Top five zooms and primes, opinions.

FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
1 2 3 4 5 end

Archive 2006 · Top five zooms and primes, opinions.

Grant808
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #1 · Top five zooms and primes, opinions.

I shoot weddings and events. Try to shoot architecture if and when I can get the work. Birds and wildlife for hobby.

Non-L Prime
1. 85/1.8 a must have to me...owned two for a while.
2. 28/1.8
3. 50/1.4
4. 100/2.8 Macro
5. 35/2 Good, but still sold it due to lack of use.

Non-L Zoom
1. 17-55/2.8IS
2. 10-22 Great for wide angle and perspective control web-only shots.
3. Sigma 12-24 Needs to be stopped down, but excellent for landscapes. I don't understand why Canon doesn't make a lens like this for FF.
4. 24-85 - Because it's silver to match my 300D.
5.

L Prime.
1. 200/2.8 Great value, extremely sharp, takes one or two 1.4x converters well (one Canon one Kenko Pro 300).
2. 500/4IS
3. 135/2
4. 400/5.6
5. I only have 4 L primes...but I'd stick the 35/1.4 here if I owned one. I don't own one because I have the Zeiss 35/1.4.

L Zoom.
1. 24-105IS My 'go to' lens for the 5D
2. 70-200/2.8IS
3. 24-70
4. Nothing to fill in here, because the other L zooms don't make the grade IMO...at least not on FF.
5.

Edited by Grant808 on Dec 30, 2006 at 09:54 PM GMT (Reason: I don't know how to follow directions

)

Dec 31, 2006 at 05:06 AM

LDRider
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #2 · Top five zooms and primes, opinions.

Roger: "Brutus" is giving you some good advice.
It's a nice day....go outside and play.

Joe P

Dec 31, 2006 at 05:20 AM

moondigger
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #3 · Top five zooms and primes, opinions.

mh2000 wrote:
ok, I guess I don't remember that 1.6 rule... and I guess it depends on how many primes you want to carry. [...] Thanks for the explaination though! As I said, either my memory is getting hazy or I just ignore these rules in general and was never paying attention.

Well, it wasn't a rule so much as a guideline to building a prime set. Ever notice there's no common prime focal length between 35 and 50? or between 50 and 85? Because 85 was considered the minimum jump longer above 50 that was worthwhile, and 35 was considered the minimum jump shorter that was worthwhile. Both are different enough from 50 that it didn't seem like a waste of money, but close enough that it didn't feel like you were missing important focal lengths.

Obviously some photographers work differently and prefer a greater jump, and many photographers prefer not to miss any focal length at all -- using zooms to insure they always have what they need. But for many photographers 100mm is too big a jump from 50mm or not enough of a jump from 85. I don't own a 100mm lens simply because I have 85 and 135 primes already. If only the 135 were a macro, I'd never have a need or desire for a 100mm lens.

Dec 31, 2006 at 06:02 AM

Koivulehto
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #4 · Top five zooms and primes, opinions.

I'll explain why I have bought and haven't bought some lenses - equally much to myself than to you. Why am I not shooting now? Well, I prefer shooting in the summer and looking at the results (and posting the kitty shots

) in the winter. I live equally up north than the southern part of Greenland but without snow, so the light outside is not at all inspiring now.

Non-L primes:
1. 50 f/1.4 for generic low light use
2. 15 f/2.8 for very wide angle use, both as neutral and occasionally tilted for effect use
3. MP-E 65 f/2.8 for deep macro use – it is very challenging without a macro flash
4. 85 f/1.8 not bought because I don't do sports
5. 50 f/1.8 not bought because of 50 f/1.4

Non-L zooms:
1. 70-300 DO not bought because of the big 70-200 instead, and I have a PowerShot P&S still available for travel use – and if I just travel, I don’t want to look like a photographer

L primes:
1. 85L f/1.2 for portrait use in low light. In better light I usually have a zoom
2. 180L f/3.5 for “ordinary” macro use
3. 24L TS-E for architecture use
4. 300L f/4 IS as a compromise for price, reach, minimum focus distance and weight. Bought it only in the autumn, and possibly because of lousy light ever since, haven’t yet got a single good shot with it. I hate compromises …
5. 300L f/2.8 IS not bought because of price, weight and disapproval by wife. Have tested it with beautiful results.
6. 600L f/4 IS not yet bought but I am saving for this – and working with wife’s attitude. When I get this, then the 300L f/4 IS makes more sense in my overall set. I plan to use it handheld as well – I tested the 300L f/2.8 IS with 2x TC and added weight to simulate 600L’s FL and weight and found the combination usable with my body (see Profile for details).

L zooms:
1. 24-105L f/4 IS as a default lens with 5D (bought bundled with the body). IS allows incredibly long handheld exposures
2. 70-200L f/2.8 IS as the longer distance people shooting default lens. Very sharp results in good light and occasionally in low light
3. 16-35L f/2.8 bought instead of 17-40L f/4 because of almost same weight and a bargain price for a demo copy. Not really used much – been too busy with the other lenses

4. 100-400L not bought because of redundancy with 70-200 & 300 + 1.4x TC, slow aperture and still not enough reach in 5D body

Why have I put this much money in lenses? 50 years’ crisis? Possibly. I have photographed for 30 years and want to see what I can achieve now that a dSLR and a desktop printer allows a totally different learning cycle vs. the film days’ delays & smelly darkroom.

Dec 31, 2006 at 07:04 AM

Pondria
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #5 · Top five zooms and primes, opinions.

Why can't one compare an Apple and an Orange. It makes good sense to me. If you can buy only one of them, you would have to compare the values to you.

Dec 31, 2006 at 07:28 AM

knodl
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #6 · Top five zooms and primes, opinions.

Let me just preface this by saying most lenses built today are more than adequate for obtaining decent photos. As far as these Canon L lenses are concerned they all for the most part do very well for what they were primarily designed for. One of the biggest issues the "non-professional" quite frequently loves to entertain is the "sharpest" lens obsession. I make no value judgement with regard to lens lust as I have myself recently stated on the forum my admiration of the new Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 Aspheric L. Do I really need this lens? Absolutely not! The most practical and overall usefull lens I own for my Canon full-frame cameras is without a doubt the 24-70mm f/2.8 L.
It's a very useful and well made lens. Another lens that has an exceelent reputation for full frame Canon bodies, is the Tamron 28-70. Eithrt way good luch in life.

Dec 31, 2006 at 08:29 AM

Flappie
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #7 · Top five zooms and primes, opinions.

Pondria wrote:
Why can't one compare an Apple and an Orange. It makes good sense to me. If you can buy only one of them, you would have to compare the values to you.

But you should base yourself on the focal length you need, not the optical quality. And everyone's needs are different...
I never get the question 24L or 35L, because these lenses are totally different, and if you don't understand the difference between a 24 and a 35mm, you don't need to spend > 1000 EUR/USD on a lens

Dec 31, 2006 at 10:19 AM

roger lund
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #8 · Top five zooms and primes, opinions.

LDRider wrote:
Roger: "Brutus" is giving you some good advice.
It's a nice day....go outside and play.

Joe P

It is winter here, and I have a cold, :P

Also up until now we have had no snow, so everything is brown..

Dec 31, 2006 at 05:17 PM

roger lund
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #9 · Top five zooms and primes, opinions.

To the others that have posted, thanks again, keep them coming, and post your web links with examples of your work, then we can see your stuff!

Thanks

P.S I will be out of town until Monday.

Dec 31, 2006 at 05:18 PM

EOS20
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #10 · Top five zooms and primes, opinions.

Non-L Prime
1.50 f/2.5 Compact macro
2.50 f/1.8 II (For value for money)
3.35 f/2
4.85 f/1.8
5.100 f/2.8 macro

Non-L Zoom
1.28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM II
2.35-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM
3.28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS
4.24-85 f/3.5-4.5 USM
5.70-300 f/4-5.6 IS

L Prime.
1.35 f/1.4 L
2.135 f/2 L
3.200 f/2.8 L
4.300 f/2.8 L IS
5.90 TS-E (Technically not a L, But close enough)

L Zoom.
1.17-40 f/4 L
2.24-105 f/4 L IS
3.70-200 f/4 L
4.70-200 f/2.8 L
5.70-200 f/2.8 IS L

Dec 31, 2006 at 05:37 PM

roger lund
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #11 · Top five zooms and primes, opinions.

EOS20 wrote:
Non-L Prime
1.50 f/2.5 Compact macro
2.50 f/1.8 II (For value for money)
3.35 f/2
4.85 f/1.8
5.100 f/2.8 macro

Non-L Zoom
1.28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM II
2.35-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM
3.28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS
4.24-85 f/3.5-4.5 USM
5.70-300 f/4-5.6 IS

L Prime.
1.35 f/1.4 L
2.135 f/2 L
3.200 f/2.8 L
4.300 f/2.8 L IS
5.90 TS-E (Technically not a L, But close enough)

L Zoom.
1.17-40 f/4 L
2.24-105 f/4 L IS
3.70-200 f/4 L
4.70-200 f/2.8 L
5.70-200 f/2.8 IS L

Thanks for the post.

Dec 31, 2006 at 06:39 PM

kunchit
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #12 · Top five zooms and primes, opinions.

Non-L prime:
85 1.8, 100 2.8 macro,50 1.4, 50 1.8, 24 2.8

Non-L zoom:
28-105 3.5-4.5, 75-300 4-5.6
Wish to have: 70-300 4-5.6 IS

L prime:
400 5.6
Wish to have: 300 4 IS, 135 2, 400 4 IS, 200 2.8

L zoom:
24-105 4, 17-40 4, 70-200 4
Wish to have: 70-200 4 IS

Jan 01, 2007 at 01:07 AM

Gil_W
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #13 · Top five zooms and primes, opinions.

Photography is just a hobby to me. I mainly like outdoor photography but also flower closeups/macro.

Non-L prime:
1. 85 1.8- good price, sharp lens, great on FF body
2. 100 macro- sharp, good colors
3. 50 1.4- good low light fast lens
4. 135 soft focus- very sharp at 135 with soft off, still learning the soft
techniques, good for portraits of us older folks with light soft settings. If light is right (behind subject), pictures can be impressive due to light being diffussed by softness. Still working on that too.

Non-L zoom:
1. 70-300 DO- Nice size, it's black, needs PP but can produce good quality
pictures if you PP them well. Just ashame Canon didn't tweak this lens
a little more before they released it.

L Prime:
1. 300 f/2.8-color, sharpness, bokeh + takes 1.4 and 2x tcs very well
2. 500 f/4- same as 1 + range + takes 1.2 and 2x tcs very well
3. 180 Macro- I think this to be my best color lens
4. 135- same as 1 xcpt for tcs
5. 35- great for indoors

L zoom:
1. 24-70- good for landscapes and panos plus good for large indoor rooms
2. 16-35- my indoor zoom plus deep woods landscapes
3. 100-400- versitile, light weight walk around wildlife lens

Jan 01, 2007 at 02:02 AM

Russell Smith
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #14 · Top five zooms and primes, opinions.

Roger, I have read each one and think you said it best when you said that you loved learning, might be called a nerd. Or words to that effect. By now then you should see that each person here has expressed their idea of the BEST and the uses. I believe, like Brutus, that you should get out and shoot. I, like most of these respondents, have studied photography and its variety of features for many years. A lot more than most of you have been on this earth, but I also have studied so many more subjects to make the complete man, so to speak. In between I have walked thousands of miles, climbed many mountains, fished many streams and lakes and oceans. I also helped my wife raise six children. In spite of all my studies, reading, exercising and taking pictures I still have no idea what lenses I would buy given the money for all I desired. I have tried dozens, loved them all, am still trading as you know. To cap this off, I will say, buy and use what you feel like is the one you want right now, because it is all fun, or should be. Just don't leave off any of life's more interesting studies, including yourself.

Russell

Jan 01, 2007 at 03:22 AM

jdaily
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #15 · Top five zooms and primes, opinions.

Seabrat wrote:
...
4. 135 soft focus- very sharp at 135 with soft off, still learning the soft
techniques, good for portraits of us older folks with light soft settings.

You may well know this, but just for general consumption, since not everyone who has used this lens has noticed: the adjustment can be set anywhere in the range from 0 to 2.

I didn't keep the lens because it was long on my 300D and I didn't do much (well, really, any) portrait work, but it's a very good lens for a very good price.

3. 100-400- versitile, light weight walk around wildlife lens

Oy, I don't think I'd ever call the 100-400 light-weight, unless you're comparing it to one of the really big telephotos.

Although, looking at the Canon lens chart, it's only a few ounces heavier than the 400/5.6, which really surprises me. I never thought of the 400 as heavy, but walking around with the 100-400 wore me out.

Jan 01, 2007 at 03:41 AM

Gil_W
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #16 · Top five zooms and primes, opinions.

jdaily wrote:
Seabrat wrote:
...
4. 135 soft focus- very sharp at 135 with soft off, still learning the soft
techniques, good for portraits of us older folks with light soft settings.

You may well know this, but just for general consumption, since not everyone who has used this lens has noticed: the adjustment can be set anywhere in the range from 0 to 2.

I didn't keep the lens because it was long on my 300D and I didn't do much (well, really, any) portrait work, but it's a very good lens for a very good price.

3. 100-400- versitile, light weight walk around wildlife lens

Oy, I don't think I'd ever call the 100-400 light-weight, unless you're comparing it to one of the really big telephotos.

Although, looking at the Canon lens chart, it's only a few ounces heavier than the 400/5.6, which really surprises me. I never thought of the 400 as heavy, but walking around with the 100-400 wore me out.

Yes I know about the varying softness and that you can also set in-between the numbered settings. I have seen some wonderful 135 SF pictures on other personal sites but it is the learning and proper angled light usage that really matters with this lens when using the "soft" side of it.

I think that carrying the 100-400 around in the woods is not too bad but I agree it is not light, but it does give one a nice range for widlife in a hand holdable lens. I also use the lighter 70-300 DO which is really nice to carry for the varied range and great IS, but there is always PP afterwards and that lens needs bright light.

Gil

Jan 01, 2007 at 04:13 AM

Focus Locus
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #17 · Top five zooms and primes, opinions.

200/1.8L

Jan 01, 2007 at 04:54 AM

roger lund
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #18 · Top five zooms and primes, opinions.

Seabrat wrote:
Photography is just a hobby to me. I mainly like outdoor photography but also flower closeups/macro.

Non-L prime:
1. 85 1.8- good price, sharp lens, great on FF body
2. 100 macro- sharp, good colors
3. 50 1.4- good low light fast lens
4. 135 soft focus- very sharp at 135 with soft off, still learning the soft
techniques, good for portraits of us older folks with light soft settings. If light is right (behind subject), pictures can be impressive due to light being diffussed by softness. Still working on that too.

Non-L zoom:
1. 70-300 DO- Nice size, it's black, needs PP but can produce good quality
pictures if you PP them well. Just ashame Canon didn't tweak this lens
a little more before they released it.

L Prime:
1. 300 f/2.8-color, sharpness, bokeh + takes 1.4 and 2x tcs very well
2. 500 f/4- same as 1 + range + takes 1.2 and 2x tcs very well
3. 180 Macro- I think this to be my best color lens
4. 135- same as 1 xcpt for tcs
5. 35- great for indoors

L zoom:
1. 24-70- good for landscapes and panos plus good for large indoor rooms
2. 16-35- my indoor zoom plus deep woods landscapes
3. 100-400- versitile, light weight walk around wildlife lens

Seabrat,

I see that you state the 180 Macro for your 200mm range under L prime, what do you like and dislike about that lens?

How fast is the auto focus?

and do you have any pictures?

Jan 03, 2007 at 12:39 PM

Koivulehto
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #19 · Top five zooms and primes, opinions.

180L, 100% crop (wrong lens for this subject, but I didn't have a longer one available):
http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/4587/ruokokerttunen6496il5.jpg

Slow to focus for anything that don't stay still, but otherwise a wonderful macro lens. Have tons of macro shots, but wife is calling now ...

Jan 03, 2007 at 12:55 PM

roger lund
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #20 · Top five zooms and primes, opinions.

Koivulehto wrote:
180L, 100% crop (wrong lens for this subject, but I didn't have a longer one available):
http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/4587/ruokokerttunen6496il5.jpg

Slow to focus for anything that don't stay still, but otherwise a wonderful macro lens. Have tons of macro shots, but wife is calling now ...

Fantastic shot,

Do you find your self using it for non Macro work, or mostly Macro?

I have a 100 2.8 Macro and like it, and I use it for non-Macro work, wondering if this lens is the same way as far as focus speed and things.

Only downside I can see off hand is that it would be quite slow with a TC.

Jan 03, 2007 at 01:01 PM

1 2 3 4 5 end
FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 5 end