Why Prime? I currently have an EF-S 18-55, EF 28-135, EF 24-105 f4L IS and 70-200 f4L (non-IS). I'm debating what my next lens will be. I've heard people the me to get a prime lens, by...

Basil Loc: New Mexico

I currently have an EF-S 18-55, EF 28-135, EF 24-105 f4L IS and 70-200 f4L (non-IS).

I'm debating what my next lens will be. I've heard people the me to get a prime lens, by why? One I've been looking at reviews on is the Canon 100mm f2.8L IS Macro. What makes a prime a better choice than, say, a 24-105 "L" zoom that would be capable of the same FL? Is there really that much IQ difference?

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

Prime lenses are sharper (IQ) than most zooms at equivalent focal lengths, and generally have larger apertures, so they can capture images at much lower illumination without sacrificing ISO. Basically, zoom lenses are a compromise optical design, so they are good at most focal lengths of their range, but primes can be designed to be as sharp as possible. Usually, the aperture value decreases as a lens zooms to higher magnification, whereas prime lenses have stable aperture throughout their focal range. Zooms are also quite a bit heavier than prime lenses.

A macro lens, such as the Canon 100-mm, has a much shorter Minimum Focusing Distance than a standard lens of similar focal length. Macro lenses are the sharpest lens made by every lens manufacturer.

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

To quote you from one week ago, " I know that in general Primes are better IQ, but since I'm not a professional I'm willing to give up a "little" IQ for more flexibility in more situations."

That says it all. Your choice.

amehta Loc: Boston

Basil wrote:

I currently have an EF-S 18-55, EF 28-135, EF 24-105 f4L IS and 70-200 f4L (non-IS).

I'm debating what my next lens will be. I've heard people the me to get a prime lens, by why? One I've been looking at reviews on is the Canon 100mm f2.8L IS Macro. What makes a prime a better choice than, say, a 24-105 "L" zoom that would be capable of the same FL? Is there really that much IQ difference?

First, general primes: they tend to have larger maximum apertures and often somewhat better image quality. If there is a zoom where the maximum aperture and IQ is comparable to the prime, the prime will be much cheaper and smaller.

Second, the specific lens you mention is a macro lens which gives you 1:1 magnification, and none of your zooms do that. It is a different beast.

To really see if there is a difference with the primes, you might want to borrow or rent a Canon 100mm f/2 or Canon 85mm f/1.2, and see how they compare to your three EF lenses. Keep in mind the 85mm is 3.5 stops faster than either of your f/4L lenses, which is about the difference between shooting 1/8s or 1/100s. The depth of field is next to nothing which can be good or bad, but the bokeh is amazing. I use the Nikon 85mm f/1.4 for more than half my photos.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Basil wrote:

I currently have an EF-S 18-55, EF 28-135, EF 24-105 f4L IS and 70-200 f4L (non-IS).

I'm debating what my next lens will be. I've heard people the me to get a prime lens, by why? One I've been looking at reviews on is the Canon 100mm f2.8L IS Macro. What makes a prime a better choice than, say, a 24-105 "L" zoom that would be capable of the same FL? Is there really that much IQ difference?

Some of the best zooms, like the Canon 24-70L f/2.8 USM II or the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 are so good they match some of the best primes available. But for he most part the simpler design of primes allows for wider apertures, lower distortion and lower CA. Wider apertures not only take in more light, but allow you to use a narrower DoF to blur the background more effectively. Focus points on various cameras (usually the center focus point) also work their best with lenses with a maximum aperture of f/2.8 and wider. A lot of the lenses in that category are primes.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Basil, to answer your first question, no primes are NOT that much sharper than zooms, especially L zooms.
Second, if you are not going to shoot macro, why would you want to get a macro lens? Especially an L macro.
The problem is that none of us knows what you are planning to shoot, or what your goals are? In your shoes, I would set myself up to have a versatile kit, rather than a specialized one.
Consider the 50 1.4 or a 35 1.8 to give you low light and indoor capability. Also consider a flash, which you could use for portraits.
The macro would give you a very specialized lens that is nither versatile or fast, adding another slow lens to what you already have.
Are you finding that the lenses you currently have are not performing to your needs? If so, get the lens that fills that need. If you just want to start acquiring lenses, then that's ok too, but you don't need permission to do that. Good luck. ;-)
SS

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

SharpShooter wrote:

If you just want to start acquiring lenses, then that's ok too, but you don't need permission to do that. Good luck. ;-)

Well said. I want to hug you and squeeze you and..... oh, ever mind. :XD:

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

OddJobber wrote:

Well said. I want to hug you and squeeze you and..... oh, ever mind. :XD:

Post photos, please! :D :D
On second thought, never mind!

lukan Loc: Chicago, IL

SharpShooter wrote:

Basil, to answer your first question, no primes ar... (show quote)

If you want to "up your game" with a 7D sell the 18-55 and the 28-135 and get the 35mm. Then your next acquisition would probably be a FF body, like the 6D. Be careful though, FF will change your life! :-D :thumbup:

amehta Loc: Boston

lukan wrote:

If you want to "up your game" with a 7D sell the 18-55 and the 28-135 and get the 35mm. Then your next acquisition would probably be a FF body, like the 6D. Be careful though, FF will change your life! :-D :thumbup:

With the 24-105mm f/4L, I am curious why the 35mm is the prime you would suggest?

lukan Loc: Chicago, IL

amehta wrote:

With the 24-105mm f/4L, I am curious why the 35mm is the prime you would suggest?

The 24-105L f4 is a good lens on a 7D, giving a 1.6x factor and is reasonably fast enough on a camera body that is only OK as far as low-light noise goes. It's a great "all-around walker", since only the center (sharpest) area of the lens is used for image creation. The softer edges are alleviated.
The 35 is MUCH faster and would give a "normal" field of view on the 7D. I hope eventually that the OP picks up a 6D, or other FF, to get max field of view out of the 35mm, then sell the 24-105 and supplant it with the 24-70 f2.8ii, which is really far superior.

You see, I can spen almost ANYONE'S $$$, not just yours! :-D

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

Basil wrote:

I currently have an EF-S 18-55, EF 28-135, EF 24-105 f4L IS and 70-200 f4L (non-IS).

I'm debating what my next lens will be. I've heard people the me to get a prime lens, by why? One I've been looking at reviews on is the Canon 100mm f2.8L IS Macro. What makes a prime a better choice than, say, a 24-105 "L" zoom that would be capable of the same FL? Is there really that much IQ difference?

Get a wide angle (8-12 at wide; 14-16 long) ZOOM!

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

Basil wrote:

I currently have an EF-S 18-55, EF 28-135, EF 24-105 f4L IS and 70-200 f4L (non-IS).

I'm debating what my next lens will be. I've heard people the me to get a prime lens, by why? One I've been looking at reviews on is the Canon 100mm f2.8L IS Macro. What makes a prime a better choice than, say, a 24-105 "L" zoom that would be capable of the same FL? Is there really that much IQ difference?

Get a wide angle (8-12 at wide; 14-16 long) ZOOM!

Pablo8 Loc: Nottingham UK.

Why not get every lens that Canon make, then you should be happy happy.

johnst1001a Loc: West Chester, Ohio

Yes, many choices. Here are my thoughts, the 100 mm Macro is superb. Very sharp pictures. But that is not all, at 2.8 aperture, it is good in lower light. Second, and very importantly Image Stabilization. I use the 100 mm macro for a lot of outdoor pictures of kids in the backyard, when I go to a flower show. As for primes, I own the Sigma 35mm, 1.4. Great for indoors, low light, wide angle for family pictures. I also own the Canon 50 mm 1.4, also good for indoors, but I find that the 35 mm is better due to the wider angle.

I would not hesitate at all to buy the Canon 100mm macro. It is just great.