Primes/Zooms...

[SimD]

Hi there! So I'm going to soon be in the market for a new lens and I just wanted to hear different opinions.

So I currently use an XTi with a wonderful Canon 10-22/3.5-4.5 ultra-wide angle. The lens is a god send! I mean even on a x1.6 cropped body, the range is outstanding, but as much as I love the lens, I need a more "normal" angle lens. This is where your opinions enter.

I mainly shoot landscape and I would label myself as a "prosumer". I need more of a walk around lens. I've been looking at a certain piece of glass that could work and has got raving reviews.. The Canon 35/1.4L. I will definitely test it before buying, but from what it seems, it's amazing. And so is the price tag

Now, I was hoping to hear what you guys think about the prime. I understand that with a prime, you're more restricted due to the lack of zoom, but for those of you who use one, what do you think? How have they helped you on the field?

I think in the end, my main concern is whether I should go prime or zoom.. If I do go zoom, I will most likely pick up either the 16-35/2.8L or the 17-40/4L...

Well I guess I'll let you guys talk now

Thanks
Sim

 

[Grimace]

"restricted" just means that you zoom with your feet. Primes tend to be sharper than zooms and the 35mm is a great choice. The 50mm f/1.8 (or 1.4) is also a great option and at a great price ($80, $350 respectively).

The 16-35mm is awesome but it you are almost always shooting in daylight, the 17-40mm is a less expensive option that produces great results.

To answer your question, I think having a zoom at the ultra-wide and a prime at portrait length is a solid setup. There are times when you wouldn't be able to move further back using a 35mm (or 50mm) -- that is where your 10-22mm would shine.

 

[SimD]

Thanks a lot

And I guess at x1.6, the 35mm acts as a "normal" angle lens anyway

Time to be broke again! (it's well worth it though)

Sim

 

[OreoCookie]

I don't think either of the lenses you propose is suitable, you should opt for a 2.8/17-50 zoom (e. g. by Tokina or Canon). The two lenses you mention are very good, but they are (i) for full-frame cameras and (ii) the focal length range overlaps significantly with your 10-22 mm zoom.

 

[ChrisA]

"restricted" just means that you zoom with your feet.

That works unless you are shooting big landscapes. If that mountain range is 7 miles away you'd have to walk for half a day to get a tighter shot. But if the subject is 50 feet away you only have to move 25 feet to make it twice as large.

The other thing is that perspective is defined by camera location. Perspective is the ratio of the size of the foreground objects to the background objects. A wider lens will make the foreground objects appear larger relative to the background

I think the reason to buy a prime is either (1) because you need f/1.4 or f/1.8 and you can't get that in a zoom or (2) because primes cost so much less than a pro quality zoom.

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

I use mainly primes, not because they're cheaper. I like that they are faster, but mostly I like how they force me to look at a scene and think about it before I shoot.

Also, most of my prime lenses are not really cheaper than a pro caliber zoom. Next month I'll buy a Pentax DA* 200 f/2.8 prime lens http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/5328/lens-test-pentax-smcp-da-200mm-f28ed-if-sdm-af.html I don't think that lens is much cheaper than a Pro quality zoom, and almost certainly sharper than a zoom.

 

[ButtUglyJeff]

Tamron makes a series of lenses called the "DI-II" series. They're designed for DSLRs with small sensors. There's a 17-50mm F/2.8 that might be a nice choice.

http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/1750_diII_a016.asp

 

[localghost]

Get the ...

35mm 2.0 – see how you like shooting primes (I know I do).
It’s a fantastic bargain, and if you mostly shoot landscapes, you’ll probably like it. Then decide between the convenience of a zoom or the speed, colors and magic of the 35mm 1.4.

Whatever you’ll end up getting, the 2.0 + xti will still be a very light and small combo that’s incredibly useful.

 

[M@lew]

The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is a very nice alternative to the Canon if you can't afford it.

 

[bluesmap]

Tamron makes a series of lenses called the "DI-II" series. They're designed for DSLRs with small sensors. There's a 17-50mm F/2.8 that might be a nice choice.

http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/1750_diII_a016.asp

agreed.

for a walkaround lens this is great.


for the price of the 16-35 i would get the tamron 17-50 and the canon 70-200 f/4 non IS. score two birds with one stone.

the tamron is a great, fast, sharp lens