Canon primes, what's good?

F

fixedimage

Suspended / Banned
Messages
902
Edit My Images
No
Thinking of shifting my 17-40 f4L and 70-200 f4L and replacing them with some primes.

I'm looking to make as little outlay as possible so reckon I'll lose some of my long end but reckon I can live with that, was thinking I'd go with either a 100mm f2.8 macro or 100mm f2 non macro, either of these significantly better for general use that tother? There's also the Siggy 105mm f2.8 that I'd consider. I'd maybe get a TC to bring me back up nearer the 200mm mark too.

I have a 50mm f1.8 so that's fine and that just leaves a wide, I'd be looking at maybe the 20mm or the 24mm, think 28mm might not be wide enough.There doesn't seem to me much in my budget wider than 20mm, I could goto a Siggy 15mm bt I had one before and it's a bit gimmicky I think. Is the Samyang 14mm quite fisheye or is it more of a UWA?
 
Is this for full frame?

The EF 85mm f/1.8 is very good VFM (extremely sharp above f/2) and a very handy focal length. I love mine. I'd seriously consider it.

The 100mm f/2 is AFAIK the same optical formula, but I've not tried it.

I enjoy the Canon EF 35mm f/2, though the construction is closer to the 50mm f/1.8 than anything else. Sounds like you're after something a little wider, though.

I wouldn't rule out the Canon EF 24mm f/2.8. I don't have the EF version, but the FD model upon which it's based on is one of my favourites.
 
The Samyang 14mm is a rectilinear lens not a fisheye. Given the modest-ish aperture and massively wide angle I wouldn't be put off by the manual setup of the lens. Using hyper-focal distances you can stop down to achieve infinite focus anyway.
 
Last edited:
Should have said that, at the moment I have a 5D1 and a 1D2.

I'd be worried that the 85mm was too close to the 50mm for it (or the 50) to see much use if i had them both.

Manual focus doesn't really put me off so Samyang could be a good shout. Might actually consider their 85mm too.
 
Musicman said:
Is this for full frame?

The EF 85mm f/1.8 is very good VFM (extremely sharp above f/2) and a very handy focal length. I love mine. I'd seriously consider it.

The 100mm f/2 is AFAIK the same optical formula, but I've not tried it.

I enjoy the Canon EF 35mm f/2, though the construction is closer to the 50mm f/1.8 than anything else. Sounds like you're after something a little wider, though.

I wouldn't rule out the Canon EF 24mm f/2.8. I don't have the EF version, but the FD model upon which it's based on is one of my favourites.
Click to expand...

i took a punt on the 100/2 when i bought my 5d and i absolutely love it! i debated whether or not to get the 85/1.8 but went for the 100 because
i use a crop sensor backup and the 100 on it will give me decent reach (i don't use a tele-photo zoom at the minute).

if you want some pics from it let me know and i can throw some up, rather than filling your post with unnecessary images lol
 
What'll you get for your 17-40 and 70-200? £400 apiece? £800 to buy into primes isn't going to leave you a lot of options if you want wides, medium-teles and a TC. What is it your current lenses can't do, just out of interest?
 
I did a review of the 100 f/2 a while back, can be found here. In terms of the f/2 vs the macro, the choice lays between a stop faster, or closer focusing and a slight increase in sharpness (both at f/2.8).

Since that review I've been out with the lens a little bit more (a set can be found here, some shot with a 10-20 UWA but the EXIF should all be intact) and can get the lens quite easy, so any sample shots you would like I should be able to grab quite easily for you :)

Overall it's a nice lens and great for portraits (on both crop and FF)
 
specialman said:
What'll you get for your 17-40 and 70-200? £400 apiece? £800 to buy into primes isn't going to leave you a lot of options if you want wides, medium-teles and a TC. What is it your current lenses can't do, just out of interest?
Click to expand...

in the absence of the OP to answer this i would guess he's after faster apertures :thinking:

i have no experience of L zooms but from what i've heard the IQ is very good, would primes offer much of an improvement over what he already has? i use a sigma 24-70/2.8 and although it is pretty good for most of what i do, i still prefer using primes and i think that's where my money will be spent in the future. sure, the sigma won't be on the same level as canons' L lenses but the IQ of even the 50/1.8 amazes me at times.
 
I'd get a Canon 28 1.8 (its soft, I dont care), a 85 1.8 and a 135L if I was buying lenses again from scratch.
 
lexie said:
in the absence of the OP to answer this i would guess he's after faster apertures :thinking:

i have no experience of L zooms but from what i've heard the IQ is very good, would primes offer much of an improvement over what he already has? i use a sigma 24-70/2.8 and although it is pretty good for most of what i do, i still prefer using primes and i think that's where my money will be spent in the future. sure, the sigma won't be on the same level as canons' L lenses but the IQ of even the 50/1.8 amazes me at times.
Click to expand...

Probably - everyone these days wants paper-thin DoF it seems.

On L zooms, the two that the OP owns are top-notch. I used a 17-40 for about seven years at work and the same lens stuck with me come rain or shine. Optically it was good as I could have hoped for, especially for the money, and the build is excellent. Really was the only lens I missed when I moved to Nikon. The 70-200 f/4 is a really tidy lens and is possibly one that Nikon could do with having in its range to service those people who don't want 'kit-style' lenses (70-300/55-250 etc) but who can't afford top-end f/2.8 glass. It's compact, sharp and very good on both FF and crop.
 
Faster apertures, yes a wee bit, for low light performance though rather than DOF.

Mostly though I just want a change. Which is probably stupid because I haven't actually had this kit that long. I've been using my DSLR stuff a lot less as time goes on because my tastes and styles mean I'm happier shooting with other kit. I'm kind of reticent to get rid of the DSLRs altogether though as I still do/try to do some 2nd shooter wedding work, press agency work and general freelancing. I've just applied for a job in a magazine which I doubt I'll get but if I did then a DSLR would be a must have, there'll probably be more like this so thinking I should maybe keep a DSLR or two around.

If they did go then they'd most likely be replaced by a Contax G plus a few lenses + adaptors to use the lenses on my NEX + a possible upgrade from NEX3 to 5 or 5n.

There's also the option to go back to Nikon, get a DSLR (but I'd struggle to get something FF which I think I'd miss) and a good film body (F100/F3 etc) which could share lenses between them and with my NEX thanks to them having aperture rings.
 
Are the primes( 100 f2,85,135) all L lenses?When I look at Kerso's list there seem to be several options?
 
The Canon 35mm f/2 is stunning, I love it and having used the f/1.4 variant, I'm more than happy to save £1k and stick with the f/2, even though the f/1.4 looks far more business like!
 
You simply cannot go wrong with the 100 f2.8ISL.

This is regarded as one of Canon's sharpest lenses, has a VERY effective IS system and is a handy focal length for portraiture plus it is obviously a great macro lens.

As these things go it is even cheap for such quality "L" glass.

Lots of good recommendations above also.

If you want to save some cash, and by way of a bit of a plug, I notice Draiman has a phenomenal selction of primes avalable on the "For Sale" forum at the moment as well.

Good luck with your selection(s).
 
are the 35 and 100 just mentioned both macro lenses and ar they L lenses.Sorry to be a pain, just tring to find the correct revews.
Confused and thanks in advance.
And can they both be used with the 50D?
 
Last edited:
The 35mm f/2 isn't an L lens but it's almost (95%) optically as good as the f/1.4 which is an L lens. Neither are macro but the 100mm mentioned is.

The price difference for the 35mm non L and L lenses;

F/2 - new £290
F/1.4 L - new £1,199 !!

Having used both, the reality is the L lens is simply not worth the extra £911 (though both tested in a crop so the corners might vary) and I got my f/2 which was used but a 2010 lens for £160.

With reference to your last bit, ALL Canon lenses can be used on the 50d so no worries there!
 
Last edited:
Many thanks,Jim, for explaining.I'm starting to get very interested in the 35 f/2.Seems a good price.IQ seems very good judging by the flickr photos I've looked at.
 
ab2012 said:
Are the primes( 100 f2,85,135) all L lenses?
Click to expand...

No, not by a long stretch.

"L" primes:
14/2.8, 17/4.0 TS-E, 24/1.4, 24/3.5 TS-E, 35/1.4, 50/1.2, 85/1.2, 100/2.8 IS Macro, 135/2.0, and everything longer than 135 except the 400/4.0 DO IS.

Non-"L" primes:
20/2.8, 24/2.8, 28/1.8, 28/2.8, 35/2.0, 45/2.8 TS-E, 50/1.4, 50/1.8, 50/2.5 Macro, 60/2.8 EF-S Macro, 85/1.8, 90/2.8 TS-E, 100/2.0, 100/2.8 Macro, 135/2.8 SF, 400/4.0 DO IS.
 
You missed the 15/2.8 (non-L) Stewart :'(

Bob
 
odd jim said:
The 35mm f/2 isn't an L lens but it's almost (95%) optically as good as the f/1.4 which is an L lens. Neither are macro but the 100mm mentioned is.

The price difference for the 35mm non L and L lenses;

F/2 - new £290
F/1.4 L - new £1,199 !!

Having used both, the reality is the L lens is simply not worth the extra £911 (though both tested in a crop so the corners might vary) and I got my f/2 which was used but a 2010 lens for £160.

With reference to your last bit, ALL Canon lenses can be used on the 50d so no worries there!
Click to expand...

Been looking at getting a 35mm f/2. As jim states it looks to be a cracking lens and so much cheaper that the 1.4. Also checkout the comparison of the 35mm f/2 and f/1.4 on DigitalRev video. Although I'm also interested in the Samyang 35mm now (manual only).
 
85mm f1.8 - NOT because I'm selling one at the moment, before anyone says. But because it's the perfect portrait focal length, lovely bokeh and nice n' sharp too.

I love the nifty, but for me it's gotta be the 85mm - it's the lens I used most at weddings!
 
odd jim said:
The 35mm f/2 isn't an L lens but it's almost (95%) optically as good as the f/1.4 which is an L lens. Neither are macro but the 100mm mentioned is.

The price difference for the 35mm non L and L lenses;

F/2 - new £290
F/1.4 L - new £1,199 !!

Having used both, the reality is the L lens is simply not worth the extra £911 (though both tested in a crop so the corners might vary) and I got my f/2 which was used but a 2010 lens for £160.

With reference to your last bit, ALL Canon lenses can be used on the 50d so no worries there!
Click to expand...

Apologies for the intrusion a sec Op - is the 35mm f/2 good for a crop (500D)? I have the 50mm f2.5 and the 100mm f2.8L and they are fab lenses - would like to add something a little wider which is sharp, doesn't break the bank isn't too wide for people but still wide enough on my camera (also have the 18-55IS)

The 100mm f2.8 is such a good lens Op, if you could get one then I would wholly recommend it (it is a Macro lens too)
 
Iris said:
Apologies for the intrusion a sec Op - is the 35mm f/2 good for a crop (500D)? I have the 50mm f2.5 and the 100mm f2.8L and they are fab lenses - would like to add something a little wider which is sharp, doesn't break the bank isn't too wide for people but still wide enough on my camera (also have the 18-55IS)

The 100mm f2.8 is such a good lens Op, if you could get one then I would wholly recommend it (it is a Macro lens too)
Click to expand...

The 35mm f/2 is stunning on a crop.

The focal length is very versatile for crops and even wide open at f/2 its still very sharp.

Brilliant little lens, and if I'm honest, it's the only prime I use now, the 50mm and 85mm don't get a look in!
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
The 35mm f/2 is stunning on a crop.

The focal length is very versatile for crops and even wide open at f/2 its still very sharp.

Brilliant little lens, and if I'm honest, it's the only prime I use now, the 50mm and 85mm don't get a look in!
Click to expand...

great stuff, I'm off to scope it out now - don't think my other half is overly impressed at my ever increasing shopping list :lol:
 
Iris said:
great stuff, I'm off to scope it out now - don't think my other half is overly impressed at my ever increasing shopping list :lol:
Click to expand...

Lol send her my apologies!
 
anyone got the Canon 135 with soft focus or anyone had it?What do you think?Sounds appealing;
 
The 135/2.8 SF is a bit of a relic with the advent of digital.. Most people go for sharp in the shoot and do the soft focus effect in post processing now (although usually you'd just smooth the skin and not the whole image). I've tried one and it feels like a leftover from the 80's.

The 100/2 is a stop faster and the 100/2.8 gives you an excellent macro lens + is a lot sharper than the SF at zero setting. Both also feature USM for fast & silent focus. Build quality is also better than on the SF. The macro lens has a focus limiter so you're not going to hunt all the way to 30cm and back either.

I don't really see any point in getting the soft focus lens to be honest. The 100mm options are much better if you can't stretch to the 135/2 which takes the cake and then some.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top