Small primes

As a long time user of Canon (just over 30 years) and also a fan of rangefinders I am disappointed by the lack of a good set of physically

small primes in the standard focal range. When I shot FD I used primes a lot more than I used zooms but my bag was a reasonable size.

These days the push is on the zoom and the reasonably fast quality zooms are large - i have the older model 24-70 but even the new one

is still a very large lens - the 24-105 is a bit slow for me personally although i have owned this lens. Indeed if Canon made better F2 24

and 35mm lenses I would use these instead of a standard zoom most of the time. The F1.4 versions of these lenses are quite large but

optically quite good. This has always been the case but in the old days the F2 lenses were great performers and compact the EF 35 F2

is (in my opinion) optically disappointing. Similarly they stopped the 24 F2 with the FD series. I really liked the ability with FD to carry a

fast (ish) set of sharp lenses 24 F2, 35F2, 50 F1.4 and usually the 85 F1.2. The increased size of EOS bodies and EF lenses make this

harder but if Canon offered a top quality 24F2, improved the quality of the 35 F2 (I would happily pay more) then they would join the 50

f1.4 (really only good from F2) and the 85 F1.8 in my bag - instead of the zoom. I recently bought the 40 pancake (a bargain at under

$200) and found it was great to get a small prime.

 

I would love to use my Canon DSLR (not my 1 series or 7D but my 5DII ) the way I use my rangefinders. In the FD days (and

occasionally today if I decide to shoot film) I was able to do this. These days while it is possibly you are just carrying too big a bag. I

know that I could try a smaller format - I have shot most of them and even bought an M4/3 body but except for Leica (which I do own and

shoot in this way) I have not found one where the handling was good they all felt more like trying to program a computer than the intuitive relationship you have with a camera.

 

My question is does anyone else desire this kind of set up or am I alone?

<p>Have you tried the new 24mm and 28mm f/2.8 lenses?</p>

<p>My first solution to this problem was to install an Eg-S focusing screen in my 5D Mark II and then invest in inexpensive used manual-focus Nikon primes. That worked quite nicely, but my second solution was to sell the 5D Mark II and my remaining Canon EF lenses, and use the money to buy several Nikon manual-focus film SLRs, more lenses, and other accessories. I am much happier now.</p>

<p>As you say, the focus today is (and has been for some time now) on zooms. The best zooms offer excellent optical quality, but they're still bigger and heavier than traditional manual-focus primes. There is a limit to how small a lens can be when it has to contain not only optics, an aperture iris, and a focusing helicoid, but also an AF motor and a computer to control everything and communicate with the camera.</p>

<p>I think just about all modern cameras feel more like little computers than cameras -- because they are! The earliest computerized cameras, such as the Canon AE-1, hid the electronics inside but retained the traditional external user controls (shutter speed dial, aperture ring, etc.). In the late 1980s, camera designers began to discard the traditional controls and replace them with electronic displays, menus, and buttons, and it's only gotten worse since then as the menus have become more and more complex.</p>

<p>You might think that with all the advances in automation in cameras, that photography would be simpler than it used to be, but oddly enough it's actually more complicated. It used to be that you only needed three controls on a camera to take a picture: shutter speed dial, aperture ring, and shutter release. The built-in meter gave you guidance on exposure, but you were free to adjust shutter speed and aperture however you liked. You could even choose not to follow its advice without needing any extra override controls. Once autoexposure came in, there was a need for a separate exposure compensation control; once AF came in, you got to choose between different AF modes (single-shot, continuous focus, etc.); when multiple AF points were provided, you needed a control to choose which one to use. As the range of choices multiplied, it became necessary to use the same controls for different purposes in different contexts, and even to allow the user to configure which button was used for what. Now cameras typically offer multiple AE modes and a wide range of options accessible through a dense and many-branched menu system, and most DSLR buyers have no idea what to do with most of it.</p>

I could certainly see why this complaint would come up; the primes for my EOS cameras are larger in width and length

than the primes I've used on older systems. Obviously, EOS has several reasons for being bigger, with a larger miunt

necessitated (at least at the time of release) by integral electronic aperture and autofocus mechanisms. I'd say they are

about equal in weight or lighter than the primes for Pentax K I used to have, which were all metal, but certainly wider and

a bit bulkier in all dimensions.

 

Do I mind it? No, not really. I have large fingers and tend to prefer bigger equipment. But, I could see it being annoying.

Personally, I tend towards zooms except for my specific purpose lenses, like my 100/2.8 USM Macro, and longer

telephoto a like my 400/5.6L. However, I would probably own more primes if Canon updated a few of the older, less

expensive models.

<p>Other than the pancake 40mm lens, I think the 35mm f2 is the smallest in Canon's line-up. You got a point there Philip, I often place my 35mm DSLR next to one of my Nikon SLR manual cameras and the difference in size is daunting.</p>

<p>The Manual SLR's also fit better in my hands. I can stuff 3 lenses in my pants/jacket pockets( the 20mm f3.5, the 55mm macro and the either the 85mm or the 105mm) and be off to the races sens camera bag.</p>

<p>Phillip, you are not alone. Perhaps the best option is to go back to using all manual glass (adapted of course) to your EOS. Some of the optically best glass available fits into a very small package (even though they don't come w/ a red ring ;-) ). </p>

<p>But it's not just the lenses. A 5D (or 5D2) puts all but the largest SLRs (I'm thinking of a 1v) to shame. So even with smaller glass, you certainly are going to be lacking the handling of a rangefinder. Perhaps the new smaller 6D would accommodate that goal - especially if it was paired w/ some 'old school' prime glass. Maybe that should be on your shopping list?</p>

<p>Ifs and buts and candy and nuts, what a party we would have. Canon has what it has and isn't likely to develop too many 'smaller' aka reasonably priced and F2 primes I don't think. I use the 35mm 2.0, 50mm 1.8, 85mm 1.8 and 100mm 2.0 lenses but get lazy and carry the zooms more often. It's a shame Canon doesn't feel the need to upgrade or develop better, small primes. </p>

<p>Have you tried the 40/f2.8 on your 5D2? That's fast enough for that body's excellent high-ISO performance. It's as compact as they come and the IQ is actually very good.</p>

Ed I have not tried the two new F2.8 lenses but they appear to have been designed with video shooters in mind. I am

more interested in faster (higher quality) optics but without the very large size of the F1.4 wide angle lenses. Craig,

Joshua and Harry it makes me feel better that I am not alone. I do not expect Canon to make cameras that handled like

the original F1 - I love mine and still like shooting it. That said I found the T90 was perhaps the best compromise they

came up with - all the controls but not too complex. I do agree on camera sizes - I put the 5DII next to one of my 1Vs and

was surprised it was bigger (indeed my 1VHS is smaller than my 1DIIN). Lens sizes appear to be the biggest difference

however. The current lenses are often bigger than the 645 manual focus lenses I have! I do shoot some older MF lenses

on Canon (my Contax 50 mm is great) but I find focusing much harder with the new bodies. An interesting experiment if

you have old FD bodies is to compare the viewfinder brightness. For example the 5DII is much darker than a body like

the New F1. The semi silvered mirror explains part of this but even the 1V is brighter - indeed my 1NRS with the pellicle

mirror has a brighter viewfinder!

 

David I did buy a copy of the 40 F2.8 a couple of months ago and like it a lot. I would have preffered it to be slightly faster

but it is great value and very compact. The center is sharp but the edges are soft and the bokeh is not the best. That

said for $189 (that is all I paid) it is a great buy. I did not buy the lens hood as it was probably the most ridiculous thing I

have seen.

 

It really is refreshing to see that others would appreciate some good reasonably fast primes and have come up with other

solutions (such as Nikon MF lenses) to try and address this gap. Perhaps Canon might update the 35 F2 and add a quality 24 F2

<p>Faster does not equal "higher quality".</p>

<p>I was not suggesting that it does (although there is usually a high correlation as fast lenses are usually made to a higher standard to justify the price)- I was actually what I want is F2 and higher quality. In the old FD days the 24 F2 had better image quality than the 24 F1.4 at most apertures. What I am looking for is IQ close to the 24 and 35 F1.4 lenses but in a smaller F2 lens. I find the 35 F2 rather disappointing as it does not seem to have any significant IQ edge over my 24-70 zoom. 35 mm is a focal length I like for primes and even my 1985 Leica 35 F1.4 Pre ASPH and my Contax G 35 F2 of 1996 significantly outperform the Canon lens. Indeed i like my Canon FD 35 F2 better than the current lens. While the 40 is neat (and I appreciate it being made) I would like to see something with better build and image quality - and possibly a bit faster. Indeed while I have not tested my 40 against the zoom it seems as sharp in the centre and not far off at the edges. I should mention that I have the full set of F2.8 zooms and use them a lot - it is just that for lots of subjects I long for a full set of small, high quality primes.</p>

<p>My original shooting experience was with a Honeywell Pentax H1 (later a Spotmatic F) and 3 primes. They were small and light -- a pleasure to use. Do I miss using them and loathe the humungous computer-like things our cameras have become? Not really. Modern cameras and lenses are truly amazing pieces of technology, and I am grateful to have their capabilities at my fingertips.</p>

<p>That said, the closest thing I've found to that original shooting experience is a Nikkor MF lens mounted to my 5D.</p>

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/products/zeiss/lenses</p>

 

<p>I don't agree with you Philip. There are perfectly good 24/28/35/50/85/100/200 primes available for the EOS system and all are quite small - certainly lighter than their FD predecessors. The new 24 and 28mm IS are excellent (I also like the original 24/2.8) as are the 40 and all the 50 options, the 85/100 are renowned to be good and one cannot complain about the 135L or the 200L. Yes, there is no 28 or 24f2 but, so what, with IS you have greater ability in low light than you would with an f2 non-IS. What is the worry about better build quality? All these lenses are just fine and work as advertised. Once you start requesting better build quality all you are doing is adding weight - if you want that then get the Zeiss ZE, some of the most pointlessly heavy lenses around, or you can get the nice and heavy 24/35/50/85Ls. If you want to travel light then you need light lenses.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I should mention that I have the full set of F2.8 zooms and use them a lot - it is just that for lots of subjects I long for a full set of small, high quality primes.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>May I suggest that you are a collector as much as a user, and some of your expressed user needs are actually collector's wants. For better or worse, the collector's market for Canon EF lenses is too small to have an impact on Canon's development decisions.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>No I don't think I am a collector (except for film cameras where I tend not to get rid of the good ones) - I have pushed about 20,000 frames through my Canons this year and even 3,500 through my Leica. I just find that it is easy to get lazy with zooms and that I would love to shoot with small compact primes more often. What makes you think I am a collector - the desire to have primes in the same range as my zooms?<br>

I simply feel that Canon has lost a series somewhere (a few lenses remain) they used to do F2.8, F2 (F1.8 for 85mm) and F1.4 (F1.2 for 85mm) in the 24 to 85mm range. In most cases the F2 lenses have gone<br>

I am not sure that I agree that the old FD lenses are heavier, for example the Canon museum says the <br>

24mm the FD F2 lens is almost exactly the same volume and weight as the plastic EF F2.8 lens non IS - the IS one is slightly larger)<br>

28mm (F2 in FD, F1.8 in EF) 265g FD, 310g EF (EF lens 40% bigger)<br>

35 F2 is probably the only lens that is smaller in EF 245g FD vs 210 EF but same volume<br>

50 F1.4 was 235g in FD and 290 in EF (and almost 1.5 times the volume)<br>

85 F1.8 345g in FD and 425 in EF (and 60% more volume)</p>

 

<p>You have also a choice of Sigma 20mm, 24mm and 28mm F1.8 lenses, or Zeiss 25mm F2. They are just not really smaller, probably because in the digital age we have higher demands on image quality, which requires more complex designs. <br>

Bokeh at f/2 may not always be nicer than at f/2.8, depending on the lens. At wide angle a lot depends on the shooting distance. The new EF 28mm and 24mm F2.8 IS lenses have more aperture blades than the 35mm F2 which also helps.<br>

If speed is your primary criterion, well, Canon has given you that since the old FD times... Even over the last 5 years they gave you an extra stop of clean ISO performance and now they have thrown in 3-4 stops of IS. And they kept it small. Even at f/2.8 the new 24mm and 28mm good performers, much better than the 28mm f/1.8:<br>

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/774-canon28f28isff?start=1</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What makes you think I am a collector</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That you think of lenses as belonging to "series", and have a desire to own "complete series".</p>

<p>I amend my earlier suggestion, you are a collector in denial. But don't worry, it takes one to know one ;-)</p>

<p>That may be true Frank I was just using series as a kind of shorthand for 16-35II, 24-70 MkI and the non IS (i.e. old workhorse) 70-200 F2.8. I have a strategy of not buying Sigma lenses after they informed me that they couldn't update my 14mm for digital as they had run out of chips. Since then I have only bought one Sigma lens (the 8mm F3.5) and then because there was no alternative. The poor customer care is the reason why I have decided not to buy Sigma. In the case of the Zeiss lenses I like them but just like old MF lenses I find MF inconvenient on Canon DSLRs for many applications (obviously I use it for TS lenses and Macro).</p>

<p>In terms of speed I like it for DOF - not camera shake so IS is not an advantage for me. I would rather pay for optical quality on standard lenses rather than IS. With the high ISO capabilities of modern DSLRs I don't really see the need for IS on this focal length range in my shooting. Perhaps this is because I started shooting with slow speed films. My other (minor) issue with the 24 and 28 IS is the price. It is not that I resent paying $800 for a lens (I shoot Leica M so I have been known to pay a lot more) it is just that this seems a lot for a plastic lens with moulded elements. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I just find that it is easy to get lazy with zooms</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I read this comment from you and others so often, and it puzzles me. With all due respect (because you know your stuff), if you don't find yourself working harder with a zoom than with a prime (ignoring lens changes, which become more tedious with primes), then you're not using it right. Zooms introduce an additional parameter of continuously variable focal length that, in combination with your feet, allow you to alter your perspective. Zooms and primes are almost apples and oranges. For me it's not either/or, but rather both. This additional parameter of continuously variable focal length is one of the many technological improvements I didn't have in the beginning. It has made photography both more challenging, more rewarding, and increasingly burdensome. However, the reward trumps the challenge and the burden for me! In fact the challenge is a reward all to itself. ;-)</p>

<p>The need for fast and small has nothing to do with angle of view; wide, normal, and long lenses can all be used to photograph in low light and with good separation between main subject and background clutter. Given the requirements for some reasonable maximum aperture, and high quality, budget and modesty may restrict the choice to moderate aperture primes rather than the ultra fast ones (which are not that small and can be extortionately expensive). Again, the talk of having a reasonably complete series of (moderately fast) primes has nothing to do with wanting to be a lens collector, but simply that the angle of view has nothing to do with these desired characteristics (i.e. all are useful). An incomplete lineup is going to annoy the user at one point or another, since it means one would have to bring an ultra-expensive prime or zoom to cover the occasional need for a lens at a "gap" focal length. And with the heavy and huge filler lens (i.e. 24-70 or 70-200/2.8), the whole point of having something compact goes out of the window, i.e. the other lenses in the prime lineup cannot be used for the task they were purchased for, either, since the zoom has to be in the bag anyway to cover for the gap.</p>

<p>^^^ That's how I figure it. And with primes there are always gaps. Whether the gaps are too large depends on how critical the perspective is to the composition.</p>

<p>I meant with the last sentence that the bag will be heavy if the zoom has to be brought in, which is one of the things that a compact prime set can help avoid. Also, you can choose what you need exactly which brings the total weight down. The idea that all primes that matter are either especially fast (i.e. f/1.2) or special purpose (like macro or T/S) is flawed; a lot of the appeal in the primes is that you get a 1) small camera+lens setup in your hands, 2) affordable yet high quality, yet 3) often still faster than a zoom, and moderately fast primes do just those things which Nikon and Canon have largely (but not completely) neglected in recent decades.</p>

<p>^^^ and thus a zoom cannot do what a prime can do (small, light, fast), and a prime cannot do what a zoom can do (continuously variable perspective); hence, many photographers need both. (Or at least I do.)</p>

<p>As for the weight, consider a typical 1:4 zoom range in f/2'ish primes:</p>

<p>28/1.8 310g<br /> 50/1.8 130g (This little plastic lens is almost cheating, but...)<br /> 100/2.0 460g<br /> Total weight of primes, 900g</p>

<p>Or a single zoom:<br>

24-105/4 670g</p>

<p>Or if you want a stop faster, even this beast isn't so beastly:<br /> 24-70/2.8 805g</p>

<p>So maybe what you hold in your hands will be lighter with primes, but what you carry along that hiking trail will actually be heavier and larger.</p>