Downsizing a lens set

[jiamisot_jiamisot]

<p>I have some excellent L lenses and I wonder if I could live with something less.</p>

<p>From a business point of view, the L lenses don't generate the income necessary to justify their cost. From a hobbyist point of view, L lenses are big and heavy to carry around everywhere.</p>

<p>I'm considering <strong>35mm 2.0, 50mm 1.4 and 100mm 2.0 on a full frame body</strong>. All three cost less than a single L lens.</p>

<p>What do you think of these lenses?</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>None of those guys are at their best WO - but you already knew that. -- And (w/ the exception of the 100) neither are their L counterparts (though WO is a step beyond).<br>

The 35/2 also lacks USM, which, while annoying, <em>probably</em> won't have a huge impact in and of itself - afterall, there's not a lot of glass to move.</p>

<p>Overall, the lenses you have selected all reach equivalence w/ their L counterparts a stop or so later. For example, the 35/1.4L@f2.8 is about as good as the 35/2 is @ f4, and the 50/1.2L@f1.4 is ~ 50/1.4@f2, the 85/1.2L II is @f2 is about the same as the 85/1.8 @ f4 - and so on.</p>

<p>If you've already got the L primes, I can't say I'd sell them, but OTOH, if you want a kit that's more 'usable' then that set will be far more cost effective, and if you loose/break one in the field, the financial impact is significantly diminished.</p>

[jiamisot_jiamisot]

<blockquote>

<p>Overall, the lenses you have selected all reach equivalence w/ their L counterparts a stop or so later.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Interesting. May I know where did got that from?</p>

<p> </p>

[esfishdoc]

<p>It would be interesting to know what you are shooting and where and what your output is. You can always go cheaper. Get rid of the FF and get something lighter and less expensive. Is it about the weight? Is it to free up cash?<br>

Richard</p>

 

[jiamisot_jiamisot]

<blockquote>

<p>It would be interesting to know what you are shooting and where and what your output is. You can always go cheaper.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Photojournalism (medium wide and tele) and studio (normal and tele), basically. Commercial shoots as well as artistic.<br /> I put some examples between ( ). This is of course a generalization.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Get rid of the FF and get something lighter and less expensive.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>FF has advantages that I don't want to lose. One of them is larger access to quality glass. The options for wide angle lenses for crop sensor, for instance, are very restrictive.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is it about the weight? Is it to free up cash?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Both.</p>

[philip_wilson]

I found the 35F2 quite disappointing. I loved the old FD version of this lens so I bought the EF one. I cannot remember

last time I used it as I generally just take my 24-70 zoom which pretty much matches the 35F2 IQ and provides more

versatility. I have never been a big 50mm lens user but I do have the 50F1.4. I like this lens much more than the 35 but

again generally just take the zoom. While the 50 is soft until F2 it works fine for portraits where the edges are usually

OOF when shot at wide apertures. I cannot comment on the 100 F2 as I use the 100 F2.8 L IS which is a great lens.

You should consider the 85 f1.8 which I think is the best non L series prime Canon makes and a bargain at the price.

 

Which L lenses are you looking to replace?

[marco_palladino1]

<p>ef 85mm 1.8 has even a better af-motor than the L counterpart. I love it, it is really really fast (had to be calibrated by Canon, so the 50mm 1.4). IQ is probably similar, it weights much much less (and costs a fraction). The really anoying part is the purple fringing under 2.8, none of the canon cameras corrects it (5d mark3 apart) and is not so easy to correct in ACR...but you can live with it. It is said that the 100 f2 has not this problem, but I've never tried it. I also use the 50 1.4 but prefer the 35mm's view. Canon's line-up is missing an USM 35mm so the choise is narrowed. I'm also deciding between the 35 f1.4 and f2, it is rumored of an update of both but meanwhile should we we stop making photos?</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>I love my 100/2, but I don't have that much occasion to use it. I prefer using f/4 zooms. However, when I need a large aperture, I'll use a prime. With regard specifically to the 100/2, it's considered the sister lens of the 85/1.8. It has a neutral bokeh and excellent sharpness from edge to edge, with relatively little field curvature. It's pretty sharp wide open, like any good lens. I can recommend it as a good, general purpose, "portrait length" lens. IMO you should choose between the 85/1.8 and the 100/2.0 only on the basis of desired focal length. For me, the 100 is more useful on FF than the 85, hence my choice.</p>

<p>I have no experience with the other two lenses.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>For a Hobbyist I would stick with the gold or silver rimmed lenses lenses such as the 85mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4 or the 28mm f2.8 instead of the 'L' series (red rim) lenses . These gold reimmed lenses are excellent(smaller, lighter, safer) and wont break the bank either. Of course if you are going to be blowing up the images allot, or working outdooors under adverse conditions then an 'L' series lens might come in handy. </p>

[JamesFarabaugh]

<blockquote>

<p>FF has advantages that I don't want to lose. One of them is larger access to quality glass. The options for wide angle lenses for crop sensor, for instance, are very restrictive.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A crop sensor EOS body can use ALL of the EOS lenses, whereas a full frame EOS body can only use the full-frame EOS lenses. You actually have MORE lens options with a lighter crop body. True, a wide angle lens on a crop body isn't as effectively wide as it is on a full frame, but the 10-22mm lens gets very good reviews, and is effectively a 16mm lens - pretty darn wide, if you ask me. So I argue that your lens options are LESS restrictive with a crop body than with a full frame.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>I shoot with a combination of L zooms and L and non-L primes. I shoot two of the prime lenses you mention. A few thoughts:</p>

<ul>

<li>If this is a primes versus zooms issue, I urge you to think of what zoom(s) can cover this range. You can get excellent image quality and greater versatility, an a typically-insignificant cost in image quality and perhaps a smaller maximum aperture - and the latter may be partially resolved via an IS lens.</li>

<li>You did not mention what you photograph, but for many purposes the 35mm f/2 and the 50mm f/1.4 can be preferable to the L equivalents. They are less expensive, smaller, lighter and generally produce extremely good image quality results. In particular if you shoot handheld, these lenses are just fine. Although I own several L primes, at these focal lengths I would not trade my non-L equivalents for the L alternatives for my work.</li>

<li>I do not own the 100mm non-L lens you mention, though I have heard many very good things about it. (I shoot the 85mm f/1.8 non-L and the 135mm f/2 L) </li>

</ul>

<p>Overall, to the extent that primes are necessary to your shooting (and seriously consider that question) the three lenses you mentioned can be an excellent set and in some cases can even be the very best options.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[tdigi]

<p>I heard a rumor of a Canon 40mm pancake lens which would be great fun. I too have been searching for something small and light in the 28 to 40 range but I really don't mind using L primes to much so I never bother. Its the L zooms that can be a drag when shooting for fun. </p>

<p>If you don't mind manual focus there are some other interesting options like the Voightlander 40 pancake. Fun lens.</p>

[shadowcatcher]

I have the 35mm f2 on a mark ii and I love it, tiny and great image quality for the price. I carry it and a135mm f2L, it is all I

carry these days.

[jiamisot_jiamisot]

<blockquote>

<p>Overall, to the extent that primes are necessary to your shooting (and seriously consider that question)...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My reasoning is quite the opposite: "are zooms necessary"?<br>

<br /> When you can't freely move around, yes, zooms are necessary. But for everything else, I prefer a prime out of sheer simplicity. It's lighter, it's tighter (on budget) and it's more fun :)</p>

<p>Please note this is not a zoom vs prime debate. The question is how well the more affordable primes will do.</p>

[igord]

<p>I use almost exlusively non-L primes when I need shallow depth of field and good quality, mainly 28/1.8 and 85/1.8, when I need just one camera and lens I use 50/1.8I or 50/1.4.<br>

But to be sincere, the best prime I ever used is 45/2.8TS which is L lens, the printed page looks outstanding even when I use the lens handheld:<br>

<p> </p>

[peter_j2]

<p>What about the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM for a hundred bucks more?</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>There is an answer to your "are zooms necessary" question, but since you aren't interested in "going there," I'll save it. (Hint: I shoot both.)</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[sarah_fox]

<blockquote>

<p>When you can't freely move around, yes, zooms are necessary. But for everything else, I prefer a prime out of sheer simplicity. It's lighter, it's tighter (on budget) and it's more fun :)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, with regard to weight:</p>

<p>24-105 f/4L zoom, 670g</p>

<p>35/2, 210g<br>

50/1.4, 290g<br>

100/2.0, 460g<br>

Total, 960g (43% greater)</p>

<p> </p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Since Sarah did take up the question...</p>

<p>Shooting with "a" prime can sometimes be "simple." I shoot some street subjects this way - not because it gives me more control, but because faced with fewer things I can control I must simply work faster and more intuitively. Sometimes this is good and sometimes it is not.</p>

<p>Sometimes I will even shoot with three primes, typically relying mostly on the 50 and then having a wider (typically 35mm or 24mm) and a longer (typically 85mm or 135mm) lenses in the bag to use occasionally. However, I also shoot the same subjects with a single zoom just about as often. (I use the 24-105 in this case.) While the primes may permit (force?) me to act very instinctively by limiting my control and choices, sometimes the zoom allows me to more carefully and fully control the composition and other aspects of the image - even for street photography.</p>

<p>My main point is that accepting some dogma about primes being better for some particular kind of shooting is a bit risky. It is better to shoot a lot, think about what you shoot and how, and come to your own conclusions based on what actually works best for your photography - and not on what you may have been told is "right."</p>

<p>Take care,</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[steven_crist]

<p>Useless without more information. What L lenses do you presently have? Where is the upside photographically by getting rid of the L's and replacing them with non-L Lenses?</p>

[jiamisot_jiamisot]

<p>There's a vast difference between an f/4 zoom and an f/2 or f/1.4 prime. The end result, the dof, the crispiness ... are very different indeed.</p>

<p>I take up the zoom when I need to, whereas some people use zooms as default tools and resolve to primes when light gets dim. For me it's not only about the light. It's about dof, about creative control, about sharpness and about simplicity.</p>

<p>When I want an acceptable result fast, I use a zoom and a flash. But when I want something extraordinary, I pick up a prime. It makes me work harder but the end result is there. Zooms are safe, primes are special.</p>

<p>Anyway, I'm not dissing zooms. There are situations when a zoom is the better tool, usually when you can't reach the subject. In close quarters though, it's easy to shift position and reframe with a prime.</p>

<p> </p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>That's fine, jiamsilot. It's true that a fast prime is capable of shallower DoF than an f/4 zoom (of course!). If what you need is < f/2.8, then you need primes. No argument. All I was pointing out was that the weight/bulk argument doesn't really hold water, unless all you're going to carry with you is a single lens.</p>

<p>FAIW, some of use use zooms as important compositional tools. Zooms allow us to juxtapose foreground and background elements in the proportions we deem best. Prime lenses can be useless in this regard, unless we happen to have the exact required focal length in our collection. If only the foreground elements matter, then primes become much more useful, and in some cases better.</p>

<p>Also, zooms are not safe, nor primes special. Zooms and primes are merely different tools used to execute somewhat different tasks. (Like Dan, I use both.) My own approach to photography is that I want my tools to work well for me, making my job easier, not harder, and making the end result better, not more gratifying. Sometimes the better tool is a prime, and sometimes it's a zoom. In my case, it's the zoom about 80-90% of the time.</p>

[jiamisot_jiamisot]

<p>If that's what you like Sarah, that's fine.</p>

<p>I've been working with zooms for at least as long as with primes and to me a zoom feels rather dull once I've experienced the potential of a good prime.</p>

<p>Anyway, the topic was about primes, not about zooms ;)</p>

<p> </p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>"There's a vast difference between an f/4 zoom and an f/2 or f/1.4 prime. The end result, the dof, the crispiness ... are very different indeed."</p>

<p>Generally speaking, that is nonsense - with the exception of the ability to use the larger aperture to produce a bit narrower DOF in those cases in which you need to do that.</p>

<p>There is this belief that your photographs will be sharper, or "crisper," or have better colors or something if you just forego zooms and use very expensive primes instead. I can guarantee you that one can produce very large (say 24" x 36") prints from excellent zooms that have truly excellent quality in all of these areas.</p>

<p>There are reasons to use primes sometimes, and reasons to use L primes. I own and use them on occasion. However, there is scant evidence that a decision to give up zooms in favor of these primes will improve the quality of the photography for all but a very few who are doing rather specialized sorts of work. (I am especially baffled by those who claim they need more "sharpness," get L primes to supposedly achieve this, and then shoot hand held.)</p>

<p>To the extent that I sometimes produce photographs that some regard as exceptional, there is utterly no correlation between my use of primes or zooms and which of my photographs achieve this. And I know enough other photographers who do truly wonderful work to have had this conversation with them as well, and I guarantee you that quite a few of them simply shake their heads at the obsession with primes among a certain set of forumtographers. They/we regard this obsession with "magical equipment" to be some place between naive and sad.</p>

<p>Again, I am not anti-prime in the least - I own more primes than zooms. (Though I use the zooms more than the primes...)</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Jiamsalot, I'll leave you with one further line of thought. (And while you say zoom/prime considerations don't matter, they do, as you're also dealing with at least one zoom.) Unlike Dan, I don't have many primes, and like you, finances are sometimes challenging for me. I have to be very selective in what I buy. Aside from classic, manual-focus primes I've adapted to my 5D, my only native, EOS-mount, AF-type prime lens is my 100/2. There's a reason for this that isn't particularly obvious, and it's perhaps one that you should consider in your quest to small down your lens collection.</p>

<p>The reason for my single EF-type prime relates to depth of field considerations. In my way of thinking about photography, either I'm trying to maximize DoF, while preserving sharpness, or I'm trying to minimize it to isolate the subject from the background, while maintaining acceptable sharpness. There are some times that I seek to throw the background (or foreground) only somewhat out of focus, so that it is distinct enough to contribute context to the subject; however, this is relatively less frequent a need that is easy enough to meet with almost any lens. So this is how I see my lenses breaking down to meet these needs:</p>

<p>TASK 1: Shallow DoF (highly isolated subject): Here I might need a larger aperture than most zooms will give me. I also need good bokeh for the OOF areas. As I want the flexibility of either foreground or background blur with good bokeh, I want a lens with what I call "neutral" bokeh, meaning that the lens is relatively well corrected for spherical aberration. An undercorrected lens yields very creamy background bokeh and rather harsh foreground bokeh. An overcorrected lens yields the opposite. Lenses with neutral bokeh are relatively common and include the 100/2. If I had a greater equipment budget, I might be interested in a soft focus lens, which would allow me to adjust the bokeh pattern.</p>

<p>For a shallow DoF shot, foreground/background proportions do not really matter much. What matters more to me is having a comfortable focal length -- long enough to minimize foreshortening issues for portraiture work, while not so long as to require an excessive working distance. For me, 100mm is a good working FL.</p>

<p>I don't really need shallow DoF at, say, 50mm, because I mostly use that for multiple subjects. If my DoF is too thin, it may become difficult to get all of my subjects in focus -- not good.</p>

<p>For wider angle work, I don't personally find that a sufficiently shallow DoF can be achieved to be of any interest, so I am not interested in wider angle primes. When I'm shooting wide angle, I seek to minimize the out-of-focus (OOF) content. The only wide angle prime I have is a manual focus fisheye, which I focus with sufficient accuracy via the focusing scale.</p>

<p>I also (just now) have a prime for extreme telephoto work. I've ordered (and haven't yet received) an SMC Takumar 500mm f/4.5 M42 lens. I bought it because it's fast, reasonably good, and cheap. Extreme telephoto optics are extremely expensive (aside from mirror, but...), so they are mostly beyond my ability to own them, whether prime or zoom. The manual Takumar is one I can afford, and I can easily prefocus with liveview on defined locations, such as the osprey nest that's just been built at the end of our neighbor's dock.</p>

<p>So that's it. For a main working lens for shallow DoF, 100mm is a comfortable/good length, and really the only length I need. Any shorter, and I no longer need shallow DoF, and when that is the case...</p>

<p>TASK 2: Expansive DoF. For expansive DoF shots (most of my shots), I want a moderate aperture, usually in the f/8 - f/16 range. In this range, most lenses deliver similar sharpness. There are differences in CA, flare rejection, and distortion, but if one buys a good lens, these things will be well controlled. Here, a high quality zoom's performance will be virtually indistinguishable from a prime's performance. And as Dan has aptly pointed out, hand-holding (which I do) is the great equalizer. Unless you use a tripod and exercise rather compulsive technique (which he does), you're not going to tell the difference between a prime and a zoom.</p>

<p>For this task, foreground/background (and perspective) relationships are extremely important to me for compositional reasons. Therefore I'm either going to have a big bag of primes or a few zooms. The relatively smaller collection of zooms is cheaper, lighter, and smaller, and I do not need to change lenses as often to change focal length. F/4 zooms work great for me, because they are lighter, smaller, and cheaper. F/2.8 zooms would give me shallower DoF, but my 100/2 prime gives me shallower DoF still. Therefore I am totally uninterested in f/2.8 zooms. Also (and most people don't realize this), f/4 zooms are better optimized for smaller apertures, meaning that they are slightly sharper than f/2.8 zooms in my preferred aperture range.</p>

<p>These considerations are just with regard to what *I've* done up to now. If I were more of an event photographer, shooting in bad/low light, I might want a 35/2 or a 24-70/2.8; however, I'm not. This is by way of saying that when you're economizing, like I have to do, and like you're now having to do, you have to ask yourself the hard questions of what you really NEED in a lens. In particular, you need to assess your aperture needs at each focal length. Review your shots to see what you actually do need/use. You might be surprised.</p>

<p>If your needs are anything like mine, which they easily might not be, then maybe you'd be interested in a 24-105/4 + 100/2. That would cover the focal length range you're currently using, plus it would preserve the large aperture portrait capabilities at 100 mm. That would be cheaper/lighter/smaller, while still delivering excellent optical quality. Just a thought.</p>

<p>(If it helps you to understand the logic of my lens selections, my "working" lens lineup is: MC Zenitar 16/2.8, Sigma 12-24, Canon 17-40/4, Canon 24-105/4, Canon 70-200/4 IS, Canon 70-300 IS, SMC Takumar 500/4.5.)</p>