Posts: 257
Threads: 14
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation:
1
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.
The Sigma 20/1.8 doesn't look like a good lens even in the old APS-C test (on Canon 350D Klaus used in the days of yore). Coupled with it being an old type Sigma with all the attendant mechanical, ahem, peculiarities, I would not want to go back to it.
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!
Posts: 2,730
Threads: 598
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
15
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!
Rover, I think you sold ME on it!
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
Posts: 3,149
Threads: 36
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation:
22
08-04-2016, 09:39 AM
(This post was last modified: 08-04-2016, 09:49 AM by Rover.)
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!
Rover, I think you sold ME on it!
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.
BTW my tokina 16-28 weighs almost one kilogram alone
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/Revie...&APIComp=2
Posts: 257
Threads: 14
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation:
1
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.
BTW my tokina 16-28 weighs almost one kilogram alone
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.
Posts: 1,597
Threads: 22
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
8
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
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
Posts: 257
Threads: 14
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation:
1
08-15-2016, 01:13 AM
(This post was last modified: 08-15-2016, 01:17 AM by Arthur Macmillan.)
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.
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
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."
|