3 new primes

[uppike_suffa]

<p>I would like to hear your opinion regarding a three prime set for 5dmkii. I have selected these canon lenses:</p>

 

<ul>

<li>20mm 2.8 vs 24mm 1.4 <br /><br /></li>

<li>50mm 1.4 vs 50mm 1.2<br /><br /></li>

<li>100mm 2.0 vs 135mm 2.0</li>

</ul>

<p>I like the smaller primes (because they're small) but if the bigger ones are considerably better, I am willing to consider them. </p>

<p> </p>

[keith reeder]

<p>Well none of them would be my first choice for long range wildlife photography or <a href="http://www.kazemisu.me.uk/images/croft_1200_3.jpg">fast motor sport</a>, but maybe you aren't shooting that stuff.</p>

<p><em>Which is a hint..!</em><br /> <br /> Gentle ribbing apart, welcome on board. It really would be helpful if you could let us know what and how you intend to be shooting.</p>

[uppike_suffa]

<p>Let's see: no sports, no wildlife, no flowers or critters.</p>

<p>What I do shoot:</p>

<ul>

<li>Landscapes (must be lightweight),</li>

<li>Events (must be bright lenses),</li>

<li>Still life (must have decent close focusing, though not necessarily 1/1 macro).<br />PS: this is the least important criterium of the three. </li>

</ul>

<p>I do like lenses with enough separation. I do not feel like I need to cover every focal length. Instead, I prefer a lens which is right for the job and has plenty of character.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>google</p>

[wm._reed_lovick]

<p>I have an array of fixed and tele (mostly Canon L's) and I can guarantee you that landscapes, events and still life images are better served with more than just a fixed lens. Just speaking from experience.<br>

And don't ever say what you will not be shooting! It simply doesn't work that way. Again… just speaking from experience!</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

EF 24mm f/2.8 or 28mm f/2.8; EF 50mm f/1.4; EF 135mm f/2.0

 

 

I don't care for the EF 20mm f/2.8 it is a very old design and needs a refresh. The 50mm f/1.2 focuses slowly and unless

you are planning to do most of your photography with it at f/1.2 it is a waste on cash compared to the f/1.4; and I just

really, really like the 135mm f/2L, but I also think the 85mm f/1.8 is pretty terror as well.

 

The money you save over the exotic large aperture lenses should be applied towards acquiring the 5D Mk III as it is far

and away a better camera -- better Imaging system, better image quality at ISO settings above 400, better native color

rendering, and far, far better AF than the 5D Mk.II.

[wm._reed_lovick]

<p>My 5D3 takes a back seat to my 7D on many occasions. In fact, my 5D3 tends to be a bit soft and I don't even think about using it for astro-imaging. The 5D3 has been a slight disappointment to me and the HDR is pretty much worthless. Nothing near as I would create with Photomatix Pro. <br>

I will say the Canon 4.0L 24-105 I purchased several years back continues to be my "goto" lens on both the full and crop.</p>

[anthony_r.1]

<blockquote>

<p>20mm 2.8 vs 24mm 1.4</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 20 seems to have an unfavorable reputation. I've never owned one so I can't comment. You did say "if the bigger ones are considerably better", I think that's the case here.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>50mm 1.4 vs 50mm 1.2</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I had the 1.4 and the original metal mount 1.8. I preferred the 1.8 and traded in the 1.4. Can't comment on the 1.2</p>

<blockquote>

<p>100mm 2.0 vs 135mm 2.0</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would recommend the 100 2.8 L macro. The 135 is very highly regarded.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>I have the 24/1.4 and it's a great lens. It focuses quite close, has very high center resolution, and is sharp across the frame once stopped down.</p>

<p>I also have the 50/1.4. Although I've never used the 50/1.2, the slower prime is superior with respect to resolution according to all the reviews I've read (e.g., <a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/472-canon_50_12_5d">photozone's</a>), and it's one quarter of the price.</p>

<p>I have the 135/2 and had the 100/2. While the latter is a good lens, the former is one of Canon's special primes. I use it mainly for informal portraiture outdoors on my 5DII and 7D.</p>

[kerry_grim]

My choice would be 24 2.8 IS, 40 2.8 STM, 100 2.8 IS macro; compact (except the macro) and

lightweight.

 

If carrying the lenses far doing landscape, little or no advantage to dragging around fast and expensive wide

angle and normal lens.

[uppike_suffa]

<p>I appreciate someone suggesting the 5dmkiii but that's out of the equation, unless the mkiii has way better dynamic range.</p>

<p>I don't need special AF or high fps while shooting landscapes and still life (nor for events). I'm not the spray & pray type ;)</p>

<p>What I would appreciate though is better manual focus, less clipping in the highlights and a histogram or blinking highlights<em> in the viewfinder</em>. I guess the mkiii has none of that.</p>

<p>I'd like to add one more competitor: <strong>ef 24mm 2.8 IS.</strong><br>

Is this one really contrasty and sharp wide open?</p>

<p> </p>

[rob_h5]

<blockquote>

<p>•20mm 2.8 vs 24mm 1.4<br /> •50mm 1.4 vs 50mm 1.2<br /> •100mm 2.0 vs 135mm 2.0<br /> What I do shoot:<br /> <strong>•Landscapes (must be lightweight), </strong><br /> <strong>•Events (must be bright lenses), </strong><br /> <strong>•Still life</strong> (must have decent close focusing, though not necessarily 1/1 macro). PS: this is the least important criterium of the three</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You may not like this answer but IMO <strong>NONE OF THE ABOVE.</strong><br /> Each of the lenses you mentioned (except the Canon 50/1.4 an excellent "normal" lens) are kind of specialist lenses and wont do for ALL the subjects you mentioned. If you were only shooting landscapes then 20mm 2.8 or 24mm 1.4 , if only event group shots then a 50mm 1.4 , 50mm 1.2, or for portraits the 100mm 2.0 or 135mm 2.0. Having shot with most these lenses the 135/2 L being the best portrait lens in your list. Still life could be 50mm and up...( 20mm may cause too much distortion). <strong>Unless you want to purchase three primes consider a zoom lens.</strong></p>

<p><strong>What you need is a Canon L zoom, a professional good, fast, bright, light, travel/walk around zoom lens</strong>...start with a <strong>Canon 24-70mm f2.8 MKII L zoom lens.</strong><br /> <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/843008-USA/Canon_5175B002_EF_24_70mm_f_2_8L_II.html">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/843008-USA/Canon_5175B002_EF_24_70mm_f_2_8L_II.html</a><br /> Just my opinion. :)</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>Yeah, don't worry about the 5D III for what you want. </p>

<p>Comparing 20mm to 24mm is apple to oranges. 20mm is getting into the superwide range which is more challenging to compose well with. I started out with 24mm and quickly realized it was not wide enough for me, but we're all different and both 20mm and 24mm are a far cry from your planned 50mm. The EF 20/2.8 does have a bad reputation and although I don't use many zooms myself, you may want to consider the Canon EF 17-40/4 L. It gets you the normal wide range as well as the superwide range to experiment with. I know you want small and light, but oh well what the heck.</p>

<p>On the 50mm I would save a ton of money and get the 50/1.4.</p>

<p>I too have considered on and off whether to get a 100/2.8 L Macro or 135/2 L. I also considered the 100/2 but those two L's are supposed to be so good that I would not want to compromise. Take the savings from not getting the 50/1.2 and apply it to one of these. My current preference for event/portraiture, and even some sports is the 135/2 L, I'm just not into bugs and flowers at this time.</p>

<p>P.S. If you are serious about going the 24/1.4 L route I would also highly recommend a used Canon EF 24mm f3.5 L TS-E instead. Shift can be very helpful for landscapes when you want to place the horizon nearer to the edge, and you may find tilt to be useful too. I have the 17 TS-E and use it shifted for landscapes/architecture. I also shift/stitch to create huge files and/or panoramics. Once again though, small and light goes out the window. I'll take image quality over my back any day!</p>

[uppike_suffa]

<p>About <strong>ef 24mm 2.8 IS</strong></p>

<p>How can you upload peripheral illumination correction for this lens into a 5dmkii ? <br /> The lens was not out when I got the 5dmkii .</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you were only shooting landscapes then 20mm 2.8 or 24mm 1.4 , if only event group shots then a 50mm 1.4 , 50mm 1.2, or for portraits the 100mm 2.0 or 135mm 2.0.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I think your approach is very restrictive. I shoot more landscapes with tele than with wide. And I've made very nice portraits with the 50 and even shorter lenses. Same for events, which is far more than group shots.<br>

Thinking landscape = wide and portrait = tele is very ... restrictive, to put it gently.</p>

 

[Robin Smith]

<p>The 20mm is the worst of the bunch - rarely gets a break in reviews...but unless you pay big bucks for the 17mm TS-E or the 18 or 21 Zeiss ZE you are stuck. The Voigtlander 20mm might be worth a look. Otherwise I would also add the 24 IS f2.8 to your list if you want small. Otherwise I think the 50/1.4 or the 100/2 would be just fine. I have the 135/2 but the 100mm is meant to be great value.</p>

[uppike_suffa]

<blockquote>

<p>Otherwise I think the 50/1.4 or the 100/2 would be just fine.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's my thinking too at the moment. Very nice combo. Compact, bright and sharp.</p>

<p><br /> The nice thing about the 20 is that it's considerably wider than 24 and impresses on another level. Stop it down and the 20 is plenty sharp and contrasty. I've tried it briefly and had the impression that the 20 is sharper up close than for distant shots. Perhaps because it has a curved field of focus...?<br /> <br />I just need to add some sort of wide. Either a normal wide (28-35) or go crazy with ultra wide (20-24).<br /> It happens that 24 IS and 28 IS have both the same filter size as 50/1.4, 100/2 and 100 macro!<br /> Any idea how you can upload peripheral illumination correction for 24 IS and 28 IS into a 5dmkii ?</p>

[rob_h5]

<blockquote>

<p>Thinking landscape = wide and portrait = tele is very ... restrictive,</p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>Well this is the norm.</strong> There is a reason <em>most</em> landscape photographers shoot with UWA (ultra wide angle) and portrait photographers like myself shoot with portrait lenses which is normally the medium-tele range of 85-135mm focal length lenses or could even be anyhere from 50-180mm for portrait. You could even go with a super tele 300mm with portrait. Sure there are exceptions.</p>

<p>The point is a zoom like the <strong>Canon 24-70mm f2.8 MKII L zoom lens </strong>would cover everything you want to shoot.</p>

[uppike_suffa]

<p>It's not. Ever heard of landscape compression and environmental portraits?</p>

<p>I haven't used the 24-70 mkii but I did have the 24-70 mki and although it's a decent lens, it's not great. Tele performance was really low. Compare 70/2.8 to 50/1.4, 85/1.8 or 100/2 and the primes are way sharper, punchier and offer more isolation.</p>

<p>I also didn't like the distribution very much. 24 being too wide for normal use and 70 too short for some serious compression or isolation. Would prefer 28-85/2.8 for a medium zoom or even 35-100/2.8. Bottom line: there wasn't anything I couldn't do with a 50 and a wide lens that the zoom was doing.</p>

<p>Therefore, not sure if the mkii would make me happier.</p>

 

[rob_h5]

<blockquote>

<p>It's not. Ever heard of landscape compression and environmental portraits?</p>

<p>Sure there are exceptions.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>We all have, I have shot a few of these myself. That said the lenses that I have a mentioned are generally used for a specific purpose. You can even shoot portraits with fisheyes if you want ... but there are lenses that are generally used for specific purposes.</p>

<p>There are many other Canon L zooms too if <strong>Canon 24-70mm f2.8 MKII L zoom lens</strong> is not for you, I just think the zoom route might be better for you than carrying a bunch of primes.</p>

[uppike_suffa]

<p>Hi Rob, I understand what you're saying but I've tried the L zooms and after a time they didn't impress me anymore (apart from their sheer weight and bulk) You basically have to stop these zooms to 5.6 to get the same quality you get with a prime at 2.8 (exceptions exist).</p>

<p>That said, I do enjoy shooting primes. One of photographer's key traits, imo, are anticipation and vision. If you have that, you instinctively know which lens to use. Also, I like to keep things simple and sometimes go out with just one or two primes. Besides lenses, I pay (more) attention to light, concept, filters and post.</p>

<p>Zooms aside, I think I'll start with 50 and 100 primes and build from there, perhaps the new 35 IS and the old 20 stopped down. These are classic focal lengths and no single zoom covers it all (so I'd be swapping lenses anyway). Of course, I don't need to carry everything at the same time.</p>

<p> </p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>A single 24-105mm f/4 L IS zoom covers that full range. </p>

<p>Why primes? (I shoot primes quite a bit, but I also shoot zooms, and I find that the zooms get more use.) </p>

<p>Among those primes, if weight and bulk are an issue - and perhaps even if they are not - the smaller and lighter lenses are fine. I'm assuming you shoot full frame with that selection. If you shoot a cropped sensor body, this group of primes would be a somewhat unusual choice.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>accidental double post deleted</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Someone wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Thinking landscape = wide and portrait = tele is very ... restrictive,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Rob H responded:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Well this is the norm.</strong> There is a reason <em>most</em> landscape photographers shoot with UWA (ultra wide angle) and portrait photographers like myself shoot with portrait lenses which is normally the medium-tele range of 85-135mm focal length lenses or could even be anyhere from 50-180mm for portrait. You could even go with a super tele 300mm with portrait. Sure there are exceptions.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is not the norm, at least not when it comes to landscape photography. It is a platitude repeated by those who give advice about something they don't know a lot about, or by those who actually do prefer wide angle lenses for landscape but cannot separate their own personal preferences from what is normal or typical in the rest of the world. </p>

<p>Wide angle lenses can, indeed, be useful for certain types of landscape photography. One is the familiar "near-far" composition that juxtaposes some small, close subject with some much larger and more distant one - perhaps a plant, rock, flower in the foreground with mountain, sky, etc. beyond. Another is the (sometimes unfortunate) "fit everything in the frame" school of shooting. This can work occasionally, but it can also be due to an inability to pick a composition out of a large landscape.</p>

<p>However, "normal," telephoto, and even very long telephoto lenses are frequently used for landscape photography. This has long been the case, and it continues to be so today. Among landscape photographers I know, for example, the 70-200mm zooms are among their favorite lenses and for some of them are their most frequently used lenses. </p>

<p>Please note that I am not saying that you cannot or should not use wide lenses for landscape. In some situations they are just the right thing for some photographers. I'm also not saying that telephotos are the only lenses to use - while they are very useful, there are times when they are not ideal. What I am saying is that there is no such thing as a "landscape" focal length range and that it is certainly not the case that landscape lenses are usually or typically wide.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p><img src="http://gdanmitchell.com/gallery/d/3838-2/GraniteCreekBridgeArchSurf20100102.jpg" alt="" width="422" height="640" /></p>

[rob_h5]

<blockquote>

<p>A single 24-105mm f/4 L IS zoom covers that full range.<br /> Why primes? (I shoot primes quite a bit, but I also shoot zooms, and I find that the zooms get more use.)</p>

<p>...who actually do prefer wide angle lenses for landscape</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dan I agree with you that the OP should give Canon L zooms a chance, I have also found that they get more use.<br /> And I also agree with you about telephotos lenses used for landscape. I will admit my speciality is NOT landscapes, its portraits, people, but when I shoot landscapes .... <em>I happen to prefer UWA lens. </em><strong>I have shot amazing landscapes with the Canon 17-40mm L f4 zoom lens</strong>...but that lens is certainly not my first choice for portraits.I meant to say wide angle lenses tend to be the most <em>popular lenses</em> but definitely not the only lenses used for landscape photography.</p>

<p>Telephotos lenses are used a lot for landscapes and your photo is a great example of landscape photography from a telephoto lens. What lens was that BTW?</p>

<p> </p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Uppike, I think the recommendations for the 24-70 or 24-105 are probably a good fit. If 70mm or 105mm isn't long enough to give you the compression you want, then consider adding a 70-200 to your kit. The entire 70-200 family is brilliant. I own and love the 70-200/4IS. It's a bit like holding a chunk of pipe, but it's otherwise not too large or heavy.</p>

<p>I don't think there's much to gain from primes, unless for shooting at wide apertures. If you want to go that route, I would recommend the 100/2, which I own and use. It's a very sharp and affordable lens with a neutral bokeh. However, it's not going to give you a lot of compression. The 135 is also a very fine (obviously finer) lens, but I've never used one.</p>

<p>I wouldn't recommend the 50/1.2, because it is a very specialized lens -- aptly described as a one-trick pony. The 50/1.4 would be a much better general purpose lens.</p>

<p>I can't really see much point in a wide prime, because large aperture work becomes somewhat pointless at wide angles. There are a few nice wide zooms out there that yield some nice very nice results when shot with smaller apertures. I might carve out an exception for the Samyang 14/2.8, which I'm eyeing.</p>