Canon L lens vs. Prime Lens I am very curious and need your advice. Since prime lenses are known to produce very sharp images, but lacks the versatility of zoom, would Canon L zoom lens, say 24-70mm shot at 50mm, be comparable to their non L series 50mm prime lens??? Please help!!! Canon L lens vs. Prime Lens I am very curious and need your advice. Since prime lenses are known to produce very sharp images, but lacks the versatility of zoom, would Canon L zoom lens, say... » Read More Canon L lens vs. Prime Lens I am very curious and need your advice. Since prime lenses are known to produce very sharp images, but lacks the versatility of zoom, would Canon L zoom lens, say 24-70mm shot at 50mm, be comparable to their non L series 50mm prime lens??? Please help!!! « Show Less
1152579
Thank you, David, for taking the time to write such an extensive and knowledgeable reply to my question!
2256733
I usually think of zooms for versatility, but if you were just interested in a prime, I'd say this one was the best combination. 14mm is too wide. 35mm a bit too close (remember it's actually closer to 50mm when you take into account the cropped sensor). 23mm is a bit more flexible as well as being a great lens.
220606
Zoom with your feet! Kidding aside, there are quite a number of factors you might consider in buying a specific lens. A few of which are (1) Aperture to address lighting, (2) 'Practicality' of a zoom reach, and (3) Price. I would only pick the 24-105mm if I don't have enough dough for the 24-70mm. But supposing money isn't an issue, it seems to me that your primary concern is lighting for taking portraits. Someone here already said the answer. Go for a prime. :) I personally sold my 24-105mm and got the 24-70mm because of that f/2.8 aperture. Point #1 above is on my high priority list. And I know it's redundant but I also have the 24mm f/1.4. Zoom with your feet! Kidding aside, there are quite a number of factors you might consider in buying a specific lens. A few of which are (1) Aperture to address lighting, (2) 'Practicality' of a zoom reach, and (3) Price. I would only pick the 24-105mm if I don't have enough dough for the 24-70mm. But supposing money isn't an issue, it seems to me that your primary concern is lighting for taking portraits. Someone here already said the answer. Go for a prime. :) I personally sold my 24-105mm and got the 24-70mm because of that f/2.8 aperture. Point #1 above is on my high priority list. And... » Read More Zoom with your feet! Kidding aside, there are quite a number of factors you might consider in buying a specific lens. A few of which are (1) Aperture to address lighting, (2) 'Practicality' of a zoom reach, and (3) Price. I would only pick the 24-105mm if I don't have enough dough for the 24-70mm. But supposing money isn't an issue, it seems to me that your primary concern is lighting for taking portraits. Someone here already said the answer. Go for a prime. :) I personally sold my 24-105mm and got the 24-70mm because of that f/2.8 aperture. Point #1 above is on my high priority list. And I know it's redundant but I also have the 24mm f/1.4. « Show Less
305770
The image quality (sharpness, contrast, bokeh) of this 28mm prime is vastly superior to that of the 28-300mm. Primes are going to beat zooms 9 times out of 10 when it comes to IQ anyway, but even moreso when compared to a super-zoom like the 28-300mm. The 24-70mm f2.8 would be a closer competitor, but still falls short when solely comparing IQ.For reference, I own both the 28mm and the 24-70mm, and have used the 28-300mm a handful of times.
1135869
Hey there.I would suggest an exercise if you have the 18-55, but want to start shooting primarily with a fixed focus prime lens. Set the 18-55 to 50, and take shots for the next week only at that length...50 serious shots should give you an idea if you like it as a walkaround. Since there is a really nice sony 35mm lens as well, try that length out also. Personally I like 24mm or 35mm as a walkaround, 50mm is a little too telescopic but it is a very personal preferance.
473928
I have owned both lenses, still have the 400 prime. It focuses faster and more accurately, is sharper and light. With good technique and the right settings on your camera the results are pleasing. I hated the push/pull zoom of the 100-400. The only thing I miss is the IS, but if you spend most of your time photographing birds in flight you don't use IS anyway. I bought it used for $1030 and it is a gem.
532280
I do not have the 24mm prime. I do have the 32mm prime. I think the 16 70 compares favorably not that I have done any testing. It is a great lens and have a hard time using anything else.
8522
Hardy,Thanks for the info about getting better lenses. I just "bit the bullet" and bought the 24-105mm L lens. I have heard this same wise advice from other photographers, and I am looking forward to getting sharper photos with the new lens, and I will try to get only L lenses from now on. In the end, you truly get what you pay for.
1838718
M. Clouse, I have both the 35mm L lens and the 50mm non-L lens. Like you, I love the 50mm lens but it is not sharp wide open. It sharpens up pretty well in the center by f/2.8, but the corners are soft even at f/5.6. The 35mm L lens is not in the same league. It is almost 4 times as expensive, built like a tank, has a completely different lens formula, ring USM focusing system rather than the old design in the 50mm, and is sharp at f/1.4 even out to the edge of the field. Like the 50mm, it gets a little sharper stopped down, but it is so sharp at f/1.4, there is not much room for improvement. You will not be disappointed with the 35mm L. It is a very fine lens optically and mechanically. M. Clouse, I have both the 35mm L lens and the 50mm non-L lens. Like you, I love the 50mm lens but it is not sharp wide open. It sharpens up pretty well in the center by f/2.8, but the corners are soft even at f/5.6. The 35mm L lens is not in the same league. It is almost 4 times as expensive, built like a tank, has a completely different lens formula, ring USM focusing system rather than the old design in the 50mm, and is sharp at f/1.4 even out to the edge of the field. Like the 50mm, it gets a little sharper stopped down, but it is so sharp at f/1.4, there is not much room for... » Read More M. Clouse, I have both the 35mm L lens and the 50mm non-L lens. Like you, I love the 50mm lens but it is not sharp wide open. It sharpens up pretty well in the center by f/2.8, but the corners are soft even at f/5.6. The 35mm L lens is not in the same league. It is almost 4 times as expensive, built like a tank, has a completely different lens formula, ring USM focusing system rather than the old design in the 50mm, and is sharp at f/1.4 even out to the edge of the field. Like the 50mm, it gets a little sharper stopped down, but it is so sharp at f/1.4, there is not much room for improvement. You will not be disappointed with the 35mm L. It is a very fine lens optically and mechanically. « Show Less
18315
I purchased the 56/1.2. What an amazing lens! I have a blast with the portraits now I am able to take. Another great prime lens would be the 23/1.4. I don't have it since I have the X100s as well. My last Fuji lens is the 55-200. Very sharp, well built lens. Took it on an air show and was able to take great, sharp photos on fast moving jets and airplanes. Can't go wrong with it.
473926
I'm getting ready to order the 400mm. I already have the 70-200L 2.8 IS and if I wanted the extra reach with zoom, I could put my 1.4x teleconverter on it, making it a [roughly] 100-280 f4.0. I don't have the 100-400 to compare, but I'd guess the sharpness is about the same between the 100-400 and the 70-200 + 1.4x. I still wouldn't have the reach between 280-400 but I'd have the sharpness when I need it. I can always attempt to move my feet to frame a subject with a prime if I'm too close. Read the reviews and decide for yourself.
518359
Question doesn't say anything about usage of lens. 135 has the fastest focusing probably from all Canon EF lenses, it's sharp and produce shallow DOF. But it's fixed. The other two 24-70 and 24-104 are zooms = more versatile lenses. 24-70 is f2.8 what's advantage for focusing in a dark and produce shallower DOF than 24-105. 24-105 has extended range and IS. So if you need universal lens and you shoot a lot in dark conditions - 24-70 f2.8 If you travel a lot or you need longer end than 70mm and focusing speed isn't critical to you - 24-105 f4 If you need longer lens with fast focusing for concerts, headshoots, or you live in darker world - 135 f2 If your concern is technical quality you can't miss with any of them. Marian
1746183
This is a tough question. My 70-300 f/4-5.6L is my main outdoor walkabout lens for my 5D. The lens is super smooth. I like the twist to zoom much better than push-pull. I like being able to reframe a picture *right now* without needing to carry and swap lenses. I appreciate the quality of the image at the extremes of the zoom. I'm careful about dust and moisture, but I know the seals on my L are the best you can get. If the lens will be *once in a while* lens and super image quality is not crucial, Canon makes very nice non-L lenses. For me, when I stepped up to the 5D, I figured it and my work deserved better lenses and I now only use L lenses. If you need super-telephoto, then primes (and maybe a EF Extender) and some kind of tripod or monopod are the way to go with as many high-quality pixels as you can afford. Then you can use cropping to reframe. Without more information about what you are trying to do, it is hard to be more specific.
713052
Not apples to apples. L lenses are designed for serious photographers who understand that they will need 4 or more lenses. That is why they have such a short range. The 15-85 is wider and still has twice the zoom. I would rather have one lens that is very good quality, that a bag full of pro lenses sitting at home. In other words, in my opinion, the 15-85 is one of the best walk around lenses out there (and I have gone through a bunch.) If you are a pixel peeper and have no regard for money, go with a couple of L lenses. Also look at the 24-105mm L. That is more of fair comparison. Value wise the 15-85 is hard to beat.
36982
It depends on what you photograph and how you do it:Primes -- better for low light, but aren't weather-sealed, and you have to swap between them (not good if things are happening quickly).This lens -- a bit more than a full stop slower (optically), but sealed (good for outdoor shots with unpredictable weather), and zooms so it's an excellent walk-around lens.
1041296
The 35mm f1.4 is amazing. The photos I gets are out of this world. I'm saving now for the 56mm f1.2. Prime lenses are pretty much all I work with.
759247
Even better. The 1.4 is rock solid compared to the flimsy 1.8, and slightly faster. Ten times as expensive, but may be worth it. If you're still thinking of adding a new zoom to your arsenal, look at the 24-105L, as well. It's pretty much a coin toss, as far as IQ, with the 24-70L, but it adds IS. So, it's one stop slower, but it gains about 3 stops due to the IS, so it's actually better for low-light than the "faster" lens. And longer, too.