Question on spacing lenses

Manfr3d · November 29, 2006

Howdy all!

I am at a point where I have to decide
which way to go with my lens arsenal.
I dont want lenses to overlap but I
also dont want them to be too far
apart from each other focal length wise.

Here are my two considerations for a crop body:

Option 1)

50mm/1.4, 85mm/1.8, 135mm/2.0, 1.4x Extender

This would give me effectively the following focal lengths (crop):

50mm/1.4 (~80mm),
85mm/1.8 (~136mm),
135mm/2.0 (~216mm) and
135mm/2.0 x1.4 = 189mm/2.8 ~(302mm)

Option 2)

50mm/1.4, 100mm/2.0, 200mm/2.8, 1.4x Extender

This would give me effectively the following focal lengths (crop):

50mm/1.4 (~80mm),
100mm/2.0 (~160mm),
200mm/2.8 (~320mm) and
200mm/2.8 x1.4 = 280mm/4.0 ~(448mm)

Unfortunately I didn't have the chance to compare these
lenses sind by side, so I was hoping that one of you guys
can give me a clue on spacing strategy with these lenses.

Manfr3d · November 29, 2006

Ok, one responder removed his relpy, obviously
because he didn't get my question.

The selection of lenses of the two options
is based on my needs for >fast< lenses.
Performance with these lenses with a 1.4x
Extender is good enough for me and I am not
willing to shell out 2 grand for a 300mm/2.8
or buy a 70-200 or 100-400 zoom which
will overlap with the fast primes. Fixed focal
is what I need an am willing to accept as
a tradeoff for speed. Only the selection
needs to be tought of.

To sum up, the question is wheather option1
or option2 provides the most sensefull spacing
of focal lengths. Buying a 85mm and a 100mm
is not what I want to do. Is there any user
who can give a report on how he would select
a set from these lenses?

ivar · November 29, 2006

I'm still not entirely sure what it is you want from us exactly, but I think you are missing something at the low end. 50, so about 80fov is the lowest you have right now. The shortest I can use right now is 24mm on a 30d, and that's allready too long sometimes.

Manfr3d · November 29, 2006

Everything below 50mm isnt an issue for me.
I'm just asking advice on the suggested lenses.

Like: Is 85mm to close to 50mm? or
is 200mm too far away from 100mm?

Stuff like that.

ivar · November 29, 2006

Manfr3d wrote:

Like: Is 85mm to close to 50mm? or
is 200mm too far away from 100mm?

I think they are pretty big gaps, but I don't think we can really give an answer to that, untill we know what you are going to use it for.

gluwater · November 29, 2006

ivar wrote:

I think they are pretty big gaps, but I don't think we can really give an answer to that, untill we know what you are going to use it for.

What are you shooting? Sports, events, weddings, portraits? Are you looking for low light lenses or something that has very fast AF, or both? I have the 50/1.4 and love it in low light but it is slow to AF. The 85 is a very fast focusing lens and I have never used the 135 or 100 f/2. Personally I would pick your option #1, but you may not be pleased with the 50 f/1.4. Do you have the cash to buy the 50 f/1.2, it costs about as much as all the others combined.

Duffy Pratt · November 29, 2006

If you are willing to use the extender, why not:

50 1.4 = 80
50 w/ converter = 110 f/2
85 1.8 = 136
85 w/ converter = 190 f/2.4?
200 f 2.8 = 320
200 w/ converter = 450 f/4

This is pretty close to the standard progression of primes (85, 100, 135, 200, 300, 400)

Is there some reason not to use the 1.4 extender on the shorter primes? Does it not fit?

Duffy

Tommyboy · November 29, 2006

My first question was going to be, "all prime all the time?" But you've answered that by explaining that you want speed and affordability.

I think your question is reasonable though unusual. I've never seen someone use "spacing" as a criteria. That's what makes it interesting to me. It is a valid consideration.

The benefits of option 1 are more coverage "in between." As you seem to realize, there's a bit of a jump between 100 and 200.

The benefits of option 2 are greater reach and clearer distinction between lenses (easier to make a choice as to which one to mount and shoot at a given opportunity)

I would go with option 1. My reason? The 85mm f/1.8 is a bitchin' lens. Also, if you have a change of heart or wish you had more reach, you can simply add a 200 f/2.8 or perhaps you'll be able to afford that 70-210 f/2.8. Or perhaps you be satisfied with the 135 f/2.0 for speed and just get a 70-210 f/4.0. The scenario gives you a lot of options, which is good when you're spending big bucks.

In option 2, it's hard to justify adding the 85 or the 135, at least as I see it.

Let us know what you decide, and why.

gluwater · November 29, 2006

Duffy Pratt wrote:

If you are willing to use the extender, why not:

50 1.4 = 80
50 w/ converter = 110 f/2
85 1.8 = 136
85 w/ converter = 190 f/2.4?
200 f 2.8 = 320
200 w/ converter = 450 f/4

This is pretty close to the standard progression of primes (85, 100, 135, 200, 300, 400)

Is there some reason not to use the 1.4 extender on the shorter primes? Does it not fit?

Duffy

Teleconverters are only meant to be used on lenses 135mm and longer.

Manfr3d · November 29, 2006

Thank you all for replying!

I am currently shooting alot of concerts and will soon
be shooting alot of college sports rangeing from outdoor
soccer to indoor gymnastics.

The 50mm/1.2 L as well as the 85mm/1.2 L are surely
nice lenses but the price is too high, they are too heavy
and with their super shallow depth of field not very useful
for action photography, their focus speed is also slow
compared to the more affordable 50/1.4 and 85/1.8.

But I think I've found another clue for my decision on the
canon website. The angle of view for each lens:

50mm/1.4 > 46°
85mm/1.8 > 28,5°
100mm/2.0 > 24°
135mm/2.0 > 18°
200mm/2.8 > 12°

Looking at the numbers the 50mm covers 4 times as
much area than the 100mm which again covers 4 times
as much as the 200mm. This looks (on paper) like a too
big spacing. I'm now tending towards the 50,85,135 combo.
What do you think?

TristanP · November 29, 2006

My $0.02
The 200 may not even be long enough for some outdoor sports, depending on where you can shoot from. I'm don't think the 50 would be quick enough to focus for indoor sports, judging from the performance of mine. I think the 85 is a great choice, as is the 135. How about renting them all and putting them through their paces? That would give you a really good idea of what will work for you and what won't. It's hard to beat the 70-200/2.8 for versatility.....

Tommyboy · November 30, 2006

Manfr3d wrote:

Thank you all for replying!

I'm now tending towards the 50,85,135 combo.
What do you think?

That was my vote, above.

I'm not a math genius by any means, but how do you derive "4 times the area" from a 28.5 to 46 deree jump? Isn't that double or two times?

As I understand it, a 100 mm lens provides double the magnification and half the field of view of a 50 mm lens--roughly. 2 X 24 = 48 or approximately 46 degrees. A 200mm would be quadruple (4X) magnification and a quarter (0.25 X) of the field of view of a 50mm lens.

Am I off base here?

Regardless of the numbers on paper, I still vote for 50, 85, 135.

Manfr3d · November 30, 2006

Tommyboy wrote:

That was my vote, above.

I'm not a math genius by any means, but how do you derive "4 times the area" from a 28.5 to 46 deree jump? Isn't that double or two times?

As I understand it, a 100 mm lens provides double the magnification and half the field of view of a 50 mm lens--roughly. 2 X 24 = 48 or approximately 46 degrees. A 200mm would be quadruple (4X) magnification and a quarter (0.25 X) of the field of view of a 50mm lens.

Am I off base here?

Regardless of the numbers on paper, I still vote for 50, 85, 135.

Area is two-dimensional ... field of view is a one dimensional
value. Roughly speaking: If you have an 800x800 picture and
half the width you get a 400x400 picture that will fit in 4 times
in the 800x800.

Tommyboy · November 30, 2006

Oh.

Manfr3d wrote:

Area is two-dimensional ... field of view is a one dimensional
value. Roughly speaking: If you have an 800x800 picture and
half the width you get a 400x400 picture that will fit in 4 times
in the 800x800.

Thanks for the education; I knew there must be something more to it, but danged if knew what it was. . . .

claudermilk · November 30, 2006

I personally wouldn't pick lenses based on "spacing" but what I needed the focal length for. However, option 1 seems ot be a popular one (I've seen it called the "holy trinity" amongst Canon shooters)--all three lenses have excellent reputations.

LiquidAir · November 30, 2006

I believe the holy trinity is actually the 35L, 85L and 135L and are so named for their legendary quality rather than because they make a complete kit.

I am mostly a fast primes shooter and I have most of the lenses you are considering and a few others: 35/1.4L, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 135/2L and 200/2.8L all of which I use on a full frame 5D. For my uses those gaps are about right. Each lens has a distinct personality and takes specific kinds of shots. The only changes I am considering to this lineup are replacing the 50/1.4 with a 50/1.2L (someday... not soon) and possibly adding the 300/2.8L IS or maybe a 400/5.6L IS (if Canon ever makes one).

The biggest gap in my lineup is from the 50 to the 85 and I notice that one usually when I start feeling the 85 is too long for the situation and I switch to the 50. If I made any of the gaps larger than than that, it would be a hinderance. I wouldn't think of replacing the 85/1.8 and the 135/2 with the 100/2.

claudermilk · December 1, 2006

LiquidAir wrote:

I believe the holy trinity is actually the 35L, 85L and 135L and are so named for their legendary quality rather than because they make a complete kit.

I am mostly a fast primes shooter and I have most of the lenses you are considering and a few others: 35/1.4L, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 135/2L and 200/2.8L all of which I use on a full frame 5D. For my uses those gaps are about right. Each lens has a distinct personality and takes specific kinds of shots. The only changes I am considering to this lineup are replacing the 50/1.4 with a 50/1.2L (someday... not soon) and possibly adding the 300/2.8L IS or maybe a 400/5.6L IS (if Canon ever makes one).

The biggest gap in my lineup is from the 50 to the 85 and I notice that one usually when I start feeling the 85 is too long for the situation and I switch to the 50. If I made any of the gaps larger than than that, it would be a hinderance. I wouldn't think of replacing the 85/1.8 and the 135/2 with the 100/2.

thwak err....yep that would be the correct lenses for the "holy trinity" and just a *bit* more expensive. Still, I prefer to select lenses for the specific needs I have rather than an arbitrary focal length range.

Manfr3d · December 1, 2006

claudermilk wrote:

thwak err....yep that would be the correct lenses for the "holy trinity" and just a *bit* more expensive. Still, I prefer to select lenses for the specific needs I have rather than an arbitrary focal length range.

This thread is about fast lenses in the 50 to 200 range, there is nothing
arbitrary about it - just selecting the best spacing to minimize costs.

claudermilk · December 2, 2006

It sounds fairly arbitrary to me. I'm not trying to be a pain or anything, it just doesn't make sense to me to say, gee that 100mm falls halfway between the 50mm and 200mm, so I ought to get it. I would first think, what kind of shooting do I do that might need a 100mm? Will the 135mm suit those needs better? Or do I even need a lens in that range?

So what I'm saying is it makes more sense (at least to me) to look at what you shoot & pick the lenses that suit those needs best, regardless of what kind of spacing that happens to fall out to.

Manfr3d · December 2, 2006

claudermilk wrote:

It sounds fairly arbitrary to me. I'm not trying to be a pain or anything, it just doesn't make sense to me to say, gee that 100mm falls halfway between the 50mm and 200mm, so I ought to get it. I would first think, what kind of shooting do I do that might need a 100mm? Will the 135mm suit those needs better? Or do I even need a lens in that range?

So what I'm saying is it makes more sense (at least to me) to look at what you shoot & pick the lenses that suit those needs best, regardless of what kind of spacing that happens to fall out to.

Well I need a 50-200mm/1.8 zoom. This isnt going to happen, so I
have to pic fixed focal length lenses in that range. And accept the
drawback of being less flexible than with a zoom. And in order to
minimize costs (= not buy 50,85,100,135,200) I'm looking for a good
spaceing strategy.

Red Bull · December 2, 2006

You could always rent a zoom lens for a while, take lots of photos, then after you put them on your computer take a look at the EXIF info to see what focal lengths you used most. I think that would be the most effective way of figuring out which lenses to buy instead of guessing.

Question on spacing lenses

Comments