Although my 50 f/1.4 is my least used, it's the best "party" lens I have. Put it on a small body to attract less attention, and I'm good to go. The 35L would just as good for the same reasons, but candids are somewhat tougher.
About the 50mm f/1.4. It was the first lens I bought after the kit, and I was very excited to get it. Now that it's my least used, I wonder if it's because I'm too focused on what I've recently purchased, or if somehow the normal focal length is inherently not as interesting?
50/1.4. I used to love to walk around with only that lens, but since I got 35L and 24/2.8 I usually pick one of those instead.
200/2.8. A wonderfully sharp lens, but its minimal focus distance annoys me each time I use it, and I rarely need that much tele. When I do I prefer the 70-200/4IS (my only zoom) that is almost as sharp and has even better colors. That said, I don't use that one much either...
HelenaN wrote:
200/2.8. A wonderfully sharp lens, but its minimal focus distance annoys me each time I use it, and I rarely need that much tele. When I do I prefer the 70-200/4IS (my only zoom) that is almost as sharp and has even better colors. That said, I don't use that one much either...
If you used them more though you might change your mind about the 70-200 f/4 IS having "better colours" than the 200 f/2.8 prime. Moreover, the zoom's MFD is only one foot better.....that's helpful but I don't see it as critical for a 200mm telephoto.
If one needs macro or near-macro application, there is 180L and 300 f/4 IS, etc.
My least used lenses are my 50mm lenses (on FF). Interestingly 50mm is the only focal length where I have more than one prime lens: EF 50 1.4 and 2.5, Olympus 50 1.2 and 2.0.
Instead I use either the 45 ts-e or the 35L. I like it a tad wider than 50mm...
PetKal wrote:
If you used them more though you might change your mind about the 70-200 f/4 IS having "better colours" than the 200 f/2.8 prime. Moreover, the zoom's MFD is only one foot better.....that's helpful but I don't see it as critical for a 200mm telephoto.
If one needs macro or near-macro application, there is 180L and 300 f/4 IS, etc.
Maybe you're right! We'll see when I have had a chance to use them more. I generally prefer primes, but do think that a zoom will be more useful for the times I need more tele. I have the 135L when I need a brighter lens.
Regarding MFD: Can a lens be super-sharp and focus correctly but still have the wrong MFD? MFD for 200/2.8 should be 1.5m, but with mine I don't seem to be able to focus closer than 2m. Very often a bird lands too close, or I have to back off several steps more to photograph something when I think that I'm far enough already. I have been out with the zoom just as much and not once have I had this problem.
For me i don't use my primes all that much (20mm/50mm/85mm and 100mm). I will never get rid of them because when i need a lens in that range they can't be beaten. I use my fisheye a lot of the time but dropped it recently and now it won't focus. Grrrrr.
My most used lenses are my 17-40/24-105/70-200F2.8 and 100-400.
HelenaN wrote:
Regarding MFD: Can a lens be super-sharp and focus correctly but still have the wrong MFD? MFD for 200/2.8 should be 1.5m, but with mine I don't seem to be able to focus closer than 2m.
Yes it can be for various reasons
1. Lens needs calibration.
2. There is a problem with one of the lens elements.
3. The AF system is not working right or it can't lock into focus.
4. The lens may actually focus closer than indicated, my Sigma Circular fisheye if I put in manual mode can focus closer than the 4 inches they indicate. I have shot as close as 2 inches. But the aperture setting can also come into play here. And of course this is opposite to your issue.
5. Temperature can have an effect on a lens, you may notice some lens can focus past infinity. Expansion and contraction of the elements or lens barrel.
trumpet_guy wrote:
Yakim,
That's a good attitude to have. But, I have gone through some effort finding
very good copies of the lenses I have, so I'm reluctant to get rid of any of them
until I'm quite sure I'm not going to make sufficient use of them anymore.
I know some dispute the whole good copy / bad copy issue and say it is blown out
of proportion, but I've owned some lenses that had issues to one degree or
another, and once you have a copy you can rely on, you hate to let it go.
Tim
Well, if I was rich (or at least wealthy) I'd keep them but as it happens I just buy and sell if my needs change. For example, I had two copies of 50/1.8 and 100/2.8. If I ever feel the need for them (or other lenses which I had) I will simply buy them again. I see no problems in that.
BTW, the only "bad copy" I had is that of my first L lens (70-200/4) many years ago but today I think this was probably just a calibration issue.
Moreover, the zoom's MFD is only one foot better.....that's helpful but I don't see it as critical for a 200mm telephoto.