Decent Primes

topcatproduction

topcatproduction

Suspended / Banned
Messages
500
Edit My Images
Yes
What choice is there for primes up to about 85mm that don't cost an arm and a leg for Canon? The only ones I have seen (after a very brief search) seem to have the red ring and cost a fortune!

Just wondering about a couple of primes instead of spending lots on a 17-55, that should give even better performance for low light- though its still only a thought as a zoom is very versatile and the 17-55 gets great reviews anyway...
 
There's a Canon 50mm F1.8 you can buy on here for £75 I believe in the for sale section.

It's a great lens and I still use mine loads. Great for low light and for a cheap useable lens. Lot of people use them for Gig/ Music photography, some for Weddings, Portraits also.
 
There is the Canon 35f2 (or Sigma 30f1.4), Canon or Sigma 50f1.4 and Canon 85f1.8

I thought of a similar approach myself but went with the 17-55IS for it's versatility, and it was cheaper than 3 primes.
 
You can't go wrong with the 50 1.8 for the money.....the 85 1.8 is even better but probably a bit long on a 400D depending on what you're doing with it.
 
I always shot with primes during most of my photo career. Earlier zoom lenses for still cameras were so poor that few self respecting photographers would use one. When I shot with my first zoom lens (a 43-86mm Nikkor during the mid 1960's) I absolutely loved shooting with it because it seemed so versatile. That is I loved shooting with it until I saw the images it produced and then, I never picked up the lens again (I was a Navy photographer and had access to a large variety of lenses).

However, by the time the EOS cameras and lenses came around the quality of the zooms had increased dramatically.

Yes, prime lenses usually are still faster than today's zooms. If you absolutely need a fast f/stop for venues like indoor volleyball or basketball without flash, the primes are the way to go.

Yes, individual primes can be less expensive than zooms but, it is often as expensive to purchase several primes to cover the focal length of a zoom AND, I personally do not like shooting with primes unless I shoot with at least two cameras. Otherwise, I will be missing a lot of shots while changing lenses.

Yes, the image quality from some selected primes might be a bit better than from selected zooms. However, top line zoom lenses provide sufficient image quality for all but the most dedicated pixel peekers. However, we are considering use of the entire frame (whether that be a full frame, 1.3x, 1.5x or 1.6x crop). I am most often able to utilize the entire frame when I am shooting with a zoom lens because I can crop in the camera. When shooting with a prime lens I have three choices: be in the perfect spot for the photo, zoom with my feet or accept that I will need to crop at least some of the image. Choices numbers one and two are not always available and choice number three will degrade the image somewhat.

IMO a top-grade mid-range zoom lens with a constant f/2.8 aperture should be the anchor of every serious photographer's lens battery.
 
Thanks for the replies, I haven't yet bought the 17-55, but I was considering a 15-85 lens, as it is only a f/4 I though maybe get some primes too for low light, but I think I will be better off with a 17-55 and as you said- no risk of losing shots (unless I need over 55mm :lol:) as there is by having primes on the body. I'm not a pro so no point me wasting money as if there is not much gain I probably won't use them much!

I'm still tempted to get a cheap nifty fifty though to leave on the camera when lots of people are using the camera at family meals etc in a dimly lit house for fun! Think I'd be a bit nervous with a 17-55 left on there for people to "play" with :eek:
 
17-55 will cost about same or less as a few good primes, and there are non that wide and affordable too. 85mm f/1.8 is excellent, all 50mm quite poor (get sigma 50mm f/1.4 instead),
 
What about the tamron 17-50? (with or without VR)

IQ wise they are said to be similar but the canon has superior build quality. Personally i could only see myself having several primes if i had two bodies, otherwise i would want a standard zoom of some description.
 
I'd suggest (because I'm 2 thirds of the way to acquiring ;)) the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, the canon 85mm f/1.8, and maybe a sigma 30mm f/1.4? About the same price as the Canon 17-55, but you'll have the versatility of a zoom and the extra speed of the primes. I would have loved the Canon 17-55, but I didn't feel it was worth the extra over the tamron. You may however, it's only really something you can answer!

Chris
 
Its the IS and USM along with an IQ edge that I have chosen to get the 17-55 over the Tamron, I want fast AF and hear that the Canon USM does it fast and quietly.

The 30 and 85 primes would be nice- but I fear I wouldn't use them (or the 30) with a good zoom. I am also planning on replacing my 75-300 with a 70-300 IS USM so my whole range will be basically covered, maybe I should stay with my plans and can always add a couple of primes in the future once I know which focal length I would use the most etc. The 17-55 and 70-300 are the 2 best zooms I can think of for my use, a 400mm would be nice but I dont want to get into the massive white lens thing as I'm not an overconfident photographer and don't want the attention and risk of a foot long white lens out in crowds!!! Maybe I'll save up and paint it black!!
 
topcatproduction said:
Its the IS and USM along with an IQ edge that I have chosen to get the 17-55 over the Tamron, I want fast AF and hear that the Canon USM does it fast and quietly.

The 30 and 85 primes would be nice- but I fear I wouldn't use them (or the 30) with a good zoom. I am also planning on replacing my 75-300 with a 70-300 IS USM so my whole range will be basically covered, maybe I should stay with my plans and can always add a couple of primes in the future once I know which focal length I would use the most etc. The 17-55 and 70-300 are the 2 best zooms I can think of for my use, a 400mm would be nice but I dont want to get into the massive white lens thing as I'm not an overconfident photographer and don't want the attention and risk of a foot long white lens out in crowds!!! Maybe I'll save up and paint it black!!
Click to expand...

Fair do's! The Tamron AF is a bit loud, but I really didn't have the cash at the time to get the 17-55! The 70-300 IS USM is an absolute belter (nice and subtle too!), I only sold mine to raise funds for a 70-200 and I'll be getting a 100-400 around the end of the year hopefully!

That's a good strategy about the primes, use your zooms then look at what focal length you're using most.

17-55 and 70-300 is a top combo though, and you're going to be very happy :thumbs:

Chris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top