fast primes - or one zoom to rule them all?

elven

I was quite happily lusting after the Canon 28-135mm IS as a new walkaround lens, until I was speaking to a freind who mentioned "Oh yes, that used to be my favourite lens, but now I use the Sigma 105mm f2.8 macro because it's faster" and I started to wonder if I could conceivably be happy with a set of 3-4 fast prime lenses rather than trying to cover the whole focal range in one zoom. I already have my nifty fifty, obviously, and I was looking for something longer for picking out details - also a big bonus if I can have a dedicated macro lens for when I can't be bothered with the swapping about required to use my extension tubes - or even that I can use with the tubes to give me some super macro action!

Now I'm comparing the Sigma mentioned above, and the Canon 100mm f2.8 macro, or if I end up not being able to afford that then the Canon 100mm f2 (not a macro though ). Anyone got any of them? Anyone else consider the fast prime set rather than zooms for general use?

And anyway, is the ability to zoom between wide-medium-short telephoto-long telephoto something that we covet simply because it's available and convenient, or do you think you could work as well with a couple of primes, given the trade-off in speed?

DaireQuinlan

My sunny day walkaround lenses would be my 35-105 (with reasonably good macro) and 75-300. 300 ends up around the f5.6 mark though which is a problem.

For low light I've got my 24mm 2.8, 50 1.8 and 135 2.8 which all serve admirably. Some days I just stick that ole 24mm onto the camera though and walk around with it. I like it a lot

In addition I sometimes walk around with two bodies loaded with different films. And SOMETIMES I've got my Yashicamat TLR stuck into my bag aswell. This of course all gets real heavy real fast !

melekalikimaka

your threads cause me to procrastinate way too much for someone who has exams elven!

i prefer primes but it depends on scene, portrait/staged shots, definitely better, but not for action, zooming is important, until mp's start hitting the double digits for me and i can crop(giver d50 with 6 mp an angry stare). a 30mm prime and a 105mm prime are on my list after a 18-200vr.

magicbastarder

99% of my photos are taken on primes; i don't like using zooms. optical quality is not that big a factor in that - it's more DOF, shutter speed, and important for MF lenses, brightness of the viewfinder.

Paulw

My general walk around lens is my 24-70mm L. It covers most of what I want.

I have thought about getting 100mm f2.8. I did have this but foolishly got rid of it.

Again, my 24-70mm does most of my daily needs.

sineadw

I miss my primes terribly. I think having the range of a zoom is great for walking around, but 3.5-5.6 is just not cutting it for me. My plan is for decent primes and a cheaper all-rounder. And a bigger bag

DaireQuinlan

magicbastarder wrote:

99% of my photos are taken on primes; i don't like using zooms. optical quality is not that big a factor in that - it's more DOF, shutter speed, and important for MF lenses, brightness of the viewfinder.

Yeah this is a biggy, I actually find it almost impossible to focus using my 75-300 at 300 (f5.6) using a split prism on my FE2. Even the 35-105 at 105(f4.5) can be problematical at times, having to marginally shift your eye from side to side in front of the viewfinder trying to find that sweet spot. Its one of the reasons I got that F4 recently. Focus indicator doesn't have the same problems and the viewscreen is super bright, DOF preview is much less of a problem as well.

Fajitas!

I do prefer fast primes, like my 30 1.4, 50 1.4 and 105 2.8, but after using the 24-70 2.8 for a while, it is so so handy - If I'm out on the piss for a night, I'll always take my 50mm, but the zoom factor, particularly at a constant 2.8 is just handy as a prime.

The whole 'primes make you think more about composition' spiel dosn't wash with me really. I use primes for fast apertures and DOF.

pete4130

As a general walkaround lens I use the Sigma 18-50mm 2.8. I's not the cheapest around but it does cover most things and is still fast at any focal length. The 50mm max focal length on it can be somewhat limiting but anything more than that I would be using a longer lens anyway. On the plus side of the Sigma 18-50 it is really sharp, reasoanbly so when wide open which is where I'd probably use it the most. It is fast and it is macro (although shooting macro on a 50mm lens doesn't quite cut it but it does allow for very short minimum focussing distances). I'd definitly recommend it if you can live with the 50mm max focal length.

I also have the Sigma 50-150mm 2.8 which again I can't fault other than the 150mm being a tad on the short side for telephoto. Again its not a cheap lens but it is very fast, fosussing is good and I can't fault how sharp it is across the focal range.

I have the Nikon 50mm 1.8 but generally tend not to use it as much seeing as I have 50mm on the other 2 lenses at 2.8 unless its really low light or I want as distortion free image as possible (not that the 18-50 or 50-150 has incredibly noticeable distortion).

My other 2 primes would be my Sigma 15mm fisheye (on 35mm) and my Nikon 10.5mm fisheye. The Sigma 15mm is super sharp and a really fun lens around the city to use (22mm equivelant on D200). Real close focussing distances, a bit of barrel distortion and it can make things look very interesting. The nikon fisheye is sharp as you'd expect and got all the characteristics you'd expect from a fisheye. It is very easy to (ab)use but I do have a genuine use for one.

Here are a few examples:

18-50mm macro shot - http://www.flickr.com/photos/pete4130/465507777/

18-50mm - http://www.flickr.com/photos/pete4130/440109993/

Sigma 15mm - http://www.flickr.com/photos/pete4130/465496139/

Nikon 10.5mm fisheye - http://www.flickr.com/photos/pete4130/440091163/

Sigma 50-150mm - http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=439724306&size=o

Sigma 50-150mm - http://www.flickr.com/photos/pete4130/439708638/

Roen

Both tbh, mercifully modern lenses allow you to have the convenience of a zoom coupled with a nice wide max aperture. There will be times (seated indoor events) that one prime will be too short and the next FL up will be too long, that's where the fast zoom comes in.

Primes for everything else though. I'd be lost without them.

PaulieC

Elven, I had the 28-135 IS and to be honest, I didn't really like it that much. I prefer having my f-stops rather than the IS. I sold it and got the Sigma 24-70 2.8, which is great. Fair enough, it's not the Canon L 24-70 2.8 in terms of USM, or weather proofing, but I find the focussing fast enough and if I ever need weather proofing, I'll be indoors .
In theory I like the idea of a collection of fast primes, but in practice I know I'd be changing lenses too much. I hope to get the 70-200 2.8 in the summer sometime, and already have teh 10-20 so I'll be covered from 10-200 pretty much and that shoudl do me. I also have the 50 1.8 for extra loveliness when I want it.

magicbastarder

a mate of mine is selling a T&S lens; while i'd love to play with it, i couldn't justify the money.

elven

Aye well, if I was really splashing the cash, that sigma 50-150 f2.8 is lovely looking. You *can* have a nice wide aperture on a zoom lens but you have to pay for it And the 24-70 is just too short.

Fajitas, I know what you mean about the people who spout all that about composition etc etc. What I'm wondering is if I want the zoom capability because it's available, rather than actually needing it.

But... you say, you have the sigma 105? Hmmm...interesting

magicbastarder

i've always maintained that whatever slows you down usually helps with your photography. if a prime slows you down, it can be no harm - assuming, obviously, that the slowness in itself is not detrimental, as it would be in sports photography, for example.

kjoanna

Hi

I highly recommend 85/1.8. Its very good prime lens, sharp and fast. And ist cheap:)
I use it with 30D and I'm very happy.
One disadvantage: its not macro lens:(

Valentia

I have the Canon 100 2.8 and it is a fantastic lens. Incredibly sharp and does a mean macro though I haven't used it any thing like enough yet, but I will.

FreeAnd..

I have the Canon 100 2.8 and it is a fantastic lens. Incredibly sharp and does a mean macro though I haven't used it any thing like enough yet, but I will.

couldnt agree more, its a great lens that i also havent used enough yet either

elven

The bloke I know who has the sigma 105 macro said that he had a shot of the canon 100mm f2.8 and they had to forcefully remove it from him at the end of the day... the difference in price between them would probably be worth it, if I can just content myself with not having that 200mm reach, and using my current old sigma 28-80 for wider shots.

FreeAnd..

the 100mm is not that expensive if i remember, just be old albert a call...it produces L quality images and is almost an L lens - autofocus seems to be all that isnt L quality...

mervifwdc

I think when asked what Lenses we want the answer is "all of them". The hard part is to know what to put in thebag when your going somewhere. The last weekend trip away I had, I brought an 35/f2, 85/f1.8 and 135/f2.

Fantastic in theory, crap in practice. I was with my wife, who was not interested ina 5 minute lens swap and compositional analysis process at every object we saw. I was sorry I did'nt bring a zoom.

Last week I was away on business and had a few hours in vienna, and I had a zoom. I was sorry I did'nt bring the primes, as I would have had all the time in the world for a few specific shots.

Just get them all. :-)

Merv.

Paulw

mervifwdc wrote:

I think when asked what Lenses we want the answer is "all of them".
Just get them all. :-)

Merv.

I think the phrase - "When I win the Euro Millions ....." comes to mind.

elven

mervifwdc wrote:

Fantastic in theory, crap in practice. I was with my wife, who was not interested in a 5 minute lens swap

The swapping of lenses is also in the back of my mind. But I'm not sure if that's just me sacrificing possible quality for laziness sake. It also takes me less than 5 mins to swap lenses because I'm a bit careless, tbh. Or I could put it down to my super nifty easy access swingy roundy sligshot bag...

I think I'm at the stage where I can't expect to buy one lens that will cover all my needs, and it's just a case of deciding on priorities.

Covey

I think you'd find the Sigma 105 2,8 not an ideal walkabout lens. The autofocus is sooo slow, unless your used to total manual focus you'd find it a hindrence.

Sharp, good lens though.

T.

elven

Thanks Covey, sounds like a common complaint. If I can manage it I think I'm going to go for the canon 100mm macro.

Roen

To be honest the AF on the 100 macro is not slow at all, every review I ever read about it says that it is but I never found it so in practice. It's certainly miles faster than the 85 1.2 but slower than the 135 f 2, but both of those lenses are kind of extremes of speed and slowness so it's not really fair to compare.
Using the focus limiter switch also helps a little.

A friend of mine who uses the old 28-80 or 28-90 (it's cat whatever it is) was amazed by how fast the macro focused.

Only one way to find out though Julie, and that's get your hands on one for a day. It shouldn't be a problem as lots of us here have one.

Covey

Are we talking the Canon 100mm or the Sigma 105mm here?

The Sigma is painfully slow AF. Not a problem if you use it for Macro work as you would mainly go to MF. Not a big problem for portraits either, where you have time to set up etc. and it is a great little lens.

But try using it for street photography or the like and your in bother i.e. lots of missed shots etc.

T.

elven

I'm after the canon 100mm f2.8 macro. I have a wedding later in the year that it might be useful for too, for intimate portraits from further away, with nice shallow dof. I think my heart is set on that one now, hopefully someone brings one to one the next few boards meets and I can have a wee shot just to check how it feels Now I just need another body so I can have that on one and the nifty fifty on another!!!!

Valentia

elven wrote:

Now I just need another body!

Couldn't we all. Although I gave up white bread awhile ago and seems to be having an effect .

Fenster

To reply to the OP, ignore what everyone else and get a lens based upon your own wants and needs. For myself, there's always a place for both prime and zoom lenses. I prefer primes for low-light work and photos that require quality (IR too) and my zoom for most walkabouts as it's much easier to just be carrying one lens.