Advice on Canon PRIMES

Hi everyone - just wanted to let you know (after the fantastic advice from this forum) that I ended up getting the 5d3 + 24-70mm f/2.8 II USM IS + 70-300mm f/4 - 5.6L IS USM + 16-35mm f2.8 Mark II USM and have travelled extensively with the 1st 2 lenses and handled it fine !

I love the sharpness of the 24-70mm and the 70-300mm has been on my camera ALOT ! Even tho the reach for Africa may have been lacking - but thats OK as I knew that would be the case !

In found in Africa I was taking so many close up people shots, esp of the kids....so cute ! Also as I previously mentioned landscapes and architecture are still on my hot list. Im thinking I now need a prime that helps me with sharpness in these situations.

SO Im now looking at some PRIMES after owning my gear for a year. My range of shooting is so big, but considering that I have some good lenses at certain focal lengths Im not sure what to consider.

35/50/85/100/135 - eeek too much to consider ~ Advice would be great.

PikkieChick wrote:

Hi everyone - just wanted to let you know (after the fantastic advice from this forum) that I ended up getting the 5d3 + 24-70mm f/2.8 II USM IS + 70-300mm f/4 - 5.6L IS USM + 16-35mm f2.8 Mark II USM and have travelled extensively with the 1st 2 lenses and handled it fine !

I love the sharpness of the 24-70mm and the 70-300mm has been on my camera ALOT ! Even tho the reach for Africa may have been lacking - but thats OK as I knew that would be the case !

In found in Africa I was taking so many close up people shots, esp of the kids....so cute ! Also as I previously mentioned landscapes and architecture are still on my hot list. Im thinking I now need a prime that helps me with sharpness in these situations.

SO Im now looking at some PRIMES after owning my gear for a year. My range of shooting is so big, but considering that I have some good lenses at certain focal lengths Im not sure what to consider.

35/50/85/100/135 - eeek too much to consider ~ Advice would be great.

You've got two active threads on this issue. Might want to delete one of them.

What is it you want to do with the prime that you can't with your zooms? I'm assuming shallower dof?

Anyway, 35mm is a good all round focal length for a prime. Not too long/not too short. 50mm is of course the "normal" focal length--supposedly provides a perspective similar to the human eye. With longer focal lengths, you're starting to get into traditional portrait territory.

With lenses, it's really all about how you plan to use them. Figure out what you most want to do with your new prime, and select an appropriate focal length and max aperture. For example, I like to take indoor head and shoulder shots of my grandkids. And I like shallow dof for these kinds of shots. So I use a Sigma 85 f/1.4 on my 5D3.  The EF 85 f/1.8 would also be good choice for this (or the EF 85 f/1.2 if you can afford it).

PikkieChick wrote:

In found in Africa I was taking so many close up people shots, esp of the kids....so cute ! Also as I previously mentioned landscapes and architecture are still on my hot list. Im thinking I now need a prime that helps me with sharpness in these situations.

Missed the reference to sharpness the first time I read thru your post.  If it's increased sharpness you're after, I doubt you'll find many primes that will do better there than your 24-70 f/2.8L II.

PikkieChick wrote:

In found in Africa I was taking so many close up people shots, esp of the kids....so cute ! Also as I previously mentioned landscapes and architecture are still on my hot list. Im thinking I now need a prime that helps me with sharpness in these situations.

Missed the reference to sharpness the first time I read thru your post.  If it's increased sharpness you're after, I doubt you'll find many primes that will do better there than your 24-70 f/2.8L II.

Agreed! If I were you, I would replace that 16-35mm with the new f4 version. That would get you max sharpness there. Then I would just add a specialty prime for whatever you want to do. Sharpness isn't going to be a huge factor, but you will gain shallow dof and smooth bokeh. I would probably consider the 85mm II or the 135L or the 50L. Any of these would give a different feel than your other lenses and each has a wow factor

If you're still in a position where you can get great lenses for half price, then for both landscapes and architecture a good tilt/shift lens would be a great addition to your collection.

PikkieChick wrote:

Hi everyone - just wanted to let you know (after the fantastic advice from this forum) that I ended up getting the 5d3 + 24-70mm f/2.8 II USM IS + 70-300mm f/4 - 5.6L IS USM + 16-35mm f2.8 Mark II USM and have travelled extensively with the 1st 2 lenses and handled it fine !

I love the sharpness of the 24-70mm and the 70-300mm has been on my camera ALOT ! Even tho the reach for Africa may have been lacking - but thats OK as I knew that would be the case !

In found in Africa I was taking so many close up people shots, esp of the kids....so cute ! Also as I previously mentioned landscapes and architecture are still on my hot list. Im thinking I now need a prime that helps me with sharpness in these situations.

SO Im now looking at some PRIMES after owning my gear for a year. My range of shooting is so big, but considering that I have some good lenses at certain focal lengths Im not sure what to consider.

35/50/85/100/135 - eeek too much to consider ~ Advice would be great.

I use 2 prime, Sigma 50 f1.4 ex and Canon 135L I've used the 100L, 85 f1.8, and 85 f1.2L as well.  Of all of them the 135L is my favorite lens, no question.  Nothing wrong with the 85's either, but the 135 has that mix of great performance AF, sharpness, compression, and fast aperture.

Keith Z Leonard wrote:

PikkieChick wrote:

Hi everyone - just wanted to let you know (after the fantastic advice from this forum) that I ended up getting the 5d3 + 24-70mm f/2.8 II USM IS + 70-300mm f/4 - 5.6L IS USM + 16-35mm f2.8 Mark II USM and have travelled extensively with the 1st 2 lenses and handled it fine !

I love the sharpness of the 24-70mm and the 70-300mm has been on my camera ALOT ! Even tho the reach for Africa may have been lacking - but thats OK as I knew that would be the case !

In found in Africa I was taking so many close up people shots, esp of the kids....so cute ! Also as I previously mentioned landscapes and architecture are still on my hot list. Im thinking I now need a prime that helps me with sharpness in these situations.

SO Im now looking at some PRIMES after owning my gear for a year. My range of shooting is so big, but considering that I have some good lenses at certain focal lengths Im not sure what to consider.

35/50/85/100/135 - eeek too much to consider ~ Advice would be great.

I use 2 prime, Sigma 50 f1.4 ex and Canon 135L I've used the 100L, 85 f1.8, and 85 f1.2L as well. Of all of them the 135L is my favorite lens, no question. Nothing wrong with the 85's either, but the 135 has that mix of great performance AF, sharpness, compression, and fast aperture.

I ABSOLUTELY vote for 135L. That is one prime that will give you photos that none of your current zooms or any other primes would give! 100L would be another great addition for you if you want to do more Macro shots. 35 f2 IS and 85 1.8 would be other two to consider in that range. I think the fact that you have 24-70 2.8 II you shall not need anything in that range unless you have specific need. for e.g. 85 1.8 is outside of 24-70 and is a great portraiture lens so that will serve purpose for you and so will 135L (because its simply awesome and magical IQ of images from that lens will convince you to have one). But again 85 1.8 and 135L are portraiture lenses serving that purpose.

I am actually a little confused about your comment on "landscape, architecture" and your considering 35/50/85/100/135. I would think for landscape, architecture you would probably look at something wider??

Cybersimba

Jonathan Brady wrote:

PikkieChick wrote:

In found in Africa I was taking so many close up people shots, esp of the kids....so cute ! Also as I previously mentioned landscapes and architecture are still on my hot list. Im thinking I now need a prime that helps me with sharpness in these situations.

Are you looking for one prime to handle all of that, or 2+ primes?

I don't do landscapes or architecture so I don't have any advice there (although you said you have the 16-35 but didn't travel with it - I'd probably start there and add primes if necessary/desired). However with portraiture, the most common focal lengths are 85-135 with some using 35 and/or 50. From 35-135 is almost a 4x focal range. It would REALLY behoove you to narrow down your portrait style.

Are you planning to just take pictures of kids? Adults too? Group portraits? Do you like head and shoulders, full body, something in between, or all of the above? How much room do you typically have to work with?

Personally, I really like 85 and 135 - especially 135. But, what I like may not necessarily be what you like.

IMHO - The 35/1.4, 85/1.2, 85/1.8 are all really good but the 135mm is fantastic.

Well with the lens line-up you have you hardly need primes unless you do commercial photography as a living, studio set-ups, Advertising, etc.

Yes, no matter what, primes have always got that little extras.. I mean for sharpness, the 70-300L is regarded as unbeatable, even Canon themselves are astonished. Even so it can be beaten only if ever so little. The 100 L Macro, the TSE range of lenses and of course the Zeiss optics. However the difference is only noticable in giant prints from A3 and upwards.

So is it worth it?

I have 2 of the same 3 lens you have. As to the primes the question should be what do you want to do with them?

I wanted a macro so got the 100mm f2.8 ( I didn't get the l since for macro you should use a tripod) and the 50 mmf1.4 , but I wanted this one for astro photography. Get primes for what you need to do.

Shot with 50mm f1.4

Shot with 100 mm f2.8

Jonathan Brady wrote:

hfjacinto wrote:

I wanted a macro so got the 100mm f2.8 ( I didn't get the l since for macro you should use a tripod)

You should? Crap. Not sure what to do now with all those great macro shots I've taken over the years, handheld...

I've done handheld and with a tripod, and a tripod is helpful when shooting at a slow speed.

The case for me was that if it was a fast shot I could handheld and when it was a slow shoot, a tripod helped. So I didn't need IS.

Now is the nasty comment really needed? Can't you comment without being snarky? Its not appreciated.

PikkieChick wrote:

cybersimba wrote:

Keith Z Leonard wrote:

I use 2 prime, Sigma 50 f1.4 ex and Canon 135L I've used the 100L, 85 f1.8, and 85 f1.2L as well. Of all of them the 135L is my favorite lens, no question. Nothing wrong with the 85's either, but the 135 has that mix of great performance AF, sharpness, compression, and fast aperture.

I ABSOLUTELY vote for 135L. That is one prime that will give you photos that none of your current zooms or any other primes would give! 100L would be another great addition for you if you want to do more Macro shots. 35 f2 IS and 85 1.8 would be other two to consider in that range. I think the fact that you have 24-70 2.8 II you shall not need anything in that range unless you have specific need. for e.g. 85 1.8 is outside of 24-70 and is a great portraiture lens so that will serve purpose for you and so will 135L (because its simply awesome and magical IQ of images from that lens will convince you to have one). But again 85 1.8 and 135L are portraiture lenses serving that purpose.

I am actually a little confused about your comment on "landscape, architecture" and your considering 35/50/85/100/135. I would think for landscape, architecture you would probably look at something wider??

Cybersimba

Hi Keith Z Leonard and Cybersimba - Sorry for the confusion, yep you are right I do use my 16-35mm more for landscapes, I guess I was referring more to street photography, candid people shots (more candid people shots than actual posed portraits)

Ive heard that there can be issues hand holding the 135mm re sharpness, any truth to that ? Ive read that people go with the 100mm with IS instead, but is this lens primarily for macro (which I dont do a lot)

If you want to shoot at speeds slower than 1/135 (1/focal length) then yes you will need tripod. If you use camera with high ISO (meaning camera offering great IQ even at higher ISOs like 6D does then handheld with 135L is not an issue. I think IS is sometimes overrated. If you shoot regularly, over time you shall get to understand right speeds, aperture and ISO to use for a given shot and most of the times you will be fine with 135L using it handheld. But yes if you compare it with wider lens then your chances of shooting wider lens handheld are better than a longer lens again per 1/focal length rule.

100L is really a great lens. Its not as fast in focussing as some of the primes like 135L but its fairly good and it doubles up as Macro as well as portrait lens. I would not buy it unless you intend to do macro. What I mean is lenses like 85, 135 or even longer good quality primes will serve you as portrait lenses for you but 100L shines as a Macro. Its IS can help with handheld shots even for Macro. If you are interested in macro then you can consider 100 non L which offers same IQ as 100L (100L might be little more contrasty perhaps but I have seen outstanding images from non L too). non L 100 does not have IS so you have to use tripod when the need be. If you buy 100L that would be for macro though not for its otherwise great IQ, contrast etc. But it wouldn't hurt getting 100L as it would be a generally good lens (with IS, great IQ just slightly lower than 135L and the best Macro) to have. If money is not an issue I would get both 100L and 135L. They both are absolute keepers!

Also the 85mm 1.2 may not be worth the extra money due to bulk especially when the 1.8 performs nearly as well ?

I agree totally. 85 1.8 is a no brainer. Its a a great lens providing exceptional bokeh for the price and works as good portrait lens for indoors and outdoors. 135L gives better "magic", compression and quality of images but you need to stand far behind. so i tighter environments like indoor portrait shoots etc you can benefit from lower focal length of 85. If you want to judge how much bokeh any good lens gives you, simple rule is bokeh % = focal length divided by max aperture. For e.g. 135 / 2 (its max aperture) gives you close ~70% bokeh vs say 85 / 1.8 (its max aperture) = ~50% bokeh. Of course, bokeh effect can vary depending on how far back the background is from the subject. Overall 85 1.8 is fast, great IQ, great build quality.. simply a great portrait lens to have in addition to 135L.

I guess Im venturing into primes wanting to not be lazy with my zooms and after sharpness, IQ, shallower DOF, use in lower light situations. I can get some of these lenses at great prices very soon.

Where do you get your lenses for great prices? I am sure everyone would like to know I do

Jonathan Brady wrote:

My level of snarkiness was directly proportional to how ridiculous your assertion was. Cut back on the untrue statements and there shall be no snark!

It was a fact, I should and have used a tripod for Macro shots. If you disagree that's fine, but the comment was not a "ridiculous assertion". Its a stated fact, as an example if you use this lens

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/183199-USA/Canon_2540A002_Macro_Photo_MP_E_65mm.html

its very difficult to hand hold and a tripod is pretty much required. So you were just being snarky for a misconstrued reason. Disagreeing and being disagreeable are 2 completely different things. I don't appreciate the snark, but I do enjoy discussion.

PikkieChick wrote:

cybersimba wrote:

Keith Z Leonard wrote:

I use 2 prime, Sigma 50 f1.4 ex and Canon 135L I've used the 100L, 85 f1.8, and 85 f1.2L as well. Of all of them the 135L is my favorite lens, no question. Nothing wrong with the 85's either, but the 135 has that mix of great performance AF, sharpness, compression, and fast aperture.

I ABSOLUTELY vote for 135L. That is one prime that will give you photos that none of your current zooms or any other primes would give! 100L would be another great addition for you if you want to do more Macro shots. 35 f2 IS and 85 1.8 would be other two to consider in that range. I think the fact that you have 24-70 2.8 II you shall not need anything in that range unless you have specific need. for e.g. 85 1.8 is outside of 24-70 and is a great portraiture lens so that will serve purpose for you and so will 135L (because its simply awesome and magical IQ of images from that lens will convince you to have one). But again 85 1.8 and 135L are portraiture lenses serving that purpose.

I am actually a little confused about your comment on "landscape, architecture" and your considering 35/50/85/100/135. I would think for landscape, architecture you would probably look at something wider??

Cybersimba

Hi Keith Z Leonard and Cybersimba - Sorry for the confusion, yep you are right I do use my 16-35mm more for landscapes, I guess I was referring more to street photography, candid people shots (more candid people shots than actual posed portraits)

Ive heard that there can be issues hand holding the 135mm re sharpness, any truth to that ? Ive read that people go with the 100mm with IS instead, but is this lens primarily for macro (which I dont do a lot)

It's true that you can get blurry shots hand holding any photo with any lens if you don't have a fast enough shutter speed. 1/150 or faster is how I typically use the 135L. Of course if I'm lighting a portrait with strobes I can shoot slower and use the flash duration as my shutter speed. IS helps, of course, but you don't find many primes faster than f2.8 with IS.

The 100L gives a different look, it's a very good lens, but I don't prefer it for portraits.

As for the common belief that the 135L is too long for indoors I give you.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/22781076@N03/sets/72157645361357696/

If you need to quickly get a bunch of different shots from different distances...that's why zooms exist, for events, etc.

Also the 85mm 1.2 may not be worth the extra money due to bulk especially when the 1.8 performs nearly as well ?

The 85 f1.2 has much better image quality than the f1.8 at large apertures, the f1.8 has much faster AF and when stopped down is really great. One of the better deals in Canon lenses.

I guess Im venturing into primes wanting to not be lazy with my zooms and after sharpness, IQ, shallower DOF, use in lower light situations. I can get some of these lenses at great prices very soon.

Zooms don't force you to be lazy, but the rest of it makes sense to me.