p.1 #1 · Best value EF lenses for Canon. Are premium primes worth it?
Hey guys. I'm curious about some of these canon lenses such as the 50mm 1.2, or others that can are f1.4 vs zoom alternatives or their 1.8 counterpart budget options
I like the versatility of a 24-70 2.8 especially something that has VR built in like the Tamron, but curious and would like to ask any of you who have the tried or owned the 50mm 1.2 prime and zoom on whether its really worth the cost if I don't care about 1.2 bokeh. Most of the time with decent lighting indoors I have found 2.8 to be enough and prefer it for focusing, otherwise I'm shooting with flash. In some cases indoors with limited light I may shoot at 1.8 but but for that I would think a regular nifty fifty or the typical budget 1.8 primes would be sufficient.
I would like to hear you guys' thoughts.
Some things I'm aware of:
- Stopping down will result in sharper images, less vignetting etc. So 50mm 1.2 at 2.8 should perform better than a lens with a max aperture of 2.8. This isn't a big deal to me most of the time since I actually sometimes prefer a softer look to take the edge off of digital cameras and remove some of the "digital clinical" look, depending on the camera and sensor. To me sharper isn't always better despite what some say.
- Build quality, weather sealing - It's not important to me as long as the lens works and focus is good enough. I don't do anything extreme or shoot in extreme weather.
p.1 #2 · Best value EF lenses for Canon. Are premium primes worth it?
The water's fine. Dive in.
If you want sharp, try a Zeiss MP 50/2 ZE. If that's too expensive, try the EF 40/2.8; one of the sharpest knives in the drawer, at f/8.
If you want shallow DOF, the EF 50/1.4 and 50/1.2L are both nice. I use the 50/1.2L at f/1.2. Biggest problem (sometimes) is that's it's too bright outside, without ND filters.
Whatever you do, don't visit the Alternatives forum...
p.1 #3 · Best value EF lenses for Canon. Are premium primes worth it?
jcolwell wrote:
The water's fine. Dive in.
If you want sharp, try a Zeiss MP 50/2 ZE. If that's too expensive, try the EF 40/2.8; one of the sharpest knives in the drawer, at f/8.
If you want shallow DOF, the EF 50/1.4 and 50/1.2L are both nice. I use the 50/1.2L at f/1.2. Biggest problem (sometimes) is that's it's too bright outside, without ND filters.
Whatever you do, don't visit the Alternatives forum...
agree with 40 2.8
add:?
ZEISS Planar T* 50mm f/1.4 ZE Lens for Canon EF for $600 [I am tempted]
canon 24/2.8 $700? [likely on my list]
samyang 14/2.8 is quite sharp if you find a good copy. $500? [not me - I am not good at taking them back]
----------------------
to your question - is it worth it. I have 12mm laowa, 15mm laowa shift macro, ts17, ts24, Zeiss 25/2, Zeiss 35/1.4,40/2.8, 50/1.8, ts90, 85/1.2 and I am still searching for the holy grail/trinities.
The Zeiss I love for aurora. For fast and hard stop at infinity.
The shift I can't live without.
The laowa 15 and 12's I need for backpacking and wide and macro and shift
I am going to buy the shift 15 laowa for the extra 2mm and shift and 200grams saving
I am likely to buy the 600 or 800 f11 for backpacking
The 1.2 85 - just in case my grandchildren ever arrive (4 grownup children are disappointing me )
The only one that gets lots of work from me is the ts17 but I keep buying more.
And this does not mention my Sony failed experiments.
So I guess that means yes - to me. But its hard to pick the one that will go in my bag.
I have to do it before I get to old to carry it.
Dec 18, 2020 at 05:38 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.1 #4 · Best value EF lenses for Canon. Are premium primes worth it?
If you are not going faster than 2.8 and not particularly interested in any sharpness you might (or might not) potentially get from a prime since it's not at max aperture, I'd probably just stick with the lens you have. Plus, it zooms.
That's one thing I use primes for, faster max aperture. Though not particularly often. More often I use the prime because it's macro. Though I've used my rokinon 85/1.4 & 50/1.8 II, as well. Haven't owned 1.2 though.
p.1 #7 · Best value EF lenses for Canon. Are premium primes worth it?
I have owned the EF 50L, 85L II, and 135L along with the Zeiss primes ZE 50 f/2 MP and ZE 100 f/2 MP. Of these, the 'weakest' for my needs was the 50L f/1.2. The 'strongest' were the two Zeiss primes which are both manual focus. Too bad Zeiss discontinued them in favour of the Milvus line.
I don't comment on "worth the cost" questions because "worth" is a personal determination. If the choice is between a 50L f/1.2 and 24-70L f/2.8 II, I would go with the zoom without a second thought unless you have special needs - that is, you are shooting in very low light most of the time, your subjects require a focal length of around 50 mm, or you have specific ideas about selective focus. The new Canon R5 body with its IBIS makes the EF zoom even more potent.
p.1 #8 · Best value EF lenses for Canon. Are premium primes worth it?
You've left out something important: the camera!
Assuming full-frame DSLR, get the 24-70/2.8 something. Just the right versatility and speed.
Then get the 50/1.4 USM. Yes, the one people like to hate on. On newer bodies, focus is great, and the lens cleans up well when stopping down, so that at f/1.8 it's better than the 50/1.8 lenses. Little more for a little more.
And then get the 100/2 USM. Skip the 85/1.8 USM. They're the same basic lens, but the 100/2 is better built with metal filter threads and seems to suffer fewer of the weaknesses of the 85/1.8.
Unless you want to do video, then you need different primes; probably the 50/1.8 STM, and maybe the 85/1.8 VC from Tamron. The 'old' USM motors from Canon are ill-suited for video focus, but the newer ones from Canon (and Sigma and Tamron) work quite well.
Another to consider is the 40/2.8 STM. Good for video, stupid compact, sharper and cleaner than it deserves to be. A tad slow to focus but otherwise a stellar option!
p.1 #9 · Best value EF lenses for Canon. Are premium primes worth it?
Sayer wrote:
Some things I'm aware of:
- Stopping down will result in sharper images, less vignetting etc. So 50mm 1.2 at 2.8 should perform better than a lens with a max aperture of 2.8. This isn't a big deal to me most of the time since I actually sometimes prefer a softer look to take the edge off of digital cameras and remove some of the "digital clinical" look, depending on the camera and sensor. To me sharper isn't always better despite what some say.
- Build quality, weather sealing - It's not important to me as long as the lens works and focus is good enough. I don't do anything extreme or shoot in extreme weather. ...Show more →
You’ve answered your own question. If you don’t need the weather sealing and wide open aperture then there is no reason to buy them. For example the 1.2 at 1.8 is much sharper than the 1.8 and has better bokeh at that aperture. To satisfy your own curiosity, rent a 1.2 and shoot it side by side with your 1.8 to see the distinctions and make the determination for yourself. In my experience the 1.2 is still optically superior until you hit f 4-5.6 when things largely equalize. Like most item in life one gets what the pay for and only you can determine relative value.
p.1 #10 · Best value EF lenses for Canon. Are premium primes worth it?
armd wrote:
You’ve answered your own question. If you don’t need the weather sealing and wide open aperture then there is no reason to buy them. For example the 1.2 at 1.8 is much sharper than the 1.8 and has better bokeh at that aperture. To satisfy your own curiosity, rent a 1.2 and shoot it side by side with your 1.8 to see the distinctions and make the determination for yourself. In my experience the 1.2 is still optically superior until you hit f 4-5.6 when things largely equalize. Like most item in life one gets what the pay for and only you can determine relative value....Show more →
Thanks that's sort of where I was going and part of the reason I have not pulled the trigger on one but I've been curious. Renting sounds like a good idea or maybe copping one at a great price knowing I can resell and recoup should I not want to keep it. I'm assuming like all "premium" things there's point of diminishing returns and likely won't see 8x different or even 2x that of a budget alternative.
p.1 #11 · Best value EF lenses for Canon. Are premium primes worth it?
Sayer wrote:
I like the versatility of a 24-70 2.8 especially something that has VR built in like the Tamron, but curious and would like to ask any of you who have the tried or owned the 50mm 1.2 prime and zoom on whether its really worth the cost if I don't care about 1.2 bokeh. Most of the time with decent lighting indoors I have found 2.8 to be enough and prefer it for focusing, otherwise I'm shooting with flash. In some cases indoors with limited light I may shoot at 1.8 but but for that I would think a regular nifty fifty or the typical budget 1.8 primes would be sufficient. ...Show more →
Given that you "don't care about f/1.2 bokeh" and you "have found 2.8 to be enough and prefer it for focusing," the value of the super-large aperture lenses for you is extremely doubtful.
The main value that such lenses provide are the two things that you say you don't need or won't use.
Some people assume that because a lens costs way more than alternatives and/or because it has a larger maximum aperture it must be "the best lens" in its class. It is not that simple, and "the best" for your photography is usually a balance of factors including cost, size, performance, etc.
I'll be honest with you. Unless you are doing something very specific with your photography that you believe requires the unusual features of unusual lenses, you'll almost always be just as well off with non-exotic lenses.
p.1 #12 · Best value EF lenses for Canon. Are premium primes worth it?
gdanmitchell wrote:
Given that you "don't care about f/1.2 bokeh" and you "have found 2.8 to be enough and prefer it for focusing," the value of the super-large aperture lenses for you is extremely doubtful.
The main value that such lenses provide are the two things that you say you don't need or won't use.
There is sometimes a presumption that because a lens costs way more than alternatives and/or that because it has a larger maximum aperture that it must be "the best lens" it its class. It is not that simple, and "the best" for your photography is usually a balance of factors including cost, size, performance, etc.
I'll be honest with you. Unless you are doing something very specific with your photography that you believe requires the unusual features of unusual lenses, you'll almost always be just as well of with non-exotic lenses.
Agree; some f/1.8 primes are better stopped down a bit than their f/1.4 or f/1.2 alternatives. And in general such modest primes are FAR better optically for closeups. And new ML cameras make a bright aperture just for accurate focus even more doubtful (on most DSLRs the standard ground glass isn't accurate enough for focusing super bright lenses anyway, usually it is designed for f/2.8 or dimmer lenses).
p.1 #13 · Best value EF lenses for Canon. Are premium primes worth it?
Totally agree with Johnctharp that the 100mm f2 is preferable to the the 85mm 1.8. In fact the 100mm f2 wide open has a similar look as the far more expensive 135mm f2. It's a great portrait lens. I also have found the Tamron 45mm 1.8 to be an excellent inexpensive versatile lens. Sharp wide open and nice close up ability.
p.1 #14 · Best value EF lenses for Canon. Are premium primes worth it?
Coltrane wrote:
Totally agree with Johnctharp that the 100mm f2 is preferable to the the 85mm 1.8. In fact the 100mm f2 wide open has a similar look as the far more expensive 135mm f2. It's a great portrait lens. I also have found the Tamron 45mm 1.8 to be an excellent inexpensive versatile lens. Sharp wide open and nice close up ability.
Actually have that 45/1.8 VC, versatile as it is, and rarely use it.
It's built like a tank, and feels and handles like it -- and its best attributes (VC and acuity) are just not useful enough, often enough, for it to see real use.
Biggest issue is the longitudinal chromatic aberration. It's pretty wild. So you're going to have to shoot around that the same way you have to with Canon's aging f/1.8 and f/1.4 DSLR lenses.
That's not to say that the lens doesn't have its uses, far to the contrary, but honestly if I was carrying something like that I'd rather have say the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 | Art. Just as sharp, but cleaner wide open, and far cleaner at the widest common apertures.
p.1 #15 · Best value EF lenses for Canon. Are premium primes worth it?
Sayer wrote:
Hey guys. I'm curious about some of these canon lenses such as the 50mm 1.2, or others that can are f1.4 vs zoom alternatives or their 1.8 counterpart budget options
I like the versatility of a 24-70 2.8 especially something that has VR built in like the Tamron, but curious and would like to ask any of you who have the tried or owned the 50mm 1.2 prime and zoom on whether its really worth the cost if I don't care about 1.2 bokeh. Most of the time with decent lighting indoors I have found 2.8 to be enough and prefer it for focusing, otherwise I'm shooting with flash. In some cases indoors with limited light I may shoot at 1.8 but but for that I would think a regular nifty fifty or the typical budget 1.8 primes would be sufficient.
I would like to hear you guys' thoughts.
Some things I'm aware of:
- Stopping down will result in sharper images, less vignetting etc. So 50mm 1.2 at 2.8 should perform better than a lens with a max aperture of 2.8. This isn't a big deal to me most of the time since I actually sometimes prefer a softer look to take the edge off of digital cameras and remove some of the "digital clinical" look, depending on the camera and sensor. To me sharper isn't always better despite what some say.
- Build quality, weather sealing - It's not important to me as long as the lens works and focus is good enough. I don't do anything extreme or shoot in extreme weather. ...Show more →
Based on what you say I don't see where buying very expensive lenses will be necessary for your needs. The good and less expensive options get you 85-90% of IQ of ultra expensive lenses. Getting to 100% costs A LOT of money. If you have lots of disposable income, make money from having the best of the best or are just obsessed with the best IQ, then spend the money. Otherwise, buy the lenses I think of as hitting the sweet spot of value.
I have been a hobbyist/enthusiast photographer since my high school days. In my 30s and 40s I bought high end gear but looking back I don't think it made me enjoy photography any more than when I first started or today. I now look for a combination of gear that gets me to that 85-90% ultimate IQ mark and then just enjoy shooting photos with it.
p.1 #16 · Best value EF lenses for Canon. Are premium primes worth it?
Coltrane wrote:
Totally agree with Johnctharp that the 100mm f2 is preferable to the the 85mm 1.8. In fact the 100mm f2 wide open has a similar look as the far more expensive 135mm f2. .
Unfortunately due to their age and cost, the 85mm f1.8 and 100mm f2 have some sample variation. I've seen different tests that prove that each is the better lens. But both are always pretty usable wide open and simply stellar stopped down to f2.8 or smaller.
135L is definitely more consistent and always seems to be outstanding. Never heard of a "bad copy" unless it was damaged. And it has much less of a CA problem at f2.
)