Photography Thailand Forum

[polapatl]

Hi all,

I've got the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L and the soon arriving (4 days and counting!) 16-35 f/2.8L lenses for my 40D.
My question is: what would be the gains of having a single focal length 50mm lens over using the 24-70 for 50mm?
I've talked to several people and they said to get the 50mm f/1.8 (which is around 3000 Baht), or if I can afford it, the 50mm f/1.4L.

Why so? Why single focal length lenses? 

Thank you,

Paul  :-\

[Chris Savery]

The general idea is that prime lenses (fixed focal length) force you to view the frame more carefully and adjust your position to shoot rather than just zoom the lens. This has artistic side effects that many consider worthwhile. When you zoom a lens your position remains fixed and the field of view changes but a subtle difference is also that the perspective of the foreground/background/subect relative to each other changes as well. With a fixed lens you have to move to get the same composition and usually the relative positions also will differ due to your different position.

Besides that prime lenses usually have a wider full open aperture, ie. they're faster. So that means that in some conditions you can shoot in lower light and often the bokeh (out of focus rendering) is also nicer. The thing to remember here is that when wide open they will have a much reduced (sometime very thin) depth of field. Meaning that the subject is only in focus within a very narrow range. This can be used to great effect but also doesn't work for many situations. Many is the time you read on the net about people saying their lens isn't sharp when often it's just they aren't paying attention to their depth of field when shooting wide open.

In the case of the 50/1.8 because it's so darn cheap many people say it's a must have. I have one. But I find it less then satisfying on a crop-frame camera. I'd prefer to have a 24L prime instead or even a 35mm as that would be closer to whats traditionally called "normal". However, I do get out and shoot with the 50 despite this and it's the best bargain lens around. The 50/1.4 is better due to build quality and you get a bit more speed (wide open). On a 5D I'd go for that but on the crop-frame I think I'd prefer to put the same money towards a 35mm. This is all just personal preference and everyone you talk to has their own ideas they've developed over time about their lens use (it seems).

Some people tape their zoom ring on their zoom to prevent them from lazily zooming all the time. This then gives them a similar constraint to a prime lens but with out the faster apertures. I don't do that but you may want to try it out before buying some particular prime as with your range of zooms you already cover most of non-tele range.

I presume you bought the 16-35 as you expected some day to move up to the 5D full-frame. If not then you likely would have been a bit better off with the 10-22 on the 40D. It goes wider and doesn't overlap your 24-70 and is also excellent. Not that there is anything wrong with the 16-35 - I'd buy the 16-35 myself but only because I do plan to pick up a 5D this year perhaps when the new one comes out and the old starts selling cheaper. The 10-22 is the 16-35 equivalent for the crop-frame cameras and thats why Canon made it - there used to be nothing in that range available. 16mm on crop frame is still quite wide thought and you'll enjoy that.

Yikes. Sometimes I talk too much.

[polapatl]

Hi Chris,

Thank you very very much for your input. It's nice to read as much as I possibly can, and from many sources. I'd hate to live life, learn, and experience things from a narrow angle. Your input has given me a good comparison chart to what others are saying, although they're saying pretty much the same thing.

As for the 5D upgrade and lens choices, it is somewhere in the future, although probably to the 5D's successor, and maybe 5-6 years down the line. Since I've just started with photography I plan to keep my lenses but change the body (hence the lens choice), and to make as much of my 40D as possible.

I look forward to posting more q' and reading as many replies as possible! 

Thanx,

Paul

[gregoire]

Would a 5D w/ 24-105 combo have cost that much more that what you have now? That would go wider and almost as long than all the gear you've got now! It would be 10 times lightrer and stabilized, too. You wouldn't have to change lenses (no dust on sensor, less hassle) either.

Taking lenses for a camera you may or may not own in 2014 makes little sense. In cropped format, the price and focal lengths of the lenses you're putting on your 40D just don't make sense. Sorry if I'm being blunt.

[polapatl]

Would a 5D w/ 24-105 combo have cost that much more that what you have now? That would go wider and almost as long than all the gear you've got now! It would be 10 times lightrer and stabilized, too. You wouldn't have to change lenses (no dust on sensor, less hassle) either.

Taking lenses for a camera you may or may not own in 2014 makes little sense. In cropped format, the price and focal lengths of the lenses you're putting on your 40D just don't make sense. Sorry if I'm being blunt.

Hi Gregoire,

No problems about being blunt at all! All opinions are welcome.
a) From my research so far most lenses can last easily over 10 years (especially L-series lenses), so I won't need to keep buying new lenses
b) 24-70mm and 16-35mm are arguably easier to sell (if I don't keep them) in say 5-10 years than a 24-105mm (am I wrong?)
c) f/2.8 for me is more useful as I am doing most of my picture taking indoors with less lighting (pix of baby), plus if I can afford it, which is the better option?
d) I do plan on upgrading to the full sensor "eventually". I'm just getting my feet wet with the 40D for a while (5-7 years perhaps)
e) Wouldn't keeping a narrower range be "better" for picture quality?

As I'm a noob, I'd prefer if anyone can chime in to correct me if I'm wrong or just generally give their opinions.

Thank you,

Paul

[epixx]

What Chris said plus:
for longer focal lengths, particularly those between 85 and 200, the weight saving of a prime over a fast zoom is considerable. I don't know Canon too well, but for Nikon, the 180mm f/2.8 is around half the weight of my 80-200mm f/2.8. Under normal circumstances, the prime is only marginally sharper, even wide open, but add a tele-converter, and the difference increases. I know Canon has a fantastic 135mm f/2.0. If I was a Canon user, that's a lens that I would consider seriously before I bought the 70-200mm f/2.8.

[polapatl]

What Chris said plus:
for longer focal lengths, particularly those between 85 and 200, the weight saving of a prime over a fast zoom is considerable. I don't know Canon too well, but for Nikon, the 180mm f/2.8 is around half the weight of my 80-200mm f/2.8. Under normal circumstances, the prime is only marginally sharper, even wide open, but add a tele-converter, and the difference increases. I know Canon has a fantastic 135mm f/2.0. If I was a Canon user, that's a lens that I would consider seriously before I bought the 70-200mm f/2.8.

Hi epixx,

Thank you for your post. As I'm a noob, I guess the weight factor hasn't quite hit me yet. The full set I was planning on (over time) is the 40D body, 16-35mm, 24-70mm, 70-200mm, 580EXII flash and other dribs and drabs. The 70-200 will come much much later on when my kid grows up and starts with the sports. From what experience I have, anything from 70-100mm is fractional, especially after the 100mm mark, is that correct? Most zooms are most noticable from 16-55mm right? It's not linear (according to the naked eye) right? So maybe the 135mm might be worth noting, but mostly for the future.

Paul

[David Salmanowitz]

Paul--What Chris told you about being lazy and not moving around and just adjusting the zoom is a very valid point. Another thing about primes is they seem to be sharper. Zooms have come a long way since the old days and one can great shots with them, they are convenient, etc, but they are not as sharp as a good prime. A year ago I would have argued about this and I believe I did on this very site, but the proof is in the pudding. I bought the Canon 50mm 1.2 prime and it is w/o a doubt sharper than any "L" series Canon zoom I have. The Canon 24-70 is a great lens, big and heavy but sharp--but the 50mm is sharper, but obviously you lose the extended range which is nice to have. The 24-105mm that Gregoire mentioned is a real good lens, or so I am told as I do not have one. The reviews I had read said the edges were sharper with the 24-70 though. As far as wide angles Canon still has a way to go to equal the other lenses in their line up. The 24mm 1.4 prime is a nice pretty sharp fast lens, but the 16-35mm zoom is not sharp. I am referring to the older model, they released a new version last spring that was supposed to be much sharper. When I had the older 16-35mm on a reduced size sensor 20D it was fine, when I put it on a full frame 5D it was not. Often I have found myself shooting at the extremes of the zoom lens, and in that case I would have been better off with primes. But then one needs to carry more lenses, and also pay for them. :-(  Epixx was right in Canon does have a very nice 135mm f2.0 prime lens, they also have a 200mm f2.0 prime in the works--will not be tiny or cheap either! Anyway, not too be too confusing but zooms and primes can both be great lenses.

[Chris Savery]

Ya, I definitely shouldn't have forgotten they are often sharper... and lighter... doh!
:)

[epixx]

Another fact is that it's relatively easy to find good, used primes, while good used zooms are much more difficult to acquire, at least for a reasonable price. I've recently bought an 85/1.8 and a 180/2.8 (both for Nikon) for THB 6,500 and 11,000. The latter is one of Nikon's sharpest lenses ever, and has a phenomenal bokeh. There are obviously similar deals to be had with Canon lenses as well.

The reason for this, I think, is that photographers upgrade from low or medium quality zooms to high quality zooms, or from primes to high quality zooms. Since there are very few low quality primes around, good deals are to be found.

[Chris Savery]

And speaking of that 50/1.8 - known by some as the "plastic fantastic".

Not long after posting yesterday I reached for my camera and didn't notice that the strap had caught up on something. As I pulled it towards me the camera jumped out of my hand and bounced onto the floor. The central barrel of the 50/1.8 bounced out and across the room. Ugh!

I picked up the camera and it looked ok but the 50 was broken in two halves now. I looked it over and tried to just push it back together. Ha, fat chance of that. I figured I'd have to take it in to Canon but for such a cheap lens it would likely cost as much as a new one to get it fixed. So I wasn't too happy and did the next best thing - googled it.

Turns out there is a page here: http://www.ejarm.com/photo/ef5018iidis/ that shows you how to take it apart. So I followed that and got it all apart and then managed to reassemble it with the second half back in again. And you know - it works. It now has a bit of plastic (small retainer clip) broken off but it doesn't affect operation.

So a good reason for having the 50/1.8 - it's a good "danger" lens. If you are in some situation where your lens could get hit or damaged then it's a good cheap one to take the fall. And you can fix it yourself easily enough because it's pretty simple inside.

Now, in addendum to this story, later yesterday I started getting a thin mark across the top of my images when taking shots of light sky background. It looked like a dust spot but extended across the top of frame. I thought, " oh great", I probably cracked the AA filter on the sensor when it dropped. Sat down and started to do a sensor clean procedure and when opened it turns out that there was now a rather long half inch hair lodged inside. That was lucky! Cleaned it all up and it's working as normal. Phew.