prime lenses

gus · February 14, 2005

How come some of you blokes are sooo freaked out with wanting super sharp photos yet so many of you use zooms ? :1drink

Are certain zooms as good or the benefit of zoom outweights the small loss of quality ?

Im talking about the 135 f/2 btw....do photogs see this as an odd size ? I dont see it in use a lot around the place.

luckyrwe · February 14, 2005

For some of the prices we pay, we want (an expect) it all!

fish · February 14, 2005

Humungus wrote:

How come some of you blokes are sooo freaked out with wanting super sharp photos yet so many of you use zooms ?

Flexibility.

Are certain zooms as good or the benefit of zoom outweights the small loss of quality ?

Yes.

Im talking about the 135 f/2 btw....do photogs see this as an odd size ? I dont see it in use a lot around the place.

(1) That's a 216mm on a 1.6 crop camera. What are you going to shoot with it? That's a great portrait lens on a FF or 35mm camera, but kinda long for 1.6x. JMHO.

(2) That's a $900 lens. For $700 more, I can get an f2.8 with IS that runs from 70mm to 200mm, running right over that 135 signpost.

:pimp

Andy · February 14, 2005

fish wrote:

Flexibility.

Yes.

(1) That's a 216mm on a 1.6 crop camera. What are you going to shoot with it? That's a great portrait lens on a FF or 35mm camera, but kinda long for 1.6x. JMHO.

(2) That's a $900 lens. For $700 more, I can get an f2.8 with IS that runs from 70mm to 200mm, passing right through that 135 signpost.

:pimp

yes, some zooms are darn near as good as primes. take canon's 70-200 f/2.8L i.s. - damn sharp, across the focal range.

agree with fish on the 135 f/2 - you'd be much better served with the 70-200L f/2.8 i.s. combinign that with the high iso stellar performance of the 20d that you'll be buying, an you've got a winning combination.

next week: we'll talk about canon's 16-35L and 17-40L on the wide side, and canon's 24-70L for general use.

but 'gus, mate: you have to fish or cut bait, eh? all this yimmer yammering is makin' yer dragon do funny things:

wxwax · February 15, 2005

That's it, the starter L lens kit.

16-35 2.8
24-70 2.8
70-200 2.8

Fast, covers the basic range, and high quality. Get the 135 2 if you need the extra speed. Ditto the 35 1.4 and the 50 1.4. But you should identify a need before forking over the dough.

Zooms are awfully convenient. Lazy people don't have to work as hard at composing the shot.

gus · February 15, 2005

fish wrote:

Flexibility.

Yes.

(1) That's a 216mm on a 1.6 crop camera. What are you going to shoot with it? That's a great portrait lens on a FF or 35mm camera, but kinda long for 1.6x. JMHO.

(2) That's a $900 lens. For $700 more, I can get an f2.8 with IS that runs from 70mm to 200mm, running right over that 135 signpost.

:pimp

Its (70-200) just soooo flamin conspik...conspicol...bloody big & white !!!

gus · February 15, 2005

andy wrote:

yes, some zooms are darn near as good as primes. take canon's 70-200 f/2.8L i.s. - damn sharp, across the focal range.

agree with fish on the 135 f/2 - you'd be much better served with the 70-200L f/2.8 i.s. combinign that with the high iso stellar performance of the 20d that you'll be buying, an you've got a winning combination.

next week: we'll talk about canon's 16-35L and 17-40L on the wide side, and canon's 24-70L for general use.

but 'gus, mate: you have to fish or cut bait, eh? all this yimmer yammering is makin' yer dragon do funny things:

Im in no hurry mate. I just make damned sure of what im buyin' does what i expect it to do before i get the ready out. We were so poor when we were kids we had to paint our shoes on.

gus · February 15, 2005

Jokes aside andy....could you hand hold a 70-200 F/2.8 IS with this type of night street shooting or would you really need a mono/tripod ?

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=5251&page=1&pp=10

.

Andy · February 15, 2005

Humungus wrote:

Jokes aside andy....could you hand hold a 70-200 F/2.8 IS with this type of night street shooting or would you really need a mono/tripod ?

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=5251&page=1&pp=10

.

of course you could.

fish · February 15, 2005

Humungus wrote:

Its (70-200) just soooo flamin conspik...conspicol...bloody big & white !!!

So? Are you more concerned about image quality or the fashion image?

mercphoto · February 15, 2005

andy wrote:

next week: we'll talk about canon's 16-35L and 17-40L on the wide side, and canon's 24-70L for general use.

Now that I'm really looking forward to!

pathfinder · February 15, 2005

Humungus wrote:

Its (70-200) just soooo flamin conspik...conspicol...bloody big & white !!!

I agree 'gus, and that is why I carrythe 70-300 IS DO at times - more inconspicuous, longer reach and lighter too.

As to preferring zooms to primes - most of us if we were honest would admit that we want both, but just can't swing the swag for both. And even then you might want a prime when you are wearing a zoom or vice versa. Photographers are never pleased fully I think.

prime lenses

Comments