Why Prime?
Apr 17, 2014 09:03:35 #
amehta wrote:
It would have concerned me if you thought those were turkeys! :-)
me too - it would have meant that my body was taken over by an alien evil spirit and made me type those things. . .
Apr 17, 2014 09:05:31 #
Gene51 wrote:
Another incorrect general statement. Macro lenses ... (show quote)
I will agree with all you said , thanks for clarifying in depth what I didn't say.
Apr 17, 2014 09:07:12 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
Gene51 wrote:
me too - it would have meant that my body was taken over by an alien evil spirit and made me type those things. . .
:lol: :lol:
Apr 17, 2014 09:10:29 #
rpavich wrote:
I will agree with all you said , thanks for clarifying in depth what I didn't say.
OK?
I would add that I have two macros - a 150 and a 180. One day I went out to take some shots of high schoolers playing lacrosse, thinking I had my 80-200 F2.8 in the bag. I didn't, I had the 180 macro. Well the best lens is generally the one you have with you, so I shot 300 or so images. This lens does not easily manually focus, you have to grab the focus ring and slide it forward to release it from the camera's focus drive, so manual focus on the fly was out of the question. It was a bright day, so I used a smaller lens opening - F8 to F11. I would say that about 250 or so had no focus errors, partly because of the greater dof with the smaller apertures. But, the images were a bit soft, and the backgrounds distracting. Otherwise, I got the images. I would not have had those issues with my 80-200.
Apr 17, 2014 09:15:18 #
Gene51 wrote:
OK?
If you're confused...I meant that I made a general statement that has some truth to it but there were other, more specific factors to be considered...you brought them out well.
That's what I meant.
Apr 17, 2014 09:15:27 #
Apr 17, 2014 09:15:58 #
Gene51 wrote:
There are so many factors that make a lens desirab... (show quote)
:roll: Gene 51...
Attached are a few shots taken with a "border line turkey": Nikon 300/f4...
I'll Keep That Turkey....
Apr 17, 2014 09:19:14 #
OddJobber wrote:
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.
That says it all. Your choice.
Yes, that was what I said, but what do I know?! But since then I've been reading a lot of reviews and user comments about different lenses and I'm starting to get the sense that at some point maybe a good prime (or two?) isn't a bad idea. I'm not in any rush as it will be a while before I buy anything since I just recently bought the 24-105 "L" which has replaced the standard 28-135 "kit" as my main lens on the 7D. Now I'm just enjoying getting all the different opinions about the many options available.
Apr 17, 2014 09:25:09 #
Psergel wrote:
On the other hand, I think that today's high end zooms are so good they often come close enough to the primes to satisfy everyone but a purist and I hardly use my 100 anymore for anything other than portraits and macro.
(I am braced for the counter punches :) )
On the other hand, I think that today's high end zooms are so good they often come close enough to the primes to satisfy everyone but a purist and I hardly use my 100 anymore for anything other than portraits and macro.
(I am braced for the counter punches :) )
This gets to the heart of my question. I keep hearing people ( here and elsewhere) singing the praises of Prime lenses but then I'm hearing that with the newer zooms (like the "L" series looms) maybe the difference isn't really all that much?
Apr 17, 2014 09:33:02 #
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?
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?
Others have pretty much covered the differences which may or not be noticeable or important to you. It sounds to me that you have an itch that needs to be scratched.
Before you run off and buy another lens think about what you want to shoot that can't be covered with the lenses you have.
Everyone has preferences which may or not match yours. Don't just follow what others prefer, think it through.
Apr 17, 2014 09:33:24 #
Pete K wrote:
:roll: Gene 51...
Attached are a few shots taken with a "border line turkey": Nikon 300/f4...
I'll Keep That Turkey....
Attached are a few shots taken with a "border line turkey": Nikon 300/f4...
I'll Keep That Turkey....
Sweet. These are Borderline Amazing. :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Apr 17, 2014 09:39:24 #
Basil wrote:
This gets to the heart of my question. I keep hearing people ( here and elsewhere) singing the praises of Prime lenses but then I'm hearing that with the newer zooms (like the "L" series looms) maybe the difference isn't really all that much?
I make no claim that this is a work of art. It is one of the first shots made with my 24-105 6D kit.
No attempt at optimizing anything really.
I had always been disappointed by my T3i and kit lenses ability to capture the detail in my dogs hair.
This blew me away.
On the other hand I am not a pro so my opinion on zoom vs prime is based only on what I've owned and used.
The results I saw from my T3i when I bought, first my 100 then my 70-300, also convinced me that, while the 100 might be better, the 70-300 was much more than good enough.
Attach those lenses to the 6D and....Frankly, I couldn't afford to look for "better"
Apr 17, 2014 09:39:49 #
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?
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?
I would buy the 10-22mm Canon. I really enjoy mine. Looks like you need something wider, and the close ups are very good, to say the least. My next purchase will probably be the 100mm Macro. The IS would sure come in handy. Whatever you decide, enjoy. You sure got a lot of good answers to your question.
Apr 17, 2014 09:44:54 #
Marionsho wrote:
Sweet. These are Borderline Amazing. :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
:-) Thanks...
Apr 17, 2014 09:58:01 #
Pete K wrote:
:-) Thanks...
You're welcome. Love the border around the second one.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.