laur1 Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 <blockquote> <p>Of course the 135 on the zoom will not do any better than the prime for your example.</p> </blockquote> <p>I should have maybe made my example more clear but the idea was that if you wanted to frame the shot with a 135mm like with a 35mm, moving around would not be easy. But with a 35-135mm, you could just use the 35mm focal length. As you noted later, of course you could do the same with a pair of prime lenses - a 135 and an additional 35.</p> <blockquote> <p>You are right, using your feet does not often fix the need. What the poster should have said is, "Don't you guys know how to change a lens?".</p> </blockquote> <p>Right. If I have a 35mm and a 135mm lens, then I just change them, with a bit more effort than if I had a zoom - no need to exercise the feet.<br> In the end, the real idea behind using the feet is to move around and find the best angle for the shot - however, that applies both to zoom and prime lens users.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steven_f1 Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 <blockquote> <p>"Zoom with your feet" is unsophisticated and quite silly advice and is no argument for primes over zooms in any case.</p> </blockquote> <p>I agree with Dan. On a Grand Canyon trip I was standing on a ledge on a cliff. There wasn't enough room in my opinion to safely remove my backpack, set it down to find the lens inside, an swap lenses. There are simply times when zooms are the best choice. In low light night shots, I find a 50 1.4 to be my best choice.</p> <blockquote> </blockquote> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samoksner Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 <p>Try to zoom with you feet as fast as the runners coming down the 100 meter sprint! That is such a ridiclous argument, if someone is debating the difference between a 35mm and a 28mm, then i might buy it, but zooms are succesful not because they are cheap (L zooms are very expensive), not because they have higher IQ (primes are usually a bit better) or not because they have the largest apertures (primes usually have a stop or two on the zooms)... Zooms are practical because some people need to change focal length quickly, as simple as that. <br> I only use one zoom and half a dozen primes, but the lens I ALWAYS bring, no matter then event, is a 70-200 2.8, convenience and practicality are important factors, just as much as IQ, CA, focus speed...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_brown20 Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 <p>Only 4 zooms made the top 20 and mine was one of them, the</p> <h2>Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM</h2> <p>I love this thing!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitaliris Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 <p>I have a problem that some of you might be able to help me with, since you're discussing the top Canon lenses. Recently, someone asked me to take some detailed shots of her diamond solitaire before she takes her ring to repair the setting. At the moment I don't own a decent Macro lens, but since I have to get one anyway, I am trying to find out what I can buy which is suitable for taking photos of really tiny objects like diamonds. I own a Canon EOS Rebel 400 I. Would appreciate your advice on this one.Thanks! Shannon</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitaliris Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 <p>I have a problem that some of you might be able to help me with, since you're discussing the top Canon lenses. Recently, someone asked me to take some detailed shots of her diamond solitaire before she takes her ring to repair the setting. At the moment I don't own a decent Macro lens, but since I have to get one anyway, I am trying to find out what I can buy which is suitable for taking photos of really tiny objects like diamonds. I own a Canon EOS Rebel 400 I. Would appreciate your advice on this one.Thanks! Shannon</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony_lockerbie Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 <p>I've got numbers 2, 3 and 4......but in FD mount.....does that count?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manuel barrera houston, Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 <p>The Canon 60mm EF-S is one of the sharpest macros www.photozone.de for what you want to do the lens would be perfect.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbless Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 <p>I missed the 200mm F2... </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitaliris Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 <p>Thanks for the info! I read some reviews about the Canon 60mm, but I was unsure whether it would be too useful because someone who purchased it said that the minimum distance from a subject was 20cm and that might not be good enough. From what I can understand, my client wants details of the inclusions in her diamond, which are what makes every stone unique. I was also considering the 100mm, but I had borrowed that last year and I found it too heavy to work with. However I think I'll follow your advice because other reviews and its current price make the 60mm very attractive. Shannon.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oscar_van_der_velde Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 <p>Wouldn't such a list be more useful if the lenses were sorted by type, like "wide angle prime", "wide angle zoom", "standard zoom", "tele zoom", "macro", etc? It makes no sense that the lenses made for different purposes compete against each other.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg_wachman Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 <p>On the zooming feet matter...</p> <p>Some have said similar things already, but focal length doesn't just determine "how close" you are to a subject - It also determines the perspective, which is often an essential element of the composition. Using a prime lens is a great way to learn that "moving" relative to the subject is an important means of determining composition. Once this is understood it can equally be applied to zoom lenses. That is, choose first the focal length that gives the desired perspective and then move, or determine the combination of focal length/position that gives the desired composition.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g dan mitchell Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 <blockquote> <p><em>Using a prime lens is a great way to learn that "moving" relative to the subject is an important means of determining composition. Once this is understood it can equally be applied to zoom lenses. That is, choose first the focal length that gives the desired perspective and then move, or determine the combination of focal length/position that gives the desired composition.</em></p> </blockquote> <p>In my opinion you have this exactly backwards. I can more quickly and easily and effectively learn the relationships between the variables of moving forward/backward and altering focal length and how they affect my photographic outcome when <em>both</em> options (moving and changing FL) are available.</p> <p>I agree with you strongly about the critical importance of learning the underlying technique/skill, but I do not agree that using a prime is a better way to learn this.</p> <p>Take care,</p> <p>Dan,</p> <p>... who agrees that there are fine reasons for sometimes choosing to shoot with a prime... but disagrees that this is one of them.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frederick_stevens1 Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 <p>One must be careful about looking for the ultimate anything - I only have three Canon lenses for my 40D and they seem to be in the ball park. My main walk around is the 17-85 zoom and I supplement this with the 100mm f2.8 macro and the 70-200mm f4 L zoom.<br>The 100mm is superb and quite cheap whilst the 70-200mm is also superb and much cheaper than the IS version or the f2.8 version. I can see no reason to buy either of these unless you are a zillionaire! <br>The main thing is the quality of the output. Shoving bottle glass on the front of a good camera body is pointless. The body will outperform the lens. The reverse is better.</p><p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_bolton2 Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 <p>Both of my lenses are on the list. #13 and #20.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 <p>The two lenses I desire most (and don't have) are not there. That probably means they're not so good. Thus, I just can't fathom why Canon charges so much for the 17/4 and 200/2......</p> <p>Happy shooting,<br> Yakim.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benbangerter Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 <p><em>"...choose first the focal length that gives the desired perspective..."</em><br> <em></em><br> "Perspective" has a very specific meaning, and has been understood since the Renaissance. It may be simply (though imprecisely) stated as being the apparent relative sizes of objects at different distances from the viewer. It is solely dependent on the position of the viewer/photographer. It is not an attribute of the focal length of a lens whatsoever. I can not understand why some people find this simple truth so difficult to understand or accept. You even see "lens perspective" discussed in magazines like <em>Shutterbug</em> or <em>Outdoor Photographer</em>, where the editors surely know better. "Zooming with your feet" is an oxymoron.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hominid Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 <p>Good thread. Only one lens made the list: the 70-200 L IS USM. Love it. I'm also pleased with my 17-85 IS USM kit lens; at f8 it out-performs some L-series lenses for sharpness, so I'm surprised it didn't make at least the cheapie list. Sigma's 10-20 out-performs Canon's for sharpness as well. Check out http://www.photozone.de/reviews</p> <p>Cheers,</p> <p>Jim</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmanthree Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 <p>Funny stuff. Last person I saw suggest that we "foot zoom" was KR. Yes, that one. He contended that there was no need for the Nikon 35-70 2.8 zoom since you might as well use a 50mm lens and "foot zoom."<br> Right.....</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmanthree Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 <p>Funny stuff. Last person I saw suggest that we "foot zoom" was KR. Yes, that one. He contended that there was no need for the Nikon 35-70 2.8 zoom since you might as well use a 50mm lens and "foot zoom."<br> Right.....</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_barts1 Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 <p>I'm sure every technological advance has its uses (even if it doesn't, some will be invented). However, as far as I know the most iconic photos, by W Eugene Smith, HCB etc were not taken with a zoom, nor a supertelephoto.</p> <p>Also the saying is 'if your photos aren't good enough, you're not close enough' and not '... you should get a bigger zoom'.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke_klondike Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 <blockquote> <p>Wow the 70-200 f/4 IS is the only zoom on the top 10 list (updated version on Bob's link above). That just goes to show how good this lens is.</p> </blockquote> <p>I wondered about that too. I was surprised that the f2.8 non IS was so low on the newer list. It's cheaper but probably weighs too much for most folks to consider. The list isn't about picture quality though.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now