Photography Thailand Forum

[Marc Schultz]

I would like to start a discussion here about prime lenses for 35mm SLRs and get an idea from people which ones people find to be most useful in terms of focal lengths. I realize this depends a lot on what you are shooting and, since I do a fair amount of interiors at times, my 24mm prime shift lens gets a fair amount of usage in general. There are other focal lengths though I can see being very useful for general use like 85mm and 135mm and so I would like to hear what people think in general.

When we use zoom lenses, which offer a range of focal lengths, we don't need to give as much consideration to focal length when we are buying a zoom lens. But when we are talking about fixed focal length lenses, then we need to be more confident the length we have chosen is one that we will be making a fair amount of use from or the investment in the glass is wasted.

Please feel free to post your experiences on this.

[epixx]

Complicated question, at least for me, since I use three different formats, but here's my answer anyway:

My most used camera is the Olympus E-1, which has a "crop factor" of 2. The prime I use the most on this camera is the OM Zuko 100mm f/2.8. It's a wonderfully compact lens, about the size of a 50mm, but it gives the FOV of a 200mm (35mm eqv.), and at f/5.6 and 8, it's very sharp.

The second most used lens on that camera is the OM Zuiko 50mm f/2.0 macro. Being a 100mm eqv., it corresponds to what used to be one of my two favourite focal lengths on film (the other being 21mm), and in addition, it's close-focusing, which is sometimes very convenient.

On my Fuji S3, my most used prime is without doubt the Micro Nikkor 105mm f/2.8. It's big, bulky and very slow focusing, but the images that come out in the other end are so much "larger than life" sometimes, that it's all worth it. Being a 160mm eqv., it's relatively close in FOV to the Zuiko 100mm.

On my Olympus OM-3 (film, mostly b&w), I hardly use other lenses than the 21mm f/3.5. It's a tiny lens, very sharp, and has a FOV that covers more or less anything that I would ever want to fit in a picture frame. My love for this lens is confirmed by the fact that my most used zoom on the E-1 is the Zuiko 11-22mm f/2.8-3.5, often at the wide end, which is the eqv. of 22mm.

No favourites between 21 and 100mm? I've been wondering about that. Maybe I'm too fascinated by perspectives that can't be seen by the naked eye. I do use the 50mm f/1.8 (75mm eqv.) for portraits and general low-light situation, and the 11-22mm (22-44mm eqv.) is without question my most used lens altogether. Sometimes, I travel with no other lenses than that. But that's a zoom, so it doesn't count, right?

[Marc Schultz]

Thank you for the good, detailed feedback Jorgen. It seems the focal length you are using most is on average around 100-200mm, taking into consideration the crop factor. Good to know.

[CW Lawrence]

I've used my Nikkor 50mm 1.8mm about 70% of the time (with the 1.5 crop its a 75mm FOV) and my Sigma 10-20mm for the rest.

Now that I have the 60mm micro, I've been using the 50mm less and am finding the sigma not as sharp as I'd like.

If I bought another prime, I'd probably go for something in the 25mm range. Most likely though I will away from primes to Nikon's 2.8 zooms.

[Marc Schultz]

Thanks CW. Sounds like you like wider angle shooting for the most part?

[epixx]

Thank you for the good, detailed feedback Jorgen. It seems the focal length you are using most is on average around 100-200mm, taking into consideration the crop factor. Good to know.

Not entirely correct. My most used lens is still the 11-22. I find a zoom more useful for wide angles, possibly because the cropping/focal length is more critical at those focal lengths.

With telephoto lenses, I often crop very tightly (like in the scooter photo which is now one of the recent photos, which was taken inside a motorbike shop with 200mm eqv.). I let the lens decide how tightly, and try to decide on what part of the subject gives the most impact. With that, I only have to concentrate on the ultimate crop, with the focal length given, instead of zooming into the obvious one. Both works, but the result will most of the time be different.

[mahonyWeb]

Up until a few weeks ago I had Canon's 24L, 35L, 85L, 100 Macro & 135L. Of those I now have only the 35L (my favourite lens) and the 135L.

On my Hassie 503CW I have 50 & 80mm primes, with the 50 being on the camera 90% of the time.

I WISH Canon's new 50L did not have its focussing quality issues, as I'd love to have an f1.2 at that focal length.

[Marc Schultz]

Thanks for the feedback. What happened to all your prime lenses by the way?

I used to have a 50mm and a 40mm for my Hasselblad as well, but sold them as they were not of much use to me. Now I just have the 80mm and the 120mm for studio work when using a digital back. But the 50mm is really like a 32mm lens in terms of what we are used to on a 35mm camera. More of a wide angle and seems to be the type of focal length you like shooting with the most.

By the way, if anyone is interested, there is a table for 35mm to Hasselblad focal length equivalent here: http://photo.net/equipment/medium-format/focal-length-conversion

It seems as a fixed focal length lens on 35mm that the 135mm is a very useful overall focal range. It is very good for tight head shots and other details of things where you want to crop in a bit closer without totally zooming in all the way. I would think you would actually get a fair amount of use from that lens in general and I guess that is the reason you kept that one as well when you parted with the others.

The 85mm would be more useful overall than a 50mm in my opinion and I am a bit surprised you decided to keep the 35mm over the 24mm as I would think the 24mm would give you a bit more flexibility on wide angle when needed.

A lot of this comes down though to personal use and subjectivity.

Good feedback, thanks.

[mahonyWeb]

Why did I get rid of the 24, the 85 and the 100? One reason; I bought a Canon 24-105L and was astounded at how good it was.

I've always been a 'prime' guy; my learning curve went through the roof when I bought a 50mm 1.8 (having owned a few zooms previously, and lost heart in the dullness of the images), but this 24-105 is a truly good lens. Sharp all the way through, macro capability, relatively light and compact, excellent bokeh.

I kept the 35 over the 24 as it's a much better lens. Taking nothing away from the 24 - which was sharp as a tack, produced lovely colours and bokeh - the 35 sings when it's on the 5D. If my house was burning down and I could only grab one lens, it'd be the 35 as it's given me so many excellent shots and reduces the amount of post processing needed. Also in my mind when choosing was that a 35mm lens is approx 50mm when fitted to a crop sensor. Having bought my fiancee a 400D I thought she would find the 50mm range useful. As it is, she uses my 17-40 most of the time :)

The 135 is the sharpest lens I've ever used, and produces unbelievably good bokeh (I'm a bit of a bokeh whore ). For head & shoulder portraits it is better suited than even the 85L, and focusses much faster (even compared to the mkII that I had). It's also a lot lighter, and cheaper should you lose it on your travels.

So impressed by the 24-105, I'm now considering buying another zoom - the 70-200L 2.8 IS. My only gripes being its weight, size and whiteness :)

Would it be unfair of me to presume you're looking into primes due to being concerned with the resolution of a certain new camera?

[Marc Schultz]

Great feedback. At the moment I am not actually planning any purchases. I am becoming more interested in prime lenses though because I found, even though the L series Canon L zoom lenses are excellent, and almost as sharp as prime lenses with very little distinguishable difference at times, they do not always perform as well as I would like under all lighting conditions throughout the entire focal range. 

In regards to the 24-105mm L lens, yes it is pretty amazing for what it is. I bought it shortly after it came out and I have gotten a lot of use from it. And I agree with most of what you say about it. I have been disappointed though at times with it at the wider apertures under F/11. It is pin sharp with really nice contrast throughout the whole aperture range, but it also has a serious vignetting problem, particularly on landscapes with open skies, which Canon also has acknowledged. And when the lens first came out they had to recall some of them because of lens flare problems when the slightest bit of back light came into the lens. With optics there is always give and take and I would say this lens cannot compete with the 24-70mm L at the wider apertures for example. It is however much lighter weight, has a longer focal range, and has IS making it much more functional in the hand in many ways. As for the vignetting, see the following shots which will reveal some of the problems with the lens I mentioned: 



Canon had told me that if I shot at F/8, or above, the problem should not exist anymore at those narrower apertures. As you can see, even at F/8 the vignetting is still pretty pronounced.

Interesting what you say about the 135mm L lens being that sharp. That’s encouraging given the price of it as an L series prime lens. Saying it is even sharper than the 85mm L is also an interesting comparison. Is that the F/2 or the F/1.2 version of the 85mm you are comparing to?

I like Bokeh too, but I don't chase it. Other elements of optical performance I think are more important as a whole, even though nice Bokeh is very pleasing to look at. According to things other people have written, including Michael Reichmann on Luminous Landscape, the 70-200mm L is notably one of the sharpest lenses Canon has ever made, despite it being a zoom and in my opinion, the 24-70mm L zoom is up there too.

[mahonyWeb]

RE: the 24-105

From what I can gather, Canon did have quite a few quality issues with the first batches of the lens. These were later sorted out, and I ended up buying a new version approx 18 months after it was released. Given that you own the 24-70, and so I would presume wouldn't miss the focal length, have you considered sending the 24-105 to Canon for them to correct the lens for you? I myself have not experienced such pronounced vignetting, certainly at those apertures.

RE: the 85 and the 135

Yes, the 85 I had was the 85mm f1.2 mkII. For fun I placed it on May's 400D one day:



Ridiculous looking, or what?!

The 85 is a truly exceptional lens and produces fine results, but it's heavy and is slow to focus. The 135 (f2) on the other hand produces just as good results, but is a lot lighter and is unbelievably fast to focus. Colour rendition of the 85 is probably slightly more pleasing, but I found the 135 to be the sharper lens, and more likely to get me the shot I wanted.

[Marc Schultz]

Thanks. I had checked before I bought it to make sure mine was not one from the earlier problem batches either. The vignetting issue is a documented problem with this lens and I believe all of them will suffer from it under similar lighting circumstances.

Interesting about the 85mm F/1.2 and you believing the 135mm F/2 is sharper. Also, I don't believe the Bokeh and reduced DOF looks that much noticeably different at F/1.2 as compared to F/2. In fact, it becomes hard to notice it much once the background already starts to get that blurred out at such wide apertures.

Curious if there have been any test reviews on the 135mm talking about sharpness though, but sounds like a good value for money at less than half the price of the 85mm F/1.2 since they are both L lenses with relatively the same sort of DOF control and applicability.

[mahonyWeb]

I think bokeh is simply down to what's pleasing to the eye. Choppy bokeh can be quite harsh and unpleasant, smooth and buttery bokeh appears to be what most people find appealing.

Try the 135L, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised :)

[epixx]

So impressed by the 24-105, I'm now considering buying another zoom - the 70-200L 2.8 IS. My only gripes being its weight, size and whiteness :)

This is often an important point (although, as a Nikon and Olympus user, I avoid the whiteness of the long lenses  :)

One of the reasons why I carry telephoto primes instead of carrying the zooms, is weight and size. I have the Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8, and it's around 1,600g without the tripod mount. The 180mm f/2.8 is half the weight, has a built in hood and is much, much smaller. The difference in sharpness isn't that obvious, but I don't always want to carry 3 kilos of gear around, so I have paid a deposit on a used 180mm, but have no plans to sell the zoom.

An alternative would be to buy a more consumer oriented zoom, like the Nikkor 70-300mm f/3.5-5.6 VR, but I would rather frame differently or even miss a shot altogether than get one that I don't feel is as good as I can make it. Although I am a limiting factor to my photography most of the time, I don't want my lenses to make things worse   :)

Again, the situation is different with wide-angles. Partly, the wide zooms are much smaller and lighter than their telephoto counterparts, and partly, I find the best of them to be more usable than the primes. Particularly the two Zuikos, the 7-14 (which I don't own) and the 11-22 (which I own), are incredibly sharp corner to corner. I wouldn't mind the max aperture of the Canon 24mm f/1.4 though   :)

[Marc Schultz]

Mahony, there is a review here I found which rates the 135mm F/2 a 4.5 out of 5. In comparison it rates the 85mm F/1.2 lens only a 4.25 out of 5, which coincides with what you said when comparing the 2 lenses:

http://www.photodo.com/topic_32.html

The PhotoD site in general is quite well respected in terms of reviews and rating on lenses. The site is an interesting discovery.