Pixiq

Hi,this was a great article. But my confusion has grown now even more. Just today, i was reading another article about lenses and cameras, i did posted my confusion but no one answer, and it goes like this:

I just don't get something; While the D7000 is a good camera, then is not a good camera. The same is happening here with the D5100. I was reading the reviews of the Cannon Rebel T3i and is almost, 90%, equal to the Nikon D5100, but at the end it say's: "Why you wouldn’t buy it: no AF in movie mode; it’s not a beginner’s camera"

Read more: http://www.digital-photography-school.com/canon-eos-600d-review#ixzz1Yyr...

I don't get it, then in the Nikon D5100, at the beginning of the review it say's: "It is in fact an excellent prosumer or enthusiast camera."

Im totally confuse, what makes a camera a "prosumer or enthusiast camera" or "not a beginner’s camera" ? or in this case "what lenses makes you a enthusiast or a beginner". Can anybody please clear this up for me? Thanks in advanced, I mean Im really going crazy here.

I recently shot a Marty Stuart concert using just two prime lenses -- a 50mm f1.8 and a 35mm f1.8.

I'm more than pleased with the results. A few of the shots in the link below:

http://howardowens.com/2011/09/24/photographing-marty-stuart/

My camera bodies were a D90 and D7000.

I shot prime whenever I can, which isn't always possible doing the mostly kind of journalistic work I do, especially since I have nothing longer in prime than 50mm.

I've started playing around with my old Nikkormat, which I hadn't touched in 20 years, and I have three manual focus lens with it, a 28mm, 55mm and 135mm. Lovely glass.

I have a 50mm prime lens – the cheapest Canon one you can buy and it spends more time attached to my camera than any of the other, more expensive lenses in my bag.

At f5.6 or so it is ludicrously sharp, it’s great for portraits and the shallow depth of field it gives tends to create the loveliest bokeh. Plus I can take hand held pictures by candlelight and get away with it. What more could you want from a lens? I love it to death. About half the pictures in my photo gallery were taken with it.

This was a great post, and I totally agree with you. I absolutely love my 50mm f1.4 prime lens. It gets the sharpest, most beautiful images, and there's no way I would leave it at home.

www.chastidyiphotography.com

Good and relevant posting. So much can be achieved with a good lens. Thanks for sharing.

Good and relevant posting. So much can be achieved with a good lens. Thanks for sharing.

If the 50mm lons is considered to be a prime lens for a 35mm film camera why then would we not consider a 31 mm lens a "prime" for a digital camera? I have never seen this apparent difference in definition explained.

If the 50mm lons is considered to be a prime lens for a 35mm film camera why then would we not consider a 31 mm lens a "prime" for a digital camera? I have never seen this apparent difference in definition explained.

How ot about ? - Canon EF 16-35mm

I have owned both this and the original version. The new lens is better in the corners and flares less but the corners are still a little soft at f2.8 and you can get the lens to flare a little if you try. I haven't seen the loss of clarity above 20mm that others reported. Perhaps you would see a slight difference in eyelashes if you did a lot of portraits but this is probably not the best choice for a portrait lens. It is a somewhat better lens for shooting landscapes and other shots where edge to edge clarity is important.

But the differences between the two versions are minor and in some instances irrelevant. If you don't shoot a full frame camera the soft edges don't appear in the photo. And flare is a minimal issue at most. It rarely appears and is easy to fix in Photoshop if it does. I would opt for the original if I didn't shoot full frame based on the price difference alone.

My only problem with the original was when I had to shoot hand held. Sometimes you can't bring a tripod along which rules out shooting at f16 or 22 so I occasionally ended up with shots that were soft in some of the edges. The new lens will solve that. That is the only reason I decided to upgrade.

I haven't used many other lenses in the same range so I can't compare quality with other makers but I'm not aware of anything reputed to be better. I have Canon primes as well as other Canon zooms and in actual use all are generally close in quality. I use the primes if possible when I plan to crop or enlarge a lot but I could still get by nicely with the zooms.

So, if you shoot less than full frame or if price is an issue, get the original. If you shoot full frame but need maximum clarity in the center (portraits for example), test both versions first. If you shoot full frame and need maximum edge to edge clarity, go with the new lens.

Update: Having shot this lens for a long period I would discount the comments about problems above 20mm. I owned the first version as well and I don't see a difference in the 20mm to 35mm range. On the contrary, I am increasingly impressed with the image quality and sharpness of this lens throughout the range. I recently used it into a very narrow slot canyon where I couldn't take more than the camera and the lens attached to it and took shots from 16mm up to 35mm that all came out very sharp and rich. Granted I wasn't shooting wide open because I needed lots of depth of field but the point is the lens delivered the best shots of that trip. In terms of versatility, this lens is unmatched for wide angle use by Canon owners. I also have the 14mm f2.8 II, 17mm f4. TS/E and 15mm fisheye for comparison. This is the one wide angle lens I always take along.

All I bought at the price $1,420 dollars from website amazon.

Or you may access information from this link.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000NP46K2/tipfla-20

I think Canon EF 16-35mm where everyone must have. I believe you will get a very good experience like me.

----

And other Best lens for canon camera this link :

http://cancameralens.blogspot.com/

OR Link
http://astore.amazon.com/can0n-lens-camera-20

Interesting stuff, and I think you’ve made a good point. But the fact of the matter is that most consumers don’t care if their photos aren’t sharp as a tack. Most of today’s digital photographers getting into the dSLR market “grew up” photographically with the P&S cameras over the last 5 years. Zoom was a standard thing, so it’s natural to have them expect a zoom on their big new camera.

I’ll admit it, I have a couple of zooms and my first lens (just over a year ago) was a zoom — but it wasn’t the kit lens. I opted for a higher quality lens, and I’m glad I did. I now also have a prime lens (though it’s a macro), but there is a difference between that and my zoom.

And it DOES have a different “zen-like” feeling to it compared to using a zoom.

I have the 50mm f/1.8 as well and it’s one of the best investments I’ve made. I once shot for almost four months before it ever occurred to me to take it off the body and try a different lens.

Plus it’s a challenge to yourself to frame your shots without using zoom.

It may be worth noting, by the way, that if you are looking for the 50mm, that it is worth going on eBay or similar and getting the 50mm f/1.8 mk1 lens. You can get one of these for about the same price as the current offering (the mk2), but the mk1 is made of metal, and is generally sturdier. Image quality is the same, but I trust metal over plastic any day of the week.

If you want ultrasonic motors, you’re looking at the 50mm f/1.4 which is a lot more expensive. You don’t get that much better sharpness or brightness out of the f/1.4 than the f/1.8, but you do get an USM motor (= quicker, quieter autofocus), and better overall build quality.

There’s also a comparison between the f/1.8 and the f/1.4 here!

I have the 50mm f1.8 too but the crop factor on my 20D makes it so narrow it’s ruined for the street photography I like. Have you tried Canon’s 35mm f2? That’d give you a “normal” FOV on smaller sensors..

Just got a 50mm f/1.8 for my new Rebel XT, and at first wasn’t happy that I couldn’t zoom. I warmed up to it pretty fast though, it seems to take clear pictures, and does much better under low light than the kit lens. Any suggestions though on a macro lens?? I was checking out the LensBabies, but not sure – don’t think macro is their specialty… Though I’m not sure if I’m up to buying another lens at this point – but could easily be coerced into buying a nice macro lens.

the “nifty fifty” is indeed one of my favorite lenses. especially for my concert shots.

I currently do not own a single zoom lens, and I haven’t looked back since selling off the last one. I have Nikon’s 10.5mm f2.8, 24mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8, and Tamron’s 90mm f2.8 macro. On my D200, with the 1.5x crop factor, the 24mm is a great walking-around lens, I leave it on the camera by default unless I’m doing something special.

The 50mm and the 90mm are both brilliant for different types of portraiture (50mm works well for ‘head and shoulders’ shots where the 90mm is good for really tight headshots). And then the fisheye is just fun for when I’m fooling around.

I don’t have a prime for my Nikon D70 :-( But instead I have a Pentacon 50mm f/1.8 attached to a Praktica MTL3 that used t be my father’s.

I don’t use it for a long time now, because I’m not much into film anymore, but I used it along with the Nikon N50 I had some years ago with Sigma zoom lenses attached, and the quality of such a lens is absurd.

i’ll talk prime lenses untill some zaned mofo banishes them from the earth, huge fan of them, purely from a “getting closer is photography” standpoint.

Just sold my 50mm f1.8 (too many cuts on my eyes from it’s sharpness :P).

50mm f1.4 and the 85mm f1.8 are on their way from BH. I hesitated to get the 85mm f1.2, but the financial factor finaly took it’s toll.

the 50mm f1.8 should be in everyone’s bag. Over the roof quality/price ratio.

I agree with every one above. I have the 50 1.4 and it is a beautifull lens. Sharp Sharp Sharp! next prime is the 85. Can’t wait.

I have a 50mm f/1.8 as well and it spends more time on my camera then all the other lenses in my arsenal combined.

or even better, fit an 85mm 1.8 on your 1.6x dslr and have a monster fast 135mm equivalent. whoo hoo! i think the 85mm should be everyones first “expensive lens” (though at 350usd, it not the most expensive lens by a long shot)

as a side note, canon did make an EF mount 50mm 1.0, it sells for a mere 3500-4000usd on ebay

I just ordered my second prime, the canon 50mm F1/8, my next prime will be the 85mm 1.8.

My 50mm f1.8 came in the mail today! next up is the 85 f1.8

I have a Nikon 50 1.8 that with my D200 is like my old 85 1.8 I used as my main lens in my film days only sharper. 2 weeks ago I found a clean Nikon 105 f 2.8 macro [pre VR version]. WOW is that sharp.

I have been debating this change back to primes for a while and the more I read, the more I think I should.

If a person really *understands* the physics and optics of photography, then they would know having a prime lens, or two, is necessary. It’s all fine and dandy using a combination lens, but there’s a degree of degradation, as well as certain side affects of using different focal lengths.
I work with both types of lens, I like the flexibility. Because honestly there are instances where I just cannot get close enough with a prime lens. But … using a prime lens means I have to physically move; I find myself getting lazy using combinations lens.
For my Canon EOS Rebel I have an 80-200mm 4.5, but the 50mm 1.8 allows me to shoot very low light conditions and the sharpness is incredible!
On my Pentax ME Super (the thing is a tank! it’s like the Energizer bunny, it just keeps on going!) my combination lens are: 28-80 w/ macro @ 3.5; 80-200 @ 4.5 so I’m pretty well covered for a lot of things. But when I want sharpness I use a Pentax/Takumar 135 @ 2.8. However, I have one more prime lens for my Pentax ….. when I want to shoot something far away, and I mean really far away, I have a Sigma 600mm mirror lens @ f8. It’s pretty damn impressive! The lens virtually dwarfs the camera body! When I put that baby on the camera, I sure get looks from people :) However, a tripod is *absolutely* necessary because the smallest vibration is magnified, so I use a Manfrotto. And then when something is really, really far away, I put a 2X doubler on it! So now I’m shooting @ 1200mm! When I use that lens I don’t even touch the camera when I take a picture, I use a cable release, because even pressing the shutter will shake the camera. Digital cameras don’t stand a chance against that! :)

cory photographique
http://www.coryjohnson.net

Spot on – although the 50mm is the cheapest primes, the others cost several times what you’d pay for a consumer zoom – in the Canon line up, the 85mm f/1.8 is awesome – even better than the 50mm lenses (aside from the 50mm f/1.2 L), and you’d have to spend many times its value to get a prime lens that betters it on image quality. There aren’t any zooms that better it on image quality

I have an Olympus E400, and unfortunately Zuiko do not produce fast and cheap prime lenses, nor any other 4/3′s compatible producer.

Have to say I agree with this; the Canon f1.8/50mm lens is great, both for portraits (really nice shallow depth of field effects). I’ve also combined mine with some extension tubes for macro shots, it works surprisingly well.

Really versatile; should definitely be on a canon user’s shopping list.

And what about the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 ? I have the canon 50mm 1.8 but I’d like to change…

I was using zooms for the first month or so after I started, but I always found myself wishing I had more light and better sharpness. After buying my first prime, my current set stands at
EF 28mm f/2.8 – lovely for APS-C sized sensors.
EF 35mm f/2.0 – brighter than the 28 but at the cost of a narrower AOV
EF 50mm f/1.8 Mk I – my wide portrait lens and sharper than the currently available Mk II
EF 85mm f/1.8 USM – standard portrait lens, possibly my sharpest lens
EF 135mm f/2.8 SF – I love softfocus and this lens also great for narrow portraits
I can’t stop and I’ll be adding the following lenses as soon as I can
EF 100mm f/2.0 USM
EF 24mm f/2.8
EF 20mm f/2.8 USM
I use only two zooms these days – the Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 and the Canon EF 100-300mm f/5.6 mostly because getting the focal lengths covered by those two with the kind of aperture that I like would be too expensive.

great article… after 10 years of photography I am finally starting to get into the prime lenses and I know my skills will improve. The one I had for years, the 50mm f/1.4 was so great, time to move beyond the basics.

Nice article. Im convinced and will now save for one.

50mm 1.4 (Nikon) Love it.

Love the shallow depth of field, I do wedding photography and can get some amazing shots of table decorations etc @ F1.4

after reigniting my interest in photos with my Olympus 510 with some of their nicer lenses (12-60, 50-200, 9-18) I am now getting a kick out of delving through old camera shops and ebay to add some primes.

There are cheap adaptors for most lenses with the exception of Canon and maybe Minolta

I picked up so far a 24/2, 28/3.5, 50/1.4 and 105/2.8 nikkor plus a 135/1.8 sigmatel and all so far have let me take much better pics.

I actually enjoy the challenge of balancing the aperture and the focus manually… it seems much more natural than the auto everything mode

check out my flickr site… most of the recent phoos were taken on primes

Yes. It’s just happened to me. I just caved in and ordered a Sigma 17-70mm lens for my Digital Rebel. What I really want to do is get down into a flower and show it’s colors. Somehow I got lured into the “if these are just about as good as primes nowadays, why not take the range?” I’m still deciding whether to keep it or return it. But after this lens, I am absolutely, most definitely getting a prime. Life is too short.

When I bought my Digital Rebel I got the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II with it just because of all the positive reviews it had and because it was cheap. I couldn’t stand it. You had to stand way back from the subject, plus the depth of field was too shallow for my needs (my biggest complaint). I ended up then buying the Canon EF 35mm f/2 lens. The depth of field was finally good, and you didn’t have to stand as far away. I am so happy with that lens that it stayed in my camera ever since. I would only use the 50 mm lens if I want to a rock concert or something.

And I love prime lenses. They are very sharp.

I recently got the Canon 50mm f/1.8 mkII to go on my 40D, purely because I had £80 spare, and wanted something new for my camera.

First and foremost, the fixed focal length is definitely a challenge, as I was used to using a 17mm – 85mm, but it was one that I took on eagerly.
However, since I used my 1.8 for it’s first ever shoot, I’ve been reluctant to go back to my kit lens.
Okay, in some situations, the 50mm really isn’t practical, but the clarity and colour tone it delivers, at just £78 is breath taking.

I read many reviews where people were complaining about it for various reasons. But to be completely honest, even as an amateur photographer, any issues they have with photos from this lens, are almost all down to their human errors.
Best £78 I’ve ever spent.

u hit the spot man , u realy did.

I have graduated from the Panasonic DMC FZ5 to the Canon EOS 40D. I made the change after using the Panasonic confirmed my initial belief that I wanted to take up photography as a hobby. Just as you have written, I bought the camera on a “deal” with the 18-55mm kit lens and a Sigma 70-300mm zoom. However, I have since learnt of prime lenses and have today recieved the Canon 50mm f1.8 lens. I then Googled to learn how best I could use this new lens when I came upon this page.
You are most welcome to view my photos (taken both with the Panasonic and Canon) at http://photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=2401486. I do hope that you will be able to provide valuable pointers. It was great to go through this page and I intend to read your blog regularly henceforth.
Regards.

I’m young, but at NYU here they cut your teeth on photography using the B&W darkroom and a 50mm prime. And for the New York streets, it is really instructive to walk around to find different angles and face your subjects, rather than snipe at them from far away.

I have borrowed a Sigma 30mm 1.4 and it is absolutely brilliant…I would go as far to say better then the Canon 50mm 1.8.

Hi there,
Your information about owning a prime lens was great. Earlier in the year I purchased a Canon Rebel {which I absolutely love}. Of course it only came with the 18-55 mm standard lens.

Last week my husband bought me a prime lens 50mm f/1.4 USM and I am still trying to figure it out. lol

I have 2 primes. A 50/1.8 and a 35/ 1.8. I would recommend to anyone just starting out to forgo the kit lens and get a prime. Unfortunately they probably wouldn’t listen figuring that a kit lens it worth the money saved and why would they only want one focal length? But they’ll learn. I like my 18-200 but I LOVE my primes. And the kit lenses ( two came with my camera)? I never touch them. Next up is an 85mm.

In a world seemingly dominated by Canon and Nikon, being slightly odd, I go with Sony. Alpha 100 with the two kit lenses but my prime lens is the Sony 50mm Macro lens. Works great for closeup, real close up and for portraits as well as scenics and it’s fairly fast at 2.8. It gives me a lot of flexibility.

Primes are great! The cheap ones with the plastic mounts make me nervous, though. I’d save up for a few more months and get a little better quality.

yup..primes are better,no doubt for that. coz they have been made from special equipments. that’s why they are more expensive than the standards. and the results (the pictures that had taken) are amazing.