MountainDave

Like most people, I use zooms mostly and I have a few of Canon's finest. But I try to use my primes as much as possible. Attaching one to my camera gives me more of a sense of seriousness and I anticipate making some really compelling images that just don't seem possible even with the best zooms. I've been surprised how many photographers, even serious ones with expensive equipment, don't own a single prime. Everyone should at least own a nifty fifty where if nothing else, you can experiment with the shallow depth of field at 1.8 that's not available in any zoom. And it's as sharp or sharper than even the best zooms. Another I like is the 40mm pancake. While not as fast as the 50, it's a bit sharper and smaller. I find it to be extremely versatile with closeups, landscapes and anything else. You can just stick it in your pocket. At 179., this a gift from Canon. One more: the 135 2.0L. I call this my magic lens because it produces magic images. It's been on the market since 1996 and some still say it's Canon's best lens ever! Since Canon just raised the price of the 100 2.8L, the 135 is now the cheapest L series prime, a relative bargain. I invite others who use primes to make recommendations to help out our primeless brethren!

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

You've beat me to a topic I've been kicking around for the past few weeks ... I agree about the 135L. When you have the 135L mounted, there's nothing you can't point it at and fail to create an great image. Add an EF25 extension tube to the 135L and you have an excellent close-up / macro lens. For years, my 35L was my 'documentary' lens, either on a cropped sensor for a 50mm ish FoV or on a full-frame body. Although this lens has been out a lot in the past few weeks, I've found my style (or maybe my subjects) has changed to a 24mm prime. The 24mm is an older FD prime mounted to a Sony mirrorless. Maybe the migration to smaller IBIS-enabled bodies will breathe new life into typically smaller and non-IS prime lenses?

captivecookie Loc: Washington state

Changed to the z system, and now the nifty fifty costs over 500 bucks. Still planning on getting it, just have to save a bit.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

With out reference to a specific lens or brand. I use Primes all the time and most of the time. I have and use primes of 19mm, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 100mm, 135mm, and have Zooms to fill in he "gaps". I would like a shorter prime plus a prime in the range of 75-85mm. A longer 200mm prime might be nice too. I have a few fast f2.8 Zooms to go with the f1.4 to 2.8 Prime lenses.

gener202002

By "at 179" I assume you mean $179, but when I looked the image up on amazon, it costs close to a thousand. So I am a little confused. It may be a matter of apples and oranges though. It may not be exactly the same thing. I have standard canon equipment, and I am having real trouble getting everything in focus when I take nature pictures with a great deal of depth. If there is any further info available on this, I would sure appreciate it.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

If the occasion permits, I will always use a prime before a zoom.

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

To me each lens is a tool in my toolbox and there is a time and place for each. Primes vs zooms to me are like choosing an open end / box wrench or a crescent (adjustable) wrench. Both almost always get the job done equally well, but every once in a while one or the other will be the better tool for the job at hand.

gener202002

Oh, I misunderstood. It is the forty mm at $179. Yeah, that is the price on Amazon. The 135 seems like the idea lense, but I will have to do some saving. But thanks for this info. This may help me a lot.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

I shoot a Canon 7D Mark II and I only have a few primes. The one I use most is the Canon 35mm f/2 IS USM which gives me full frame equivalent angle of view of 56mm. Not only can I get stellar images from it in a variety of lighting situations, but the limitations of a fixed focal length forces me to experiment and to be more creative in my framing. This results in a large number of satisfying images which probably would not have been framed the same way if I had been using a zoom lens.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Try a new thread and post some JPEG examples of problem focus, being sure to store the file attachment. From the embedded EOS data from the camera and lens, we should be able to see some ideas.

Regarding EF 50mm options, the aperture and build quality make a difference like metal and f/1.2L is $$$$ and f/1.4 is mid $$$ and plastic ish f/1.8 is low $$$.

Leitz Loc: Solms

You basically have two choices here - use small apertures or invest in a tilt/shift lens. Shift is not needed for depth of field, but unless you're talking medium or large format, I don't think anyone makes a lens with tilt function only.

MountainDave

The 40 is 179. The 135 is 999. sorry for the confusion.

Dave

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

I prefer a prime compared to a zoom. With a zoom I have to be concerned with lens creep.But for doing street photography I prefer a zoom

MountainDave

I also find I concentrate more on framing or look for scenes that would specifically benefit from the focal length in use. I also experiment more. It's all too easy to get lazy with a zoom. I have that 35 lens too. terrific.

Dave

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Another vote for the 135 f2L. I have 4 Canon L series zooms, but the 135 has become my favorite lens. Just duplicated it (90 f2) on my Fuji crop body.