Zoom or prime.
Dec 31, 2018 19:18:26 #
jwoj69 wrote:
Now for the prime. I just got 135 mm Canon soft focus. You can't find soft focus in zoom. As well you can't find zoom tilt shift lens.
How do you like the Canon EF 135 f/2.8 Soft so far? The sample images at Canon look fantastic.
Soft portrait lens is a great example of a speciality lens: a look you can't get any other way.
(I've tried the other ways: defocus, Vaseline on a UV filter, various "soft" filters--awful.
The Zeiss "Softar" filter -- now made by Heliopan -- comes closest.)
A lens that is really good at one thing is just more exciting than a lens that is trying (and failing)
to be good at everything.
Jan 2, 2019 10:32:04 #
I just got sweet prime lens, Canon 135mm Soft focus. Increadible what this lens can do. And of course no zoom can do this. I also looking on very cheap lens 6.5 mm Opteka prime. Usually I don'y buy Chineese lenses, however getting one with full Fish-Eye feature and 180Degree viewis tempting me, especially that you can get it Brand New On ebay for $120. I think I'm gone geet one just to test and see if quality is useable. Again, zoom lenses are usually going to be around 10-20mm, nothing close to 6.5mm no matter what price. Having majority of lenses being prime than zoom, I have to admid it that I like prime lenses better. Zoom lenses are easier to use, but from f stop large opening to superior quality prime lenses are just better. Unless you can afford Canon L type grade lenses, their quality would be close to prime lenses. In conclusion, unless you can afford proffesional lenses like Canon L type, prime lensses are your choice, quality and special features like tilt shift, extreme focal length or soft focus are in desire.
Jan 9, 2019 21:46:43 #
I just another prime lens, a 6.5 Opteka Super Fish Eye. Wow, what a effects it can pool! No other zoom can come close to this focal length. Lens itself is on the soft side, hard to focus since on Canon focusing light which tell you when in focus, on this lens does not work. Still lens is worth $120 I paid for it brand new.
Jan 9, 2019 22:41:28 #
Bipod wrote:
That photo is very low contrast.
Insidious flare caused by an overhead light or white ceiling
outside the angle-of-view?
A prime lens might have produced a more contrasty image.
Also, the edges (e.g., of the shirt) are not sharp--but that's
actually a good thing in a portrait.
Insidious flare caused by an overhead light or white ceiling
outside the angle-of-view?
A prime lens might have produced a more contrasty image.
Also, the edges (e.g., of the shirt) are not sharp--but that's
actually a good thing in a portrait.
Jan 9, 2019 23:18:40 #
TriX wrote:
Put the 135 f2L on your list - an outrageously good prime.
I'll second that. It's crazy sharp even wide open and not too expensive compared to other L lenses.
Jan 10, 2019 07:56:42 #
I didn't read every response in this thread, but, for a long time, I was a zoom only guy. I owned first a 35mm to 70 MM lens which I used as my everyday lens on my flim SLR. I captured many a memorable photo and am happy with the quality of those photos.
I also owned what are, today, considered medium zoom lenses (all that were available to mere mortals during my film days). Those photos I also find acceptable in terms of quality.
With the advent of the digital revolution, many of the prime lenses for which I lusted became available on the used market for prices that I could justify.
Today, except for a couple of really long zooms, I prefer to rely upon the primes. For sure, there are times when I am too tight with, for example, an 85mm, and end up cutting off hands or feet of my subjects.,
But, for the most part, if I select the correct focal length, I get a sharper image which I can, if I prefer, crop to allow an image equal in both quality and content to what I would have accomplished with my zoom.
On the other hand, I shot my granddaughter at an amusement park. 85mm, while fast (f1.4) was too long for most of my shots, 50mm, while fast (f1.4) was generally too wide. I own a good f4 35-70mm zoom which allowed me to shoot most shots with a single lens, and the captures were more than acceptable to me.
There is no right answer on this very good question. One has to figure out on his/her own.
If you have both types of lense, pack them in your bag and you can quickly determine for yourself which is best for you.
Happy shooting,
Caurso
I also owned what are, today, considered medium zoom lenses (all that were available to mere mortals during my film days). Those photos I also find acceptable in terms of quality.
With the advent of the digital revolution, many of the prime lenses for which I lusted became available on the used market for prices that I could justify.
Today, except for a couple of really long zooms, I prefer to rely upon the primes. For sure, there are times when I am too tight with, for example, an 85mm, and end up cutting off hands or feet of my subjects.,
But, for the most part, if I select the correct focal length, I get a sharper image which I can, if I prefer, crop to allow an image equal in both quality and content to what I would have accomplished with my zoom.
On the other hand, I shot my granddaughter at an amusement park. 85mm, while fast (f1.4) was too long for most of my shots, 50mm, while fast (f1.4) was generally too wide. I own a good f4 35-70mm zoom which allowed me to shoot most shots with a single lens, and the captures were more than acceptable to me.
There is no right answer on this very good question. One has to figure out on his/her own.
If you have both types of lense, pack them in your bag and you can quickly determine for yourself which is best for you.
Happy shooting,
Caurso
Jan 10, 2019 22:47:51 #
Jan 11, 2019 05:21:38 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.