Small primes

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>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.</em></p>

<p>That may be true if you don't need any of the special primes. But e.g. when photographing landscape, often you also want to photograph flower/plant close-ups. So you need a macro lens, typically in the 100mm ball park for field work is good. You may also want to do some near-to-far landscapes with some vegetation in the foreground yet include a wide angle of view, so you pick a 24 TS-E II in the bag. Now you have a huge gap between 24mm and 100mm in the bag. Do you add a heavy zoom that duplicates some of those focal lengths, or a tiny 50mm prime? The latter will cover the range adequately (well you might have to crop a bit on occasion which is not so much a problem with full frame bodies these days) and provide a lighter bag. The small primes are great for filling gaps between the "special purpose" primes while keeping the bag weight down. </p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Well, I see your point as well. It really depends on your style of photography whether zooms or primes (or both) are a better choice. There's no correct, one-size-fits-all answer. All I'm saying is that depending on what you do, a zoom might be a lighter alternative, as bulky as it might be. The only truly compelling case I can make for primes, used in combination with zooms, is that they are much faster and can achieve special purposes such as T/S. As such, I will always have need for them, just as I have need for zooms.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Many of us find that combining an Extension Tube with a medium telephoto solves our macro needs.</p>

[philip_wilson]

Sarah the 24-70 I use is the older model which weighs almost 1KG (I assume they must use more plastic on the MkII lens

as this seems to be a trend in some of their newer lenses - my 100 F2.8 IS Macro is also plastic). In addition when I am

carrying primes in this range (these days Leica) I tend not to carry a full set but the ones I expect to use. So with a

selection of 24, 35, 50 and 85 I would generally just take 3 of them (usually dropping a 24, 50 or 85 depending on the

circumstances)

[lester_wareham]

I can understand this, my Fd system was 28/2.8, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2.8 plus a Tonkina 17/3.5 (couldn't afford the Canon

of the 17mm).

 

This with two bodies would fit in a small bag. A bit of a budget system for someone who had just left collage.

 

By comparison the modern bodies and "small" primes are quite big. In practice I tend to use zooms except for telephoto

and macro.

[w_t1]

<p>I've owned much of the same stuff (started with FD system in 1980). The only FD mount zoom lens I ever used was one of those heavily-advertised series 1 70-210 zooms which I used little and eventually threw in trash.</p>

<p>When I want a similar setup for a hiking trip or light travels I now use panasonic gf1 or g2 with FD 85 1.8 lens (170mm effective...). I cover the lower range with the 7-14 zoom and the 20mm. I love this combo. 14-28, 40, and 170. I sometimes add the concave 35 f2 (FD). I do have the EF 20, 35 f2, 85 1.8 and higher telephotos, but the fd lenses work better for my needs on u4/3. Tom</p>

[nathan_hoefert]

<p>Played with the pancake lens last week. Amazing lens on a full frame. </p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Canon <em>does</em> make a very fine f/2 35mm lens. Some seem distracted by its older AF system, but the lens works beautifully and is very small and light. I haven't used it, but I understand that the 24mm f/2.8 is a decent lens.</p>

<p>A few other thoughts...</p>

<p>If you want a rangefinder style camera instead of a DSLR, it might make sense to get one rather than trying to make the DSLR be what it isn't. There are a number of decent to quite good new digital cameras that do what you are suggesting you want to do.</p>

<p>A Rebel-style (e.g. t2i-t4i and similar) cropped sensor body with the 35mm f/2 is a very small and useful option. </p>

<p>On the other hand, once you start stringing together a set of primes, even small ones, they begin to compete with the overall size and bulk of a zoom and they sacrifice the flexibility and simplicity of having a single lens on the camera.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Dan</p>

<p>I have and shoot rangefinders (Leica Digital) but for most of the paying stuff I shoot Canon. What I would love is the ability to shoot good primes with canon that are not too large. In general the Canon lenses have grown massively over the years. I have the 35 F2 and find it's performance disappointing. Indeed it offers no real IQ benefits over the 24-70 zoom. If I am going to shoot a prime I want to shoot one that offers IQ benefits over the zoom but I am trying to find something that is not as big as the F1.4 / 1.2 primes. Unfortunately only the 50 f1.4 and 85 F1.8 seem to meet this requirement. I have not used the 28 F2.8 but I suspect it is no higher IQ than the zoom. The top Canon primes do offer IQ advantages over the zoom - I just wish they could offer other primes.<br>

In terms of the Rebel I would never buy one. I find that the viewfinder is too small and dark and the body and handling rather fiddly. I like bodies that have good viewfinders and good handling. When I first shot the 5DII I found it a bit more fiddly than the 1 series bodies and still do not like the mode dial on the 5 and the 7 - much preferring the buttons on the 1 series bodies. The other problem is that on the Rebel you really need a 24mm lens to get the angle of view of a 35mm lens which is my favourite prime.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> Canon does make a very fine f/2 35mm lens.

 

Agreed...

 

Last year I and a project partner authored a photo journal publication about one of San Francisco's neighborhoods. He

used a 5DII and 35 f/2. I also used a 5DII but with a 35/1.4. All street portraits and street photos. In the end, I doubt that

any viewer could tell the difference as to which lens was used for a particular photo.

 

Also agree on Rebel viability.

 

But hey, for the last year I've been shooting exclusively with an iPhone and (most recently) a sony point-n-shoot. In the

end photography is about content, creating compelling photos that evoke a response from a viewer, and not about lens minutia or pedigree.

[brixvold]

<p>I'm totally with you on this one, smallish fast primes please :)<br /><br />If I could live with the IQ of the mirrorless systems I would have shifted some time ago (5d)</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"I have and shoot rangefinders (Leica Digital) but for most of the paying stuff I shoot Canon. What I would love is the ability to shoot good primes with canon that are not too large. In general the Canon lenses have grown massively over the years. I have the 35 F2 and find it's performance disappointing. Indeed it offers no real IQ benefits over the 24-70 zoom. If I am going to shoot a prime I want to shoot one that offers IQ benefits over the zoom but I am trying to find something that is not as big as the F1.4 / 1.2 primes. Unfortunately only the 50 f1.4 and 85 F1.8 seem to meet this requirement. I have not used the 28 F2.8 but I suspect it is no higher IQ than the zoom. The top Canon primes do offer IQ advantages over the zoom - I just wish they could offer other primes.</em><br /><em>In terms of the Rebel I would never buy one. I find that the viewfinder is too small and dark and the body and handling rather fiddly. I like bodies that have good viewfinders and good handling. When I first shot the 5DII I found it a bit more fiddly than the 1 series bodies and still do not like the mode dial on the 5 and the 7 - much preferring the buttons on the 1 series bodies. The other problem is that on the Rebel you really need a 24mm lens to get the angle of view of a 35mm lens which is my favourite prime."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, each to his own. I use the 35mm f/2 and mine is a fine performer. It produces L quality images, at least the way I use it - which includes things ranging from hand held street photography to tripod based landscape work. What I like about it for street shooting is - beside the focal length - the very small size and light weight, and the ability to shoot very quickly with a single focal length. This one less variable to fool with when doing certain types of street work.</p>

<p>The 50mm f/1.4 is an excellent performer - better than L zooms in most cases - and it is reasonably small. The 85mm f/1.8 is similar in this way, too. </p>

<p>Although I don't currently own one, I have shot with the Rebel style bodies and I would give up the larger, brighter viewfinder for the very small and light body if that was important to me. </p>

<p>Photography, like life, is full of compromises. I find that I can live with many of them and still produce fine work.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Philip,</p>

<p>I don't really understand your reasoning, I have to say. Canon have good small primes 24 through 85mm, but you don't seem to want to try them, or you compare them to the zoom, which you say you are unhappy with. If you are really concerned about size of lenses then the choice is simple and perfectly viable. I suggest the answer to your question is not to get yet another system, but become more flexible. Actually since you have a Leica M coming I don't really understand why you are talking about this anyway as that will be your small camera with small primes. You can leave the big zooms on your Canons and use them when you want that approach. The "problem" is already solved.</p>

[tom_elessar]

<p>@Sarah Fox:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Well, I see your point as well. It really depends on your style of photography whether zooms or primes (or both) are a better choice. There's no correct, one-size-fits-all answer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It also depends on your budget! Or, as might be more accurate to say, "It depends on <em>my</em> budget." As far as I've observed, primes are often more economical than zooms; it's possible to get better IQ from primes at a given budget, up to some relatively large amount (like, say, $1000). The 50mm f / 1.8 is the most obvious example, but even the $500 30mm f / 1.4 Sigma I often use in conjunction with the 50mm would be hard to match with equivalently priced zooms. <br>

<br />I do have a Sigma 17 - 50mm, but I rarely use it except for video, or unless I'm in a very tight space. <br>

But I also like shooting people and things, which I've found to be fairly forgiving, in most circumstances, of "zooming with my feet." </p>