Who here has Canon L glass?

[yllus]

I think it's partially that people are initially unaware of primes as an option, and then recoil at the idea of being limited to a fixed lens focal range. If you're outside of controlled conditions, it can possibly make for a generally unusable setup. I know that I became aware of primes pretty late in the game - and after having bought my first SLR.

Partially it's what you mentioned: Cheap, high-quality zooms are now available. The Canon EF 70-200mm f4 L has a very usable range and is nearly prime-sharp. Ditto the Canon 17-40mm L. Flexibility and the ensuing ability to capture the right shot perhaps rightly trumps marginally improved IQ.

 

[virtuamike]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Stupid question, but why do so many DSLR people shoot with zooms? Are primes simply not produced in great numbers anymore or have zooms become just that good? The more I get into modern photography the more I wonder just how much things have changed since my newest SLR (1982 Contax RTS II) was made. I think I'm operating with a lot of out-dated assumptions about primes being cheaper than zooms.

Or is it just that zooms have improved "enough" and that people prefer them for convenience or for the ability to avoid lens changing (and thereby avoid dust on the sensor)?

ZV

You're shooting Zeiss. Be happy

Zooms have improved, but if you like your primes then stick with them.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: yllus
I think it's partially that people are initially unaware of primes as an option, and then recoil at the idea of being limited to a fixed lens focal range. If you're outside of controlled conditions, it can possibly make for a generally unusable setup. I know that I became aware of primes pretty late in the game - and after having bought my first SLR.

Partially it's what you mentioned: Cheap, high-quality zooms are now available. The Canon EF 70-200mm f4 L has a very usable range and is nearly prime-sharp. Ditto the Canon 17-40mm L. Flexibility and the ensuing ability to capture the right shot perhaps rightly trumps marginally improved IQ.

I suppose that coming from zooms to primes it would be more difficult. I started with primes and now the way I use a zoom is to think of which prime I want to emulate, set the zoom to that length, and then compose the shot by "zooming with my feet".

ZV

 

[fotomanphil]

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: fotomanphil
I've got a few...

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS
Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L
Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS

Why would you have 2 $1000 dollar lenses that cover the same ranges?

One I need for the speed and the other I have as a genenal "walk-around" lens that I take with me on trips.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Stupid question, but why do so many DSLR people shoot with zooms? Are primes simply not produced in great numbers anymore or have zooms become just that good? The more I get into modern photography the more I wonder just how much things have changed since my newest SLR (1982 Contax RTS II) was made. I think I'm operating with a lot of out-dated assumptions about primes being cheaper than zooms.

Or is it just that zooms have improved "enough" and that people prefer them for convenience or for the ability to avoid lens changing (and thereby avoid dust on the sensor)?

ZV

Primes are excellent lenses but I think most people buy into the whole "it's expensive therefore it must be better" way of thinking or that "the pros use them so I must have what the pros use."

Primes are faster, cheaper and generally of better optical quality. Their only drawback is that they make you frame the shot by moving the camera. I guess it's just easier to adjust the lens than the shooter. Of course, there are many situations in which you can't move the camera around to frame a shot. Shooting at sporting events are a prime (no pun intended) example of where you'd really need a zoom lens.

For the hobbiest photographer you can achieve excellent results and probably learn more about photography by starting out with a few good prime lenses than using a cheap zoom lens.

I started out shooting 35mm film with a 35mm lens and a 200mm lens. That was it. I still have that camera and both lenses too. I have since moved on to digital and I do have a couple nice zooms but I also have a nice prime lens as well. I picked up the Canon 50mm f/1.4 lens a couple years ago. It is fast and sharp as a tack. Very nice lens, I highly recommend it.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: virtuamike
Zooms have improved, but if you like your primes then stick with them.

Agreed, and I have a couple of zooms (a long zoom for the few times I need a long lens, and a little Zeiss "walk-around" zoom if I don't want to carry the "bag-o-lenses"). But you've phrased it exactly right, shot with what you like.

I've seen pictures from Holgas that I'll never be able to rival. The important thing is the person behind the camera.

ZV

 

[GTaudiophile]

I think everyone should have a fast, F1.4 prime in the bag. But I am lazy and prefer the flexibility of zooms.

 

[ramuman]

I have a 24-70 and the 70-200 2.8 IS. I have wished at times that I had the 24-105 as well because IS sometimes outweighs the 1 f stop and vice versa. I don't think it's that absurd at all. Not sure why photomnphil registered to post that though . Also, Canon L lenses hold their value not for months, but years. Many of these lenses have a 10 year lifetime before replacement, so as long as you take care of them, it's not money down the drain. The camera body on the other hand seems to be a different story .

Also, the 85 1.8 and 50 1.4mm primes are good (I've only used the 50 1.4, so the 85 is from what I hear), but matched at comparable f stops by the L zooms. Granted a 24-70 costs 3 times as much as a 50 1.4 and is slower - I would rather have the flexibility of being able to quickly go out to 24mm or zoom in tight. You can't make up what isn't in the frame and there is only so much resolution for cropping.

It's hard to say they're an investment because I don't make money on them, but they are neither collecting dust nor shedding value fast.

 

[Roy2001]

Originally posted by: glen
Does anyone have this lense?

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

Yes I have this lens, 135/2L, 85/1.8, 50/1.8 and 18-55.

Believe or not, 24-70 is in closet for a long while. For landscape, I use 18-55, otherwise, I would stick with primes, and 135 is my favorite, 85/1.8 is next.

 

[m2kewl]

24L
35L
16-35L
24-70L
70-200Lis
300Lis
500Lis

there is not one i do not like