From 50mm to 85, 100, 135, 200?

mrmatt

I just picked up an EF 50mm f/1.8 II as my first prime and I'm liking it so far as my other kit lens appears to be utter garbage. Since the cost for the 50mm was so cheap I'd like to grab another lens, but I'm not sure how to proceed.

Normally if I were reading this post I would want to know "What do you want to do with the new lens?" but I'm taking a different slant on this next purchase. I think my problem with DSLRs in the past was trying to do too much at once. I'm taking a step back and going to basics. That means going with primes in order to force myself to think more of my shots, limit the variables with my shooting, and to gain the advantages of the primes (speed, low light, sharpness).

So, with my 50mm in my bag, I was looking that the 85mm f/1.8 as a cheap addition to my collection. But I started to wonder if it wouldn't offer enough difference over my 50mm to be a wise choice. The 100m f/2 might give me more distance coverage for very cheap but then there's the very highly recommended 135 mm f/2 L ... but that's getting pricey. The 200mm f/2.8 II isn't as expensive, and it has good reviews, but then I'm jumping from 50mm to 200mm, which seems drastic.

Whew. If you're reading this far you deserve a cookie. I think what I'm looking for is advice for someone who wishes to learn and improve their skills instead of someone who is seeking to fill a need (sports, weddings). What would you recommend to someone looking to learn to go with the 50mm?

wxwax

If you shoot sports and weddings, and could only afford two moderately priced lenses, I'd add the 200 to your bag. And a 1.4 extender. For sports, you need the reach.

I'm quite sure others will have differing opinions.

cmason

Seems to me that if you are trying to accomplish composition 'with your feet', then getting a lens where your feet can actually make a difference would be important. So, moving around with a 200mm lens won't help that much, unless you are going to move many yards (tough if you can't go on a soccer field or into a lake)

So for length, I would HIGHLY recommend the 70-200 f/4 L. It is reasonably priced, L quality, and a good range. Can't go wrong, and a good choice while you decide what you like.

On the other hand, your feet can make an impact with a wider lens. I would consider 35 or 20mm, and Sigma makes some very well respected models here that are not too expensive. You may wish to consider a 10-20mm as well here, but that gets you into zooms.

gus

I like my primes but 'bang for buck' you would be hard pressed to find a better priced more universal lens to do what your asking than the 70-200 f4. I dont own one but will one day...from all my searching it has the goods at a fair price. Just wish it was black.

I sit on f4-f5.6 with my 135 f2 95% of the time anyway.

RedSox

Like you said, it is hard to make recommendation if you cannot tell what you really want to shoot. Interesting that you did not mention that you want a wider prime. You have a 1.6 crop sensor, you probably need a wider lens than 28mm, which is approximately 45mm on a 35mm equivalent SLR. I found myself longing for a fast wider prime during my recent European trip.

Eric

pathfinder

If you are going to go primes, versus zooms, think in ratios of 1:2

18, 36, 70, 140, 300 for an APS sensor camera - Roll these around a bit, and look at a 17-20mmf2.8 wide angle, 35mm f2.0 for a standard lens, 75-85f2.8 for moderate tele, and the jump to 300 f4 for a longer tele.

For a full frame camera - think 24mm wide, 50mm normal, 100-135 med tele, and 200-300 long tele. That is why the 24-105 f4 IS L is such lovely lens - One lens covers 85% of the ranges you need outdoors most of the time. ANd the 70-200 zoom has been a FFrame standard for 30 years.

17-35 zooms, and 28-75 zooms cover similar ranges for APS cameras, but give some resolution to the primes.

I love primes too, and own a passel of them, but I have to admit that I shoot with good quality zooms a lot also. It is good to know more than one way to skin a cat:):

If I know what I am planning to shoot and what lens I need, I will use a prime. But for wandering about like a tourist, looking for something to pique my eye, I tend to haul a nice zoom or two.

Both techniques work. The good craftsman needs to be aware of different ways to accomplish a goal.

wxwax

If you really shoot sports, I wouldn't buy an f4. Too limiting. Gus is on the right track, but unfortunately the zoom you really want, the 70-200 2.8, is way to expensive.

Manfr3d

Selecting focal lengths: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/theartof.shtml#Focal%20Length%20Comparison
(scroll up one paragraph)

gus

wxwax wrote:

If you really shoot sports, I wouldn't buy an f4. Too limiting. Gus is on the right track, but unfortunately the zoom you really want, the 70-200 2.8, is way to expensive.

After maybe 5-6000 shots i can safely say that i never shoot lower than f4 with my 135 prime (often f5.6). I just miss too much with stuff like the front of a race bike in focus & the rear out just enough that it looks bad & not artistic or ment to be that way.

Thats the beauty with just leaving the canon on ISO400...i dont worry about lost speed & the shots are spot on noise wise.

My 2 bob.

saurora

A Good "l" Quality Zoom Is A Joy To Own
I have learned to appreciate the prime lenses and have a couple. But they do have their limitations, plus to be prepared for the unexpected, I would feel like I had to bring all of them with me and that's just not practical. So a really good L quality zoom is a joy to own. I have the 24-105 f/4L IS USM and I love that lens! I never leave home without it, even if I am planning on shooting with my 200 f/2.8L. It's my most expensive lens, but has been the best buy I have made. If I didn't own it, I would have the 70-200 f/4L. That lens is extremely popular and tack sharp. The 200 is a beautiful piece of glass, but for me I am finding it to never be the right length....even with an extender, it is not as long as I would like and I have to do a lot of cropping to get the shot I want. I am really using the 200 alot right now trying to see if it's a lens I want to keep or eventually sell. I am considering the 300 f/4L IS. That's as long as I care to go and I couldn't hand-hold anything heavier. Like Gus, I wish it was black!!! Buying lenses is like buying a new car. There are so many choices and no one lens is perfect for every situation. Even if you don't know what you are going to be shooting, you always wish you had brought the other lens along!!! I sometimes wish I were a wedding photographer or something more specialized. Generally, those photogs usually only need 2 lenses to get by!!

mrmatt

Thanks for the replies so far. I know my post rambles a bit but I think that's because my mind is all over the map on this next lens decision.

I wish I could be more specific as to what I'm going to do with the lens but I think I must be one of the odd photographers who doesn't have a strong preference for a certain type of shot or subject. The one thing I can be sure of is that I do take pictures of people and pets and so far the 50mm is doing a decent job of that. But other than that I don't have any strong needs to drive my next purchase ... like shooting high school football at night for example.

For zooms I am giving the 70-200 f/4 L some serious thought. It's highly rated and affordable. But I keep thinking a prime would be better for my education. I think one of the main reasons I haven't been happy with my 10D lately is that with a zoom I'm not paying enough attention to what I'm doing with the zoom and what the zoom is doing to my shot. That and my previous lenses were garbage.

Sorry for the rambling. I have a trip to Maine coming up and I'd like a new lens for that trip. I'm also debating an upgrade in camera so I'm trying to save cash as well. I've got a few things to consider.

cmason

Well you can always get a zoom and as an exercise, not touch the zoom barrel...try a day shooting at 100mm. That way you can get the flexibility of a zoom, and learn if a prime better suits your needs.

When I was shopping for my latest lens, (I used an older zoom lens), I actually reviewed my photos from the last year, to see what focal length I used most often. As it turns out, 100mm on the 'long end" and 40mm on the short. So I went into it to get the 24-105L, but chickened out when the price came into reality. But it remains the lens that best suits my needs, and the Tamron will have to do for a while...

claudermilk

It seems to me that if the glass you have is working for you right now, why are you in a rush to buy another lens? Use what you have until you find a need that isn't filled by your current kit--then the choice of the next lens will become clear. When I supplemented my junk kit lens with the 50/1.8, I shot that for most of a year before getting my next lens. Ok, so going to the 24-70/2.8L forced the long delay to gather funds as well--but I knew it was the right range too.

wxwax

gus wrote:

After maybe 5-6000 shots i can safely say that i never shoot lower than f4 with my 135 prime (often f5.6). I just miss too much with stuff like the front of a race bike in focus & the rear out just enough that it looks bad & not artistic or ment to be that way.

Thats the beauty with just leaving the canon on ISO400...i dont worry about lost speed & the shots are spot on noise wise.

My 2 bob.

Understood.

And it now sounds like Matt isn't so sure about sports. Here, sports would typically be things like baseball, football and basketball, often played under less than ideal lighting conditions, which means you want faster glass.

With baseball and football, the action's too far away to worry about narrow depth of field - you're just hoping to get a decent shutter speed under lights, or as the sun goes down. Hence the desirability of a 2.8 versus an f4.

gpphotos

im a nikonian, so this may not help much, but i recently picked up a 105mm f/1.8 and a 2x teleconverter...which gives me an ultra-compact 210mm f/3.6 lens. its great for shooting low light theater shots where i cant be close to the stage...and the combo is nice for some sports as long as i dont have to stop any super-fast action like a baseball being thrown or something like that.

i also use the teleconverter on my 55-200mm kit lens when speed really isnt important. the teleconverter was a very economical solution; i got it off of ebay for $50