ago, I've repeatedly been "fooled" by zooms... they are convenient and sometimes comparable with primes as far as sharpness, color and contrast.

But having too many framing options makes me so lazy to actually reduce my (low) photography skill...

With few well spaced primes I can concentrate more on the subject and the way I see (or want to see) it through the lens.

Zooming by feet is much different than zooming by the lens, which completely change the feeling of a scene.

There are days when a zoom is very useful, but most of the time I just feel better with primes.

Btw, I had the 24-70L and sold it to buy the 35/1.4L. Never looked back.

Ciao

Marco

 

[Lee Jay]

The more you eat, the more you want.

I'm firmly a zoom guy. I love my zooms. I have three from 17-300. I love the flexibility.

So how did I end up with four primes?:

Sigma 15mm fisheye
Sigma 20 1.8
Canon 50 1.4
Canon 100 2.0

Answer: because I foolishly bought 1 - the 50 1.8.

And then I wanted more!

Lee Jay

 

[FretNoMore]

...over time swinging from zooms to primes and back... you'll find eventually it will come to rest somewhere inbetween.

• Anders @ http://www.andersostberg.com * http://www.pbase.com/andersostberg *

 

[EMS]

Super post! You expressed everything I feel too. The only exception for me is that for landscape photography, a zoom like the 17-40L beats the pants off of any prime. The reason is that for landscapes, many times you can't zoom with your feet. That mountain in the distance looks exactly the same through the frame with a prime whether I move forward or back 100 yards. And sometimes things like cliffs prevent any movement and if all you have is a prime that won't get what you want in, you're out of luck.

For people photography, I'm all prime. For landscapes, my 17-40 is the way to go. Again, great post!

Greetings,

I am an eager amateur, with a 10D. I use it primarily to take pics
of my kids though I like to mess around with city and nature. I
would say that the quality of my equipment vastly outpaces my skill
as a photographer though I am (slowly) learning.

I had been firmly committed to zooms, for convenience:

• 16-35
• 24-70
• 70-300 (which replaced my 70-200 2.8)
• 100mm, used mostly for macro

My mindset was that the convenience of the zoom was more important
than the quality of the prime. I do not like switching lenses at
all. For some reason this simple process is a drag for me
especially when taking pics with the family.

I wanted a lens for low light so I purchased the 50mm 1.4. I bought
it 2 weeks ago strictly for low-light situations. Since buying it,
it has not left my camera. I planned to use it sparingly on a
recent trip to New Orleans and it is the only lens I used but for a
few shots at a football game with the 70-300. I thought I'd post
this in case anyone else was deciding between a zoom and a prime.
I've read a bunch of posts here on the subject so I know there is a
lot out there already so hope you don't mind one more post. And, if
you have any suggestions for me I'd love to hear it!

So anyway, here is my revelation: I am a far less lazy photographer
with the prime, because I do move my feet, and that makes me a
better photographer. The thing that amuses me is that I have read
this to be true in books, on dpreview, and plenty of other places
but always figured it would not apply to me. Well, it does! No
doubt about it, having the prime forces me to move more and compose
more carefully. I am sure I'll wish for the zoom for some pics but
I think that the tradeoff of fixed length outweighs the convenience
of the zoom.

It is really interesting after sticking with a prime to see how it
affects one's seeing. Not only am I less lazy with my feet, but I
am less lazy with my eye. Perhaps because things are simpler (no
need to worry about zooming) I am more concsious of the edges of
the frame. I have no idea why I couldn't see this before, but, I
couldn't! I guess it helps me become much more familiar with one
angle of view so I can do much better with that view. In other
words, the simplicity of having one focal length has given me a
better understanding of the frame's edges, and that has helped me
do more within it. I have not been able to 'see' that with the zoom.

So now I intend to follow the advice I should have heeded a long
time ago. I am going to keep only primes on my camera for at least
3 months. Then I'll try my 24-70 again and see if I can stay active
with the camera. I wonder if I'll fall back to old habits with the
zoom?

It's also interesting how I did not feel a need to switch lenses.
Once I had the fixed 50 on, I did not wish for a 24mm or a 70mm as
I thought I might have. I just made it work with what I had. (Maybe
that is justification because I don't like stopping to switch
lenses!)

The other thing I have learned is how much I appreciate a fast
lens. It comes in awfully handy and I love being able to limit the
use of flash.

So now I am going to stick with the 50mm 1.4, with an occassional
use of my 100mm 2.8 macro. I am getting an itch for the 35mm 1.4 as
I have read only excellent things about it. That purchase might
ultimately prompt me to sell the 24-70. I don't think I'll see a
big diff between the 35 and the 50 so perhaps I can sell the 50 as
well and go with the 35 as my primary lens. I can then use the
16-35 for city/nature, and the 70-300 for my kids' sporting events.

Note that I am only commenting on what the primes have helped me
learn. I am ignoring all issues of optics. For me the use of the
prime has been an education. If you are a dedicated zoomer, give a
prime a shot. Doesn't matter in my opinion matter which one it is.
I know I have learned more with the 50 than I would with just about
any book, web site, etc.

I just wish I had not tried this sooner, considering how often I
had been told this!

Anyway, thanks for listening. If you have any experience to share,
let me know!!

Eric

 

[KJbruin]

I started with a prime setup and have added a few zooms of late (opposite of what you are doing). The 35 f2 is the widest prime currently in my bag. It seems a bit long fairly often, so I am eyeing the 24 f1.4 and or the 16-35. How do you like the 16-35?

...I hereby promote you to Colonel.

Suggestion: go for a 20 or 24 mm next -- e.g. the Sigma 20/1.8 or
Canon 24/1.4L (if you can easily afford it). They're great for
close-quarters situationals, and about twice as hand-holdable as
your 50, as well as better differentiated from it. More DOF
wide-open too.

Don't get me wrong, I love the 35, and if I had to pick just one
prime that'd probably be it, but if I got to pick two, they'd be a
20 or 24 and a 50.

Petteri
--
Me on photography: [ http://www.prime-junta.tk ]
Me on politics: [ http://p-on-p.blogspot.com/ ]

 

[skimmel]

Nice post. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this.

I'm sort-of in between. I do have the 35 1.4 and really love shooting with it. However, I also have a 70-200 4.0 and I've tried shooting with it set to 135mm only (in anticipation of getting the 135 2.0L), but I just can't seem to get the hang of the longer, fixed focal length. May be just that I need more practice, but I find that the shorter focal length lenses (e.g. the 35mm with the crop factor) is much more natural for me. (I "grew up" with manual focus Nikon and a 50mm lens, so maybe that's why).

Wonder what others' thoughts are on using longer length primes vs. shorter length ones.

Greetings,

I am an eager amateur, with a 10D. I use it primarily to take pics
of my kids though I like to mess around with city and nature. I
would say that the quality of my equipment vastly outpaces my skill
as a photographer though I am (slowly) learning.

I had been firmly committed to zooms, for convenience:

• 16-35
• 24-70
• 70-300 (which replaced my 70-200 2.8)
• 100mm, used mostly for macro

My mindset was that the convenience of the zoom was more important
than the quality of the prime. I do not like switching lenses at
all. For some reason this simple process is a drag for me
especially when taking pics with the family.

I wanted a lens for low light so I purchased the 50mm 1.4. I bought
it 2 weeks ago strictly for low-light situations. Since buying it,
it has not left my camera. I planned to use it sparingly on a
recent trip to New Orleans and it is the only lens I used but for a
few shots at a football game with the 70-300. I thought I'd post
this in case anyone else was deciding between a zoom and a prime.
I've read a bunch of posts here on the subject so I know there is a
lot out there already so hope you don't mind one more post. And, if
you have any suggestions for me I'd love to hear it!

So anyway, here is my revelation: I am a far less lazy photographer
with the prime, because I do move my feet, and that makes me a
better photographer. The thing that amuses me is that I have read
this to be true in books, on dpreview, and plenty of other places
but always figured it would not apply to me. Well, it does! No
doubt about it, having the prime forces me to move more and compose
more carefully. I am sure I'll wish for the zoom for some pics but
I think that the tradeoff of fixed length outweighs the convenience
of the zoom.

It is really interesting after sticking with a prime to see how it
affects one's seeing. Not only am I less lazy with my feet, but I
am less lazy with my eye. Perhaps because things are simpler (no
need to worry about zooming) I am more concsious of the edges of
the frame. I have no idea why I couldn't see this before, but, I
couldn't! I guess it helps me become much more familiar with one
angle of view so I can do much better with that view. In other
words, the simplicity of having one focal length has given me a
better understanding of the frame's edges, and that has helped me
do more within it. I have not been able to 'see' that with the zoom.

So now I intend to follow the advice I should have heeded a long
time ago. I am going to keep only primes on my camera for at least
3 months. Then I'll try my 24-70 again and see if I can stay active
with the camera. I wonder if I'll fall back to old habits with the
zoom?

It's also interesting how I did not feel a need to switch lenses.
Once I had the fixed 50 on, I did not wish for a 24mm or a 70mm as
I thought I might have. I just made it work with what I had. (Maybe
that is justification because I don't like stopping to switch
lenses!)

The other thing I have learned is how much I appreciate a fast
lens. It comes in awfully handy and I love being able to limit the
use of flash.

So now I am going to stick with the 50mm 1.4, with an occassional
use of my 100mm 2.8 macro. I am getting an itch for the 35mm 1.4 as
I have read only excellent things about it. That purchase might
ultimately prompt me to sell the 24-70. I don't think I'll see a
big diff between the 35 and the 50 so perhaps I can sell the 50 as
well and go with the 35 as my primary lens. I can then use the
16-35 for city/nature, and the 70-300 for my kids' sporting events.

Note that I am only commenting on what the primes have helped me
learn. I am ignoring all issues of optics. For me the use of the
prime has been an education. If you are a dedicated zoomer, give a
prime a shot. Doesn't matter in my opinion matter which one it is.
I know I have learned more with the 50 than I would with just about
any book, web site, etc.

I just wish I had not tried this sooner, considering how often I
had been told this!

Anyway, thanks for listening. If you have any experience to share,
let me know!!

Eric

 

[GPB]

I like the sound of the 24 1.4 too...but I wonder how easily it will focus on a 20D. I know the 10D seemed to have trouble with some ultra-wides...I assumed because the subjects typically were too small. No problem when you get up close. DOF of course is the advantage and maybe manual focus handles it.

Is this lens usable for group photos (say, 4 or more) in tight quarters or would there be too much distortion? Seems like it would work well...at a reasonable distance. Hmm.

-- Greg

...I hereby promote you to Colonel.

Suggestion: go for a 20 or 24 mm next -- e.g. the Sigma 20/1.8 or
Canon 24/1.4L (if you can easily afford it). They're great for
close-quarters situationals, and about twice as hand-holdable as
your 50, as well as better differentiated from it. More DOF
wide-open too.

Don't get me wrong, I love the 35, and if I had to pick just one
prime that'd probably be it, but if I got to pick two, they'd be a
20 or 24 and a 50.

Petteri
--
Me on photography: [ http://www.prime-junta.tk ]
Me on politics: [ http://p-on-p.blogspot.com/ ]

 

[Lee Jay]

Is this lens usable for group photos (say, 4 or more) in tight
quarters or would there be too much distortion? Seems like it
would work well...at a reasonable distance. Hmm.

Group portraits are okay with lenses no wider than 24mm full-frame equivalent FOV. If you need wider, fisheye projection is better than a wide rectilinear.

Here's one with the 17-40L at 17mm:



Lee Jay

 

[GPB]

Thanks Lee. How consistent is your Sigma focusing with your 20D? I have the Sigma FE, and it's impressive...but I have to be careful with focusing...again, I think it's because at any distance, and due to the huge DOF, the camera just can't fine tune the focus...because it can't see any contrast. I know I can't tell looking through the viewfinder. Still, yours is a 1.8 which might help too.

Also, regarding the rule...you're at a good distance from the group. I would think if the people aren't too close to the edges, distortion becomes less of an issue.

-- Greg

Is this lens usable for group photos (say, 4 or more) in tight
quarters or would there be too much distortion? Seems like it
would work well...at a reasonable distance. Hmm.

Group portraits are okay with lenses no wider than 24mm full-frame
equivalent FOV. If you need wider, fisheye projection is better
than a wide rectilinear.

Here's one with the 17-40L at 17mm:



Lee Jay

 

[Lee Jay]

Thanks Lee. How consistent is your Sigma focusing with your 20D?
I have the Sigma FE, and it's impressive...but I have to be careful
with focusing...again, I think it's because at any distance, and
due to the huge DOF, the camera just can't fine tune the
focus...because it can't see any contrast. I know I can't tell
looking through the viewfinder. Still, yours is a 1.8 which might
help too.

My 20/1.8 has been great. It only screws up when I do!

Also, regarding the rule...you're at a good distance from the
group. I would think if the people aren't too close to the edges,
distortion becomes less of an issue.

That's true. Larger shots are less of a problem (like the one I posted). Head shots with the 17-40 at 17mm are, well, unusual to say the least.

Sorry I never found a 24 to test for you!

Lee Jay

 

[brooke]

... landscapes are usually shot stopped down. One of the reasons I love my primes is that I like shooting wider than f/2.8, something that doesn't come into play here.

The only
exception for me is that for landscape photography, a zoom like
the 17-40L beats the pants off of any prime. The reason is that
for landscapes, many times you can't zoom with your feet. That
mountain in the distance looks exactly the same through the frame
with a prime whether I move forward or back 100 yards. And
sometimes things like cliffs prevent any movement and if all you
have is a prime that won't get what you want in, you're out of luck.

--

1DII and a rotating - and growing - collection of (mostly Canon) glass. D@mn these forums! ;-)

 

[Eric Cohen]

Thanks for the promotion Petteri -- if I am going to get a rank, it might as well be photographic!

And thanks for the advise. I'll look into the lenses you recommend. My bias at the moment is to get the 35 because of the reviews it gets, and because of the three (24, 35, and 50), I like the focal length of the 35 best on my 1.6. I find the 50 to be just a bit too tight. Then I'd keep the 16-35, and at some point consider the 85. So my dream line-up would be the 35 1.4, which I'd probably use most of the time, the 85, the 100 and the 2 zooms (16-35 and 70-300).

By the way, I have long been a fan of your site. Great info, and love the pontifications.

Best,

Eric

...I hereby promote you to Colonel.

Suggestion: go for a 20 or 24 mm next -- e.g. the Sigma 20/1.8 or
Canon 24/1.4L (if you can easily afford it). They're great for
close-quarters situationals, and about twice as hand-holdable as
your 50, as well as better differentiated from it. More DOF
wide-open too.

Don't get me wrong, I love the 35, and if I had to pick just one
prime that'd probably be it, but if I got to pick two, they'd be a
20 or 24 and a 50.

Petteri
--
Me on photography: [ http://www.prime-junta.tk ]
Me on politics: [ http://p-on-p.blogspot.com/ ]