Primes and L Lenses

[barry_kleinberg]

I may get told off for this post but I am just too excited..

 

Due to my surfing these forums for the past few months I have

rearranged my kit drastically and now own several primes (mainly due

to Yakim) 28/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.8 and Sigma 105mm Macro. I am looking

for an 85/1.8 to finish off...but to top it all I have just order my

first L lens - a secondhand 70-200 f4. I am selling my Sigma

70 - 200/f2.8 and sigma 2 x tele as I dont need the extra stop or the

extra distance.

 

Now I just need to BUY some more time to take pictures! I am about to

become a student again (giving up law after nearly a decade!) so

hopefully I will have a tad more time.

 

So really this is just a big thank you.

[derek_c.]

hehe.. yes, I like Yakim, too.

[WM]

All the best on your change of direction Barry...........I am sure it will be an exciting one !

 

Do post somepictures when you get time to shoot some. Your gear looks like a nice combo which is capable of extraordinary results if you push them to the limit. Heehee !

 

Cheers,

Wee-Ming

[barry_kleinberg]

I will start posting. I have also started a camera club in my area which is very exciting - jus 4 members to start with but no doubt it will grow. It gives me a focus (excuse the pun) each month which is very helpful.

 

This months theme was Black and White photography and I will post my entry over the weekend.

 

Just to complete the picture of my kit I shoot with 2 film bodies (600 and 300) and the 300D.

[Greg M]

They are nice & light, but 28-35-50-85 is all just a little too close together for my taste. When I was shooting with a Nikon F2 outfit I was using a 24-35-85 combination and found no need to get a 28 or 50. What you have is a cheap enough set to put together. I would find myself fumbling around trying to decide which lens to put on.

[barry_kleinberg]

They are a bit close but I have the 15 - 30mm Sigma for wide on my 300D and then added the 50/1.8. Then decided to go to primes 28/2.8 and 35/2 were way cheaper than either the 20 or 24mm lenses....and finally the 85/1.8 is raved about, relatively cheap and a lovely portrait lens (which is great for my three kids!).

 

As for fumbling around, today I went out at lunch time for a walk along a river and just kept the 35/2 on my 300D and used my feet a lot - I am learning far more from using primes and using my feet to zoom and taking loads of pictures!

 

Without wishing to give you my life story I have now (over about 3 years) moved from the two kit lenses that came with my 300 through to faster zooms (Tokina 28 - 70/2.8 and Sigma 70-200/2.8) to the current set of primes and I love em! Just have to save for a very long time for the 200 and 400 primes!

[tan]

I've gone the opposite direction ... from Zeiss primes 21, 28, 50, 85, 135, and

the 100-300mm zoom to Canon 17-40/4L, 50/2.5 macro, and 70-200/4L. I am

tired of carrying multiple lenses and fumbling with them, and having to clean

the sensor every now and then. I am happy with my current lenses and 10D.

 

Having said that, I am rethinking my lens options and trying to go with faster

zooms when I get my 20D. I am very much in favor of the good L-series

zooms (over primes) as I think the quality trade off is very marginal - too

marginal for me to be concerned about it.

[John Crowe]

Good choices! Before you sell the Sigma you should test it head to head against the Canon and post your results. The reason I suggest this is that I think you will be very pleased with the slower Canon. Between the 50/1.8, 105 Macro and 70-200, you may not require the 85/1.8 unless you're doing a lot of portraits. Good luck in your endeavours.

[taner]

I felt the same way when I finally got out of the consumer zoom business (many years with the awful 28-80 3.5-5.6, and then a year with the 28-105 3.5-4.5); rejuvenated, and full fresh enthusiasm for photography. Now I am shooting with 4 EF primes, 20-28-50-100.

 

In my opinion, my line up, or an alternative 24-35-85 are ideal sets (with the addition of a 200mm later perhaps). Basically, you skip one focal length in the line up. I can use my 50 and 85 (in my second manual camera system) for the same shot with only minor inconvenience and compromise, but not the 50-100 combo; So to me it makes sense to carry both lenses - but I almost never carry both the 50 and 85 in my camera bag. The same applies to 20-24, 24-28, 28-35 and 35-50 as far as I am concerned. I would lose shots trying to find out the right lens for a shot if I had a line up consisting of focal lengths so close to one another.

 

In any case, my intention here is not to curb your enthusiasm, but to suggest the EF 100 (or perhapsthe EF 135 SF since you have a Sigma 105 macro) instead of th 85mm. And at the wide end, I would go for a 24m or even 20mm, and sell the 28.

 

I hope you have a great time shooting away with your new gear. Cheers.

[thomas_munch]

Coming to Canon from a Contax G kit and a Minolta AF (with heavy reliance on an 85/1.4 G, a 100/2.8 macro, and a 50/1.7), I entered the Canon EOS line with an emphasis on primes. Along with a 10D, I purchased a 35/2 and a 50/2.5 macro. I very much like both lenses, but the focal lengths are fairly close. My next prime will likely be either the 85/1.8 or the 100/2.8 USM macro, and I'll typically carry either the 35 or the 50 with one of these short teles.

 

Good luck with your return to school.

 

--tom

[jbq]

Yeah, time. All photogs need some of it, yet Adorama and B&H don't seem to sell any. You can try the bait-and-switch brooklyn stores by I guess that you're more likely to lose time there.

[bens]

i've got a canon 24/2.8-35/2-50/1.4 (just got, had the 1.8 for a long time before i dropped it)-sigma 70-200/2.8 set up. i find a big difference working in close quarters between the 35 and 50 -- the angularity of a portrait subject is a little too much with the 35, and the ability to get a portrait of a single person or two people comfortably is significantly affected by how close you must stand to them. i find the 50 a must for people photography on a digital camera; i'd take it among everything i've got for that cuz it can do a range from landscape to single-person portrait fairly well. i'm tempted to get the canon 85/1.8, cuz the sigma zoom, while optically very good, is too heavy to get a crisp photo in low light without a tripod. As for prime vs. zoom, it depends. i've periodically considered zooms, but every photo i've ever taken with a short telephoto one (have not tried L series, tried Sigma and

Tamron) does not pop the way the photos taken with primes do. it keeps me willing to carry and change lenses in the moment, an admitted pain.

[bens]

also, primes like the 35 and 50 get you a faster aperture than 2.8, which makes all the difference if you shoot indoors a lot.

[ricardo_trindade]

Forget about the lenses, I'm just excited that there will soon be one less lawyer around! ;)

<P>

Jst kidding, Barry, and best of luck in your future endeavours.

[yakim_peled1]

Barry,

 

I'm glad I helped you see the light... :-) But seriously, 85/1.8 + 105/2.8 + 70-200/4? While I agree that each has it's own uses, carrying them all in one bag may be a bit on the heavy side and they also overlap. 200 and 400 primes OTOH, has no overlaps with your current gear.....

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.

[barry_kleinberg]

Yakim,

 

You are of course correct and I doubt I will carry all three around with me. The 85 will be for home/garden portraits of the kids, the 105 I only use on specific (macro) occassions so I imagine the in the bag options are more likely to be the 28/50/70-200 - all light and excellent lenses. Maybe the 35 too as it is so light...

 

Thanks all for responses. Leaving law is the best thing I can think of. FYI I am going to train as an Osteopath - a slight change you might say!

 

Barry

[yakim_peled1]

And a great one indeed. Finally you'll start helping people.....

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.