considering a switch back to primes - Printable Version +- Opticallimits (https://forum.opticallimits.com) +-- Forum: Forums (https://forum.opticallimits.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=4) +--- Forum: Canon EOS (https://forum.opticallimits.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=11) +--- Thread: considering a switch back to primes (/showthread.php?tid=707) |
considering a switch back to primes - Arthur Macmillan - 08-03-2016 Quote:Why does it have to be EITHER primes OR zooms? A good zoom like the 16-35/4L IS (I know I'm sounding like a stuck record here) replaces a bag of primes and adds a lot on top. Get that (or a similar Nikon if you're on that system) and keep a few primes (50 + 85/100) above that. I like this idea a lot. You can use this super quality zoom on APS-C (where it is a normal zoom) and FF where it is wide zoom. Then you can pick out one or two primes for speed. I sort of like the EF 35 f/2 IS. As for wider primes, I'm not all that sure. Everyone hates the Sam Yang 14mm, I guess, but it would be wide on aps-c and crazy on FF. And having that 16-35L is what makes it all possible, because when you just want general shooting you will have the a lens as solid as a rock! Rover, I think you sold ME on it! considering a switch back to primes - toni-a - 08-03-2016 Quote:I like this idea a lot. You can use this super quality zoom on APS-C (where it is a normal zoom) and FF where it is wide zoom. Then you can pick out one or two primes for speed. I sort of like the EF 35 f/2 IS. As for wider primes, I'm not all that sure. Everyone hates the Sam Yang 14mm, I guess, but it would be wide on aps-c and crazy on FF. And having that 16-35L is what makes it all possible, because when you just want general shooting you will have the a lens as solid as a rock!Guys I already own the Tokina 16-28f2.8 it has a very decent performance , however I'd prefer a tiny prime, I will easily go for the old 35mm f2.0 rather the new IS one for the same reason. BTW my tokina 16-28 weighs almost one kilogram alone considering a switch back to primes - Rover - 08-04-2016 Quote:I like this idea a lot. You can use this super quality zoom on APS-C (where it is a normal zoom) and FF where it is wide zoom. Then you can pick out one or two primes for speed. I sort of like the EF 35 f/2 IS. As for wider primes, I'm not all that sure. Everyone hates the Sam Yang 14mm, I guess, but it would be wide on aps-c and crazy on FF. And having that 16-35L is what makes it all possible, because when you just want general shooting you will have the a lens as solid as a rock!Unless you get a dud copy / damaged 16-35/4 L IS, you're not going to be disappointed. It really is that good. At one time I was shooting an architectural scene - a large cathedral with the sky and pavement around - and I went for f/4 aperture to preserve some of the vignetting (although it would have looked a good deal more, ahem, "artistic" on FF than on APS-H). I was hard pressed to find any differences in sharpness - corners included - viz a reference f/8 shot. Quote:Guys I already own the Tokina 16-28f2.8 it has a very decent performance , however I'd prefer a tiny prime, I will easily go for the old 35mm f2.0 rather the new IS one for the same reason.It's a f/2.8 zoom, you can't get away from physics. Get over it, the modern quality lenses are, as a rule, large. There are exceptions (say, the 40/2.8 pancake) that only further prove the rule. BTW, the 40mm could be your thing. It destroys the 35/2 in the IQ comparison (including at f/2.8 - at least off the dead center) and could be a better pair with your 16-28 because there is a bigger FL separation. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=810&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=122&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2 considering a switch back to primes - Arthur Macmillan - 08-05-2016 Quote:Guys I already own the Tokina 16-28f2.8 it has a very decent performance , however I'd prefer a tiny prime, I will easily go for the old 35mm f2.0 rather the new IS one for the same reason. I totally get it! All I'm saying is instead of having to cover the whole spectrum in primes, I am beginning to see the logic of getting a couple zooms that can do it all, for convenience. And then just focusing on what you find yourself wanting. I love walking around with a tiny prime lens. But really, anything from 24 to 35mm that was fast and sharp would be all I need. The Sigma 30 efs seems to be good, but I still like the Canon 30 f/2 IS USM. Sure a tiny bit bigger, and I don't say the Sigma isn't a better lens for you. Our shooting styles are probably different. For me: 30 F2, 85 F1.8 or 100 F2, 135 F2L are my next prime candidates. Your probably thinking I don't get it. But I think I might. To me these are all tiny lenses. And are not a bother to carry around. Except the 135. That's a special case. I'm in love with it. But light and fast, and fun to use, easy to carry. I don't worry about gaps in the line up because the zooms are there. Also I'm not aware of any AF ultrawide primes that aren't too expensive to consider. I also agree that the pancakes look really hard to pass up. Such a good value! I have a lot of manual primes I wish to replace with AF! Really, a lot of upgrades in general. So I am strategizing much as you are. I want key primes too. Different lengths, but the same goal of expanded capability, higher quality, small size. considering a switch back to primes - wim - 08-11-2016 The only zoom lens I had for a long time, on FF that is, is the 100-400L, and that only because I don;t want to carry a bunch of lenses to cover teh longer range. When the 100-400 L II arrived, i sold teh old one, and haven;t bought the Mk II yet - maybe some day. All I really miss is the macro capability of that lens with a 500D close-up lens. My shooting style is quite deliberate, so I dont really need zooms, never did, plus I found that I most oftemn shot at the extreme ends fo zooms. I have been back at primes only for my FF ystem for quite a few years already, and it is all I need. My range goes from 17 to 180 mm, plus a 1.4x extender, and I can do all I need or want with this set-up. I may still buy the 11-24L at some stage, and maybe the 100-400 L II, but those are likely all the zoom lenses I will ever get fro my FF system. For MFT the situation is different; different shooting style generally speaking, so I don;t mind using zoom lenses for that system - they are a lot lighter and smaller anyway . However, even there I mostly shoot with primes, including my Canon ones (Metabones adapter) when I am in the mood . HTH, kind regards, Wim considering a switch back to primes - Arthur Macmillan - 08-15-2016 Quote:The only zoom lens I had for a long time, on FF that is, is the 100-400L, and that only because I don;t want to carry a bunch of lenses to cover teh longer range. When the 100-400 L II arrived, i sold teh old one, and haven;t bought the Mk II yet - maybe some day. All I really miss is the macro capability of that lens with a 500D close-up lens. Totally understandable. The thing about long telephoto is that it is hard to carry a 400mm prime around with you, just in case. The 100-400 on the other hand covers a lot of territory. Plus there is no Canon prime I could afford except with no IS and no weather sealing. I live in a beach town! Environmental sealing is high up on my list. Alas, the new less is very expensive. But I have little doubt that I would carrying with me like a Siamese twin! Congrats on selling a lens. The I've only managed to sell one once. "Breaking up is hard to do." |