Recommend me a couple of Canon primes

scottduffy

scottduffy

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,348
Name
Scott
Edit My Images
Yes
Guy's i have been back and forth with zooms and have now decided i am going to purchase a couple of Canon/Canon fit primes and was wondering if anyone could recommend any.

My last two lenses have produced very good image quality and for different reasons have just not been practical. The Tamron 17-50 Non VC was excellent but not long enough for outdoors and the Canon 70-200 F4L was again excellent but too long for indoors. If i could afford both i would and just be done with it but my budget wont allow this.

I will be looking to spend £400-£500 max on two primes and i was thinking a Canon 50mm F1.4 and maybe an 85mm f1.8. I have not used any of the shorter primes like the 35mm etc but would like to hear from anyone who has experience of using different primes. I am mostly shooting people indoors and outdoors.

Does anyone think these two focal lengths are too close to each other and i should maybe look at the Canon 100m f2 or even the Canon 100mm macro and the 50mm f1.8.
 
Last edited:
I've got those two and a 28mm F/1.8 and they make a very good set for me.
I'd like something wider as I've got a crop sensor, but until there's an affordable ultrawide prime I'll make do.
My three are cracking lenses!

Have a look at your previous pictures and see what focal length you tend to prefer - this might help you decide. I think you can do this with Exposureplot (free download last time I looked).
 
I think that primes are only useful in two situation, when you need a wide aperture and when you want macro, so I personally would always go for f1.4/f1.8 for wide aperture lenses and f2.5/f2.8 for macro.

I like wider lenses myself and I find 50mm a bit long on APS-C, for me it gives a very restricted field of view only useful for relatively tight shots and difficult to use in many indoor locations when you simply can't back up enough.

I think that it would be a shame not to consider the Sigma 50mm f1.4 which some reviewers think is the best of the bunch and the Sigma 30mm f1.4 which is regarded by many as an excellent lens.
 
I had thought about the Sigma 50mm but i wasn't sure how much these sold for. I never gave the 30mm a thought but i'll go have a read about it now. Thanks for the advice.
 
Maybe keep in mind that the Siggy 30mm f1.4 is a DC lens and therefore not FF compatible. You do get a hood and case with both these lenses.
 
I considered the 85 f1.8 before purchasing the 50 f1.4. The 85 gets excellent reviews and is often compared to L glass withouth the £££'s. I guess it depends where you feel you would use it. I purchased the 50 1.4 specifically to take indoor photos of our new grandson. Lovely lens even at 1.4. Though group shots indoors are tricky as you need a bit of distance on a crop sensor(50x1.6 78mm?) Also good for outdoors and evening vistas.
You could see how it feels with the focal length and take one lens and ony shoot at 50 or 85... and go from there
 
Also...the long awaited Sigma 85mm f1.4 appears not to have been just a dream and is now in the shops...tempting...
 
If you want something in between the 50mm and the 70-200mm maybe a manual lens might be better. The helios 44M is a 58mm which(there are 7 versions) (F=2) can be pick up for around a tenner on ebay. Very sharp for an old lens. Will need an M42 EOS adapter though.
 
My choice with the Canon 50D you have would be the EF-s 60mm Macro f2.8 (great portrait lens too) and the 30mm f1.4. Not sure you can get both for £500 though.
 
The 85mm is unbeatable for value and is a cracking lens. You'll struggle to find people who complain about it. I wouldn't bother with the 50mm f1.4, think about the angle of view and speed you need and choose between the 28mm f2.8, 35mm f2 and 50mm f1.8, which should come within your budget
 
If you're determined to go down the prime route, I wonder how you'd think about MF lenses? I've come to these of late and get a great enjoyment from them and give, in effect the same amount of control as going down the route of full manual control on the camera. This gets you a whole wide world of variety, often at lower prices than current spec camera make lenses. How about a 50mm f/1.4 lens for around £80?
In terms of focal lengths, this has got to be influenced by what you shoot. In AF lenses I have the 50mm f/1.4 Canon - personally I'd say there's not much to be gained over and above what I got with a 50mm f/1.8 mk1 - so there's a saving to be spent elsewhere. I have a Sigma 105 macro which could be pressed into service as a portrait lens.
In MF lenses I've picked up a range of primes, all of which get pressed into regular use - 50mm, 135mm and 200mm. I've also got but find not much use for lenses in 28mm and 35mm prime. But, hey, that's how I use my FF body. What you need will probably differ for your 50D.
 
woof woof said:
I think that primes are only useful in two situation, when you need a wide aperture and when you want macro.
Click to expand...

You need to widen your horizons my friend :)

I have the following primes 400, 300, 135, 85, 50 and 35 .. I have one 17-40 zoom .. I shoot sports mostly but also theatre and gigs as well as other stuff... Primes are not limiting and certainly more use than wide and macro :)
 
tikkathreebarrel said:
If you're determined to go down the prime route, I wonder how you'd think about MF lenses? I've come to these of late and get a great enjoyment from them and give, in effect the same amount of control as going down the route of full manual control on the camera. This gets you a whole wide world of variety, often at lower prices than current spec camera make lenses. How about a 50mm f/1.4 lens for around £80?
In terms of focal lengths, this has got to be influenced by what you shoot. In AF lenses I have the 50mm f/1.4 Canon - personally I'd say there's not much to be gained over and above what I got with a 50mm f/1.8 mk1 - so there's a saving to be spent elsewhere. I have a Sigma 105 macro which could be pressed into service as a portrait lens.
In MF lenses I've picked up a range of primes, all of which get pressed into regular use - 50mm, 135mm and 200mm. I've also got but find not much use for lenses in 28mm and 35mm prime. But, hey, that's how I use my FF body. What you need will probably differ for your 50D.
Click to expand...

I would disagree. Precise manual focusing at 1.4 or even 2.8 is hard at best, and in practice not completely accurate. If there is any action going on the task becomes a few times more difficult. There is a reason why AF is a standard feature in every dSLR, and some, like 1D, have a really good AF.
 
KIPAX said:
You need to widen your horizons my friend :)

I have the following primes 400, 300, 135, 85, 50 and 35 .. I have one 17-40 zoom .. I shoot sports mostly but also theatre and gigs as well as other stuff... Primes are not limiting and certainly more use than wide and macro :)
Click to expand...

The reason I said what I said is that many modern zooms are good and I therefore see no advantage to my photography in using a non macro prime slower than f2.8 as any additional IQ that a prime may offer will only be visible in extremely large prints or when excessively pixel peeping. Neither of which I tend to do except out of curiosity.

Actually, that's assuming that the prime offers any increased IQ as some were designed many years ago and a modern zoom might actually offer better IQ as well as increased flexibility.

I'm not into using a prime over a zoom lens for any kudos. An acceptable mix of IQ and ease of use will do me fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top