| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/08/2007 12:47:03 PM · #1 |
Originally posted by tcmartin:
I just placed an order for the Canon 10-90mm f/1.8 "K" Macro IS beauty. |
Ohh! I want one.
|
|
|
|
10/08/2007 11:30:41 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I think Spaz is boasting about how small his manhood is though.
After a while with a prime you do learn what it'll look like before you look through the lens. You do know where to be. With a zoom there's always another focal length to play with, so you don't tend to learn the lens as well, all other things being equal.
A zoom is certainly more flexible in average lighting situations, but it isn't the be all and end all of performance, quality or flexibility. |
There are times when you are working with fluid subjects that if you position yourself, lift the camera for a shot, the composition could change in front of your lens. Turning a zoom ring could save a missed shot. Obviously not a problem with static obejcts but it comes down to what the OP largely shoots.
|
|
|
|
10/08/2007 11:27:01 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by Kaveran:
If your so great that you can point and shoot without the benefit of a view finder to compose your scene and you have such a great memory for your currently installed lenses focal length that you can position yourself perfectly every time, then more power to you.
|
It's called pre-visualization. |
|
|
|
10/08/2007 11:23:00 AM · #4 |
I think Spaz is boasting about how small his manhood is though.
After a while with a prime you do learn what it'll look like before you look through the lens. You do know where to be. With a zoom there's always another focal length to play with, so you don't tend to learn the lens as well, all other things being equal.
A zoom is certainly more flexible in average lighting situations, but it isn't the be all and end all of performance, quality or flexibility.
|
|
|
|
10/08/2007 11:16:20 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Have you ever heard about how Cartier-Bresson worked? He didn't bring the camera up and fool around with it until he liked what he saw. He already knew what he wanted and when it was about to happen, he quickly lifted the camera to his eye and clicked the shutter. Many times those next to him didn't even see him do it unless they were watching him.
If you're unable to figure out what you're going to do and be where you need to be when you need to be there to get your shot, then maybe a zoom is what you need. |
At this point this is all nothing more than mental mastubation. If your so great that you can point and shoot without the benefit of a view finder to compose your scene and you have such a great memory for your currently installed lenses focal length that you can position yourself perfectly every time, then more power to you.
the OP's simple question has turned into a pissing match where everyone tries to puff out their chests and brage about how long their manhood is that the mojority of this thread is not even relevent anymore.
I think Prof_Fate outlined things very well. Most serious ametures will have enough gear to get a decent shot but no one will have the perfect gear for EVERY shot they wish to take. |
|
|
|
10/08/2007 10:52:21 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by Kaveran:
Originally posted by boysetsfire:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Yeah, they would have missed half of their shots fiddling around. |
that may sound like bullshit to some but it really is true, using a prime is much faster. It also makes you get into positions that you wouldnt when using a zoom. |
One could certainly argue its must faster to turn a zoom ring than it is to physically move 10 feet this way ond 3 feet that way. So if your in a physical position where your prime give you the image you want, sure its faster. But if your not than I have a hard time beleiving its faster. |
Have you ever heard about how Cartier-Bresson worked? He didn't bring the camera up and fool around with it until he liked what he saw. He already knew what he wanted and when it was about to happen, he quickly lifted the camera to his eye and clicked the shutter. Many times those next to him didn't even see him do it unless they were watching him.
If you're unable to figure out what you're going to do and be where you need to be when you need to be there to get your shot, then maybe a zoom is what you need. |
|
|
|
10/08/2007 09:47:36 AM · #7 |
A lens is a tool and like any tool it depends on the what you want to accomplish what tool you use -
You have a vacuum and broom I assume? Both collect dirt. Try the broom on carpet and the vacuum outside on in your driveway. Try sweeping up a gym floor with a 4" whisk broom or your bathroom with a 4' wide push broom!
I shot a HS senior yesterday. I used the 70-200 2.8 for 80% of the shots and everything outside, except for a few with the 85 1.8 (less DOF is why I chose this).
Back in the studio I used moslty the 28-135 at 100-135 range for head/shoulder and tigher shots - with the strobes on the aperture was just below and up to 11 at times when shooting high-key. Fast lens not necessary. I shot some inside with the 28 1.8 - again, wanting shallow dof and the 85 cropped too tight - I can only backup so far indoors. The 28 had me 1 to 2 feet from her face - i saved this till the end when she would be more comfortable as it can be a bit disconcerting to let a stranger get that close with a camera!
So I mixed prime and zooms - i've got tele shots, wide shots, shallow shots and very very shallow shots, head, head and shoulders, full body shots - a wide variety for the client to view and choose.
|
|
|
|
10/08/2007 09:39:06 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by boysetsfire:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Yeah, they would have missed half of their shots fiddling around. |
that may sound like bullshit to some but it really is true, using a prime is much faster. It also makes you get into positions that you wouldnt when using a zoom. |
One could certainly argue its must faster to turn a zoom ring than it is to physically move 10 feet this way ond 3 feet that way. So if your in a physical position where your prime give you the image you want, sure its faster. But if your not than I have a hard time beleiving its faster. |
|
|
|
10/08/2007 08:52:40 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by thomasjessen:
What about combining primes and zooms? Many of you only like zooms or only like primes. |
I have (and use) both zooms and primes. Zooms always compromise image quality for versatility. |
|
|
|
10/08/2007 07:45:52 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
We could compare the 28-135 or 17-85 mid range zooms, but they have IS and no prime in this range does.
|
Which makes sense, as primes are both lighter and faster. Mid range does not require IS. The 200/2.8 L does not even have IS and imo does not require it.
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
go to the cheap primes, well, you lose the speed advantage, lose USM, get CA in some that is bad, they're not sharp wide open, and nothing above 50mm (perhaps the 135 soft focus). |
Please stick to the facts. CA is bad only in Canon's wide angle primes, not in the mid range, and most of the 'cheap' Canon primes are sharp wide open. And apart from the 135, there's three more 'cheap' primes above 50:
60/2.8 Macro
85/1.8
100/2
All three have USM and all three are at least as fast as L-zooms and they are sharper.
Message edited by author 2007-10-08 07:46:45. |
|
|
|
10/08/2007 07:33:50 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by thomasjessen:
What about combining primes and zooms? Many of you only like zooms or only like primes. |
They require a different way of watching. I am a prime addict and whenever I use my only zoom, I simply forget to use the zoom-opportunity because I am not used to it. And I am always dissapointed by the IQ
But hey, I'm not saying it can't be done. For some people it may work of course, and you may be one of them. Just try both, it's te only way to find out. |
|
|
|
10/06/2007 03:07:54 PM · #12 |
We look forward to seeing some of your images when you get the new equipment.
I use a Fuji S3 which has the APC 2/3 frame size sensor, and for me, the 18/70 seems to be the most useful zoom range for general use. It stays on the camera unless I need to shoot something special.
I used a 24/120 zoom for about 9 months, and found that I liked the 120 end of the range, but the 24 was not nearly wide enough for indoors or landscapes with a lot of sky that I like to shoot often.
Lenses are a personal choice, sort of like what kind of shoes you like to wear.
You may want to find friends who have photo equipment in your area, or go to a shop and get a feel and look thru the lenses you think you may want to buy before spending a lot of money on something you may not be happy with.
It is better to spend big for one great one that will be a pleasure to own for years, than to buy several lesser ones and not be completely happy with any of them.
I hope you find one or more that will make you very happy.
|
|
|
|
10/06/2007 02:35:40 PM · #13 |
Thanks all of you who have tried to answer my opening question. After all these good imputs I actually feel it is even harder to make the descission about what lens to buy!!!
I was surprices about how many people who prefer the primes. Maybe I should go that way? I also ride a bike with fixed gear. What about combining primes and zooms? Many of you only like zooms or only like primes. If we talk two zooms, would it then be a good combination with the Canon 17-40 and 70-200 (both L lenses)?
Best regards and a good weekend,
Thomas Jessen (upcoming 40D owner)
Denmark |
|
|
|
10/04/2007 12:26:35 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Originally posted by tcmartin:
All good points and this has been a fun thread to read. One must add to the equation the photographer's personality. For example, some of you might do great portraits at 6' with a 50mm. I am very shy and basically lurk around here, and take mine with the 70-200mm so I can be back in the shadows at about 20'. A friend of mine sent me a killer portrait he shot today at about 3' with a 60mm - I could never do that.
To ge back on topic, for the best walk around lens, I just placed an order for the Canon 10-90mm f/1.8 "K" Macro IS beauty. Perfect for my cropped sensor, great range when added to my other glass, gives me that wide I want, a good portrait length, plus that macro I lost when I had to throw it in to sell my 350D. The "K" is a new class of lens: the "K" stands for "K', it's not an "L", but it is pretty close and won't cost you an arm and a leg!" Photos coming soon! |
what hong kong back alley online store sold you on this ficticious lens? Got a link? Perhaps you should just share what you're smokin, it must be good sh!t! |
haha! yeah really!!! im curious of what site is trying to sell this to you
|
|
|
|
10/03/2007 09:53:48 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by tcmartin:
All good points and this has been a fun thread to read. One must add to the equation the photographer's personality. For example, some of you might do great portraits at 6' with a 50mm. I am very shy and basically lurk around here, and take mine with the 70-200mm so I can be back in the shadows at about 20'. A friend of mine sent me a killer portrait he shot today at about 3' with a 60mm - I could never do that.
To ge back on topic, for the best walk around lens, I just placed an order for the Canon 10-90mm f/1.8 "K" Macro IS beauty. Perfect for my cropped sensor, great range when added to my other glass, gives me that wide I want, a good portrait length, plus that macro I lost when I had to throw it in to sell my 350D. The "K" is a new class of lens: the "K" stands for "K', it's not an "L", but it is pretty close and won't cost you an arm and a leg!" Photos coming soon! |
what hong kong back alley online store sold you on this ficticious lens? Got a link? Perhaps you should just share what you're smokin, it must be good sh!t!
|
|
|
|
10/03/2007 09:50:34 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by noisemaker:
Primes are good, but for the average person, it is not smart to get one. it will most likely be his only lens. having only 1 prime would severly limit you! |
Hell, depending on what you get you can get 3 good primes for the cost of a sharp fast zoom. |
Not if you keep the quality of lenses comparable...
24-70 2.8 is an L zoom, a very good, sharp lens and runs about $1100.
So you should compare it to L primes...24 1.4, 50 1.2 and 85 1.2. those three are over $4000!
Try the 28 1.8, 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 (none are L, but all are good) and that adds to about the same as the one zoom. But the zoom is weather sealed...where as the primes are a stop or better faster.
We could compare the 28-135 or 17-85 mid range zooms, but they have IS and no prime in this range does. Again, the three mid-level primes add to TWICE the cost of either zoom.
go to the cheap primes, well, you lose the speed advantage, lose USM, get CA in some that is bad, they're not sharp wide open, and nothing above 50mm (perhaps the 135 soft focus).
|
|
|
|
10/03/2007 08:46:28 PM · #17 |
All good points and this has been a fun thread to read. One must add to the equation the photographer's personality. For example, some of you might do great portraits at 6' with a 50mm. I am very shy and basically lurk around here, and take mine with the 70-200mm so I can be back in the shadows at about 20'. A friend of mine sent me a killer portrait he shot today at about 3' with a 60mm - I could never do that.
To ge back on topic, for the best walk around lens, I just placed an order for the Canon 10-90mm f/1.8 "K" Macro IS beauty. Perfect for my cropped sensor, great range when added to my other glass, gives me that wide I want, a good portrait length, plus that macro I lost when I had to throw it in to sell my 350D. The "K" is a new class of lens: the "K" stands for "K', it's not an "L", but it is pretty close and won't cost you an arm and a leg!" Photos coming soon! |
|
|
|
10/03/2007 08:27:48 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Yeah, they would have missed half of their shots fiddling around. |
that may sound like bullshit to some but it really is true, using a prime is much faster. It also makes you get into positions that you wouldnt when using a zoom.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2007 08:00:06 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Gary Winogrand and Henri Cartier-Bresson immediately come to mind. |
But think of what they could have done with a decent zoom!!! |
Yeah, they would have missed half of their shots fiddling around. |
|
|
|
10/03/2007 07:59:05 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Gary Winogrand and Henri Cartier-Bresson immediately come to mind. |
But think of what they could have done with a decent zoom!!!
|
|
|
|
10/03/2007 07:57:56 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
You've only used it in three of your last ten challenge entries... I love my primes, and the 85 1.8 in particular, but again it is not the first choice for bringing one lens with you for a day walking around and wanting to be ready for a wide variety of situations. |
and I've used it for about 4700 of the last 5000 shots I've taken. It is my first choice for bringing one lens for a day walking around and shooting. It was the only lens I took for a weekend out being a tourist recently. I don't tend to take challenge entries during random walks. Given that my last 10 challenge entries go back to about February this year and I've shot about 20,000 frames since then, it isn't really a representative sample of what lens I'd use normally (the last entry for example was with a point and shoot - nice Leica lens though)
This is a more reasonable sample of what I've been shooting while walking around this month.
Aside from the specific activity of shooting sports, with a 70-200, they are almost all shot with an 85mm 1.8, out and about, on the streets of Austin & Savannah
Point is (as this thread shows quite well) lens choice is personal. What suits you doesn't suit me, or perhaps the original poster.
Message edited by author 2007-10-03 20:06:51.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2007 07:37:16 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by noisemaker:
Primes are good, but for the average person, it is not smart to get one. it will most likely be his only lens. having only 1 prime would severly limit you! |
Why is being limited in that way a bad thing?? Many great photographs were created by photographers that used one specific prime and rarely, if ever, used another lens.
Gary Winogrand and Henri Cartier-Bresson immediately come to mind.
Also, when I got my first camera and I only had 2 primes with it, I did not feel limited. When I did get a zoom, I was astonished that it was so slow and the images were not so good. If anything I felt more limited by the zoom.
Message edited by author 2007-10-03 19:58:53. |
|
|
|
10/03/2007 06:40:48 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by noisemaker:
Primes are good, but for the average person, it is not smart to get one. it will most likely be his only lens. having only 1 prime would severly limit you! |
Colour me severely limited then. I could just about weld it to my camera and not have noticed the difference this year. |
You've only used it in three of your last ten challenge entries... I love my primes, and the 85 1.8 in particular, but again it is not the first choice for bringing one lens with you for a day walking around and wanting to be ready for a wide variety of situations.
Also, "What lens will best teach me about photography" is not the question that was posted.
Message edited by author 2007-10-03 18:42:01. |
|
|
|
10/03/2007 06:36:51 PM · #24 |
Gota agree as I also have a hard time taking this one off but it's a bit limiting :-) The tammy 28-75 is good but I am not as impressed as others above.... although for general wandering it's what I use the most unless I am in the city (10-22) or doing sports type stuff (70-200).
If I had the dosh, I would pick the 24-105L.
Message edited by author 2007-10-03 18:38:07. |
|
|
|
10/03/2007 06:24:55 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by noisemaker:
Primes are good, but for the average person, it is not smart to get one. it will most likely be his only lens. having only 1 prime would severly limit you! |
Hell, depending on what you get you can get 3 good primes for the cost of a sharp fast zoom.
|
|
