A single prime as walkaround?

Started Oct 13, 2010 | Discussions
Xernomis New Member • Posts: 19
Re: I often use the 35 f2

I'm glad this thread came up. Being a new t2i owner, I'm looking for my first prime. I really enjoy natural light photography, so a prime is important. L series stuff is off the table, since I'm just a casual photographer (although I already lust after it... haha). I was all ready to get the nifty fifty, but then I really tried using my kit lens at 50 for a while. That is just too tight for most situations I'll use I think. I like taking party pics (bars, restaurants, houses, etc) and after testing for a bit at 50mm, that is just too close.

I think I've decided on the Canon 28/1.8. I've done a ton of reading and tossing between it and the Sigma 30/1.4, but honestly almost all of the photos I've seen from the Sigma look soft to me. In addition, I very well may upgrade to a bigger sensor camera at some point, since I'm enjoying this t2i so much. I just think something in that length would be the most appropriate on a crop for casual shooting and giving me some decent low-light performance (even without flash).

The only thing is I see the 35/2 mentioned a lot. Is it worth considering? I really want fast and precise focus. The 28/1.8 I assume would be better at that. This is mainly the lens I want to use like you would normally use a P&S... parties and whatnot.

Comments?

Howard S Senior Member • Posts: 2,210
Re: I often use the 35 f2

I use it on crop and FF and have been very happy with it. Haven't noticed any focus isses.

 Howard S's gear list:Howard S's gear list
Canon G3 X Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS M Canon EOS M50 Canon EOS M6 II +12 more
seri_art
seri_art Veteran Member • Posts: 3,011
Re: I often use the 35 f2

The 35mm f/2 goes on my XSi a lot for inside social situations. Great image quality from f2.8 on and very small and light. I find it soft at f/2 (others say theirs is sharp at f/2) but that doesn't bother me because I find f/2 and larger openings to have too little depth of field anyway.

 seri_art's gear list:seri_art's gear list
Sony RX100 III Canon EOS Rebel T7i Canon EF 85mm F1.8 USM Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM +4 more
Webphisher Regular Member • Posts: 226
Re: A single prime as walkaround?

I use the EF 50mm 1.4 USM as my walk around. Granted I only own that and the kit lens, but that being said it's made me a more active photographer. Getting off my bum and moving a bit when I see a pic I want.

 Webphisher's gear list:Webphisher's gear list
Canon EOS 500D Canon EOS 70D Canon EF 50mm F1.4 USM Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III +2 more
cokes Regular Member • Posts: 158
Macro?

Why is a macro preferred over a non-macro lens for street photography? Is it because it provides much finer details?

Thanks

paulfromwales wrote:

I find 70mm too much, 50mm a little too much, 28-30ish just fine and 20mm too little.
A 50mm Sigma Macro, would be a really good compromise.

OP BobT Forum Pro • Posts: 13,216
Re: Macro?

I can't answer for Paul, but for me it offers the best of both worlds. It gives good "normal" lens shots AND, of course, the macro options to boot. It's a 2-for-1.

 BobT's gear list:BobT's gear list
Olympus XZ-1 Panasonic FZ1000 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm F4-5.6 R Panasonic Lumix G Vario HD 12-32mm F3.5-5.6 Mega OIS +1 more
cokes Regular Member • Posts: 158
Re: Macro?

I guess the only juggle between buying a normal 50mm and a 50mm with macro is between the full aperture value and the macro feature, which offers more details or something? From what I see, the 50mm without macro can be opened up bigger.

BobT wrote:

I can't answer for Paul, but for me it offers the best of both worlds. It gives good "normal" lens shots AND, of course, the macro options to boot. It's a 2-for-1.

Narcosynthesis Senior Member • Posts: 1,832
Re: Macro?

cokes wrote:

Why is a macro preferred over a non-macro lens for street photography? Is it because it provides much finer details?

Thanks

paulfromwales wrote:

I find 70mm too much, 50mm a little too much, 28-30ish just fine and 20mm too little.
A 50mm Sigma Macro, would be a really good compromise.

Part of the reason I went for the 60mm f2.8 macro rather than a 50mm f1.4 was the fact that I shoot a lot of closer stuff and found that in the short space of time I had a 50mm f1.8 that the close focussing distance was nowhere near as good as I would have liked (compared to the 30mm f2 which is excellent)

For use in street photography and other general use there is no benefit whatsoever in having a macro lens unless you are constantly finding yourself shooting in close and bumping into the minimum focal distance, and in fact going for a lens like the 60mm macro over a 50mm loses you quite a bit in aperture, just it was a tradeoff I felt was worth it for my shooting.

I would hazard a guess that other people shooting with a macro lens outwith the macro realm are using a macro for the same reasons - not that they give any benefit for street or any other subject more than a meter away, but that they also let you shoot macro at other points.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/narcosynthesis
http://www.illaname.deviantart.com

OP BobT Forum Pro • Posts: 13,216
Re: Macro?

I like the idea of the 50mm macro because it allows for "normal" shooting(like from a normal 50mm lens) and I can get greta VERY close-up macro shots to boot. Fashioning myself more as a nature shooter above all other subjets, this is a good thing. I'm sure the 60mm Macro would offer the very same thing...and maybe with a slightly larger lens to subject distance, too.

 BobT's gear list:BobT's gear list
Olympus XZ-1 Panasonic FZ1000 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm F4-5.6 R Panasonic Lumix G Vario HD 12-32mm F3.5-5.6 Mega OIS +1 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads