# Why Buy A Prime Lens?



## LiveStrong2009 (Jul 31, 2010)

I am curious why so many people use prime lenses.  What are the advantages?  I have noticed that many of them are relatively inexpensive and usually pretty fast, but don't their limits bother you?

I guess I am nearly convinced to buy a 50mm f1/8 just to see what everybody is so proud of.


----------



## iAstonish (Jul 31, 2010)

They are usually much sharper, but cheaper to make, so the cost is less than a fast telephoto. It's like sacrificing the zoom range for better image quality.

Unless you want to buy a 2.8 telephoto, then you can have both, but the cost will reflect the quality.


----------



## Neil S. (Jul 31, 2010)

Faster
Cheaper
Better IQ
They will improve your skills
Earns you some respect lol


----------



## LiveStrong2009 (Jul 31, 2010)

How do you decide which prime to get?  I have seen many different focal lengths.  The 50mm seems most popular but I also see the 24,28,35,85 etc...


----------



## Neil S. (Jul 31, 2010)

LiveStrong2009 said:


> How do you decide which prime to get? I have seen many different focal lengths. The 50mm seems most popular but I also see the 24,28,35,85 etc...


 
I would get the 135L if I was you.

Its a good deal, and they say the image quality and bokeh are outstanding.


----------



## usayit (Jul 31, 2010)

LiveStrong2009 said:


> How do you decide which prime to get?  I have seen many different focal lengths.  The 50mm seems most popular but I also see the 24,28,35,85 etc...



Bought and sold much Canon equipment and the following ended up "surviving" in my bag for many years:

24mm f/1.4L
50mm f/1.4
85mm f/1.8
135 f/2L

If necessary, I would add this one...  leaving the 100-400L behind.

300 f/4L 

I would pick and choose depending.  I think those lenses are the wonderful balance between cost and quality.  I never really had one but the 100mm f/2.8 macro is also nice for macro and portrait.


----------



## Overread (Jul 31, 2010)

LiveStrong2009 said:


> I am curious why so many people use prime lenses. What are the advantages? I have noticed that many of them are relatively inexpensive and usually pretty fast, but don't their limits bother you?
> 
> I guess I am nearly convinced to buy a 50mm f1/8 just to see what everybody is so proud of.


 
What limits are you thinking of in particular? The only real thing that primes "lack" over a zoom is the ability to change their focal length and allow you to zoom in and out. Thus leaving you to have to move either the camera closer/further or the subject in order to change the framing. 

Other than that primes tend to have all advantages over zooms:
1) Faster max apertures - meaning a brigther, clearer viewfinder image; better light gathering for AF; the potential for using wider apertures for either creative or lightgathering effects (eg shooting in low light without flash)

2) Improved optical quality - generally primes (of good quality of course) are sharper than zooms, especailly when wide open

Price wise its moot - primes can be cheaper and also far far more expensive than zooms. 

Also note that whilst primes might be better optically than zooms its not to say that zooms are not usable. In the past zooms were generally too poor in quality for pro use; today however there are many on the market that give very highquality results - maybe not as sharp as a prime, but certainly still giving very usable results.

There are also somethings that primes can do that zooms can't - like achive 1:1 (true) macro (I'm not aware of a zoom 1:1 capable macro lens).

In the end its about fitting your needs against your assests (budget) and seeing which lenses fit those requirements.


----------



## Garbz (Jul 31, 2010)

LiveStrong2009 said:


> How do you decide which prime to get?  I have seen many different focal lengths.  The 50mm seems most popular but I also see the 24,28,35,85 etc...



50mm is popular because it's cheap. You need to ask yourself what the goal is. Do you run around taking average sized portraits? A 50mm or 85mm is great for single shots of people. Take photos of groups of people, or with a natural looking perspective, then 35mm is for you on a modern digital camera. 24mm makes a good wide angle. 400mm is great for chasing birds (the winged kind) and getting birds to chase you (the boobed kind). 

Don't buy a prime for the sake of spending money. Buy a prime to expand and improve what you love. I too have the popular 50mm. It rarely leaves my bag. 85mm and 105mm are the focal lengths for me.


----------



## usayit (Jul 31, 2010)

yup.. they are right.. you should let what you are shooting drive your purchases. 

I'd just like to add that sometimes people think in terms of Zooms VERSUS primes.  That simply isn't the case.  Often primes can supplement the zoom you have in hand.   In my case, I ended up selling everything listed and simplifying.   24-105L + 50mm f/1.4.  The decision to keep the 50mm wasn't because it was cheap but because it is an all around good performer and I like mild telephoto (1.33x crop).  In low light at wide apertures, I tend to shoot subject (as opposed to story telling) type photos.

I now shoot primes with a different system (1.3x crop).. they tend to be one of two sets.

35 and 75

or 

50 and 90.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 31, 2010)

LiveStrong2009 said:


> How do you decide which prime to get?  I have seen many different focal lengths.  The 50mm seems most popular but I also see the 24,28,35,85 etc...



I own 28, 50, 90, 180, 350, and 560mm lenses. Want more!


----------



## subscuck (Jul 31, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> I would get the 135L if I was you.


 
Why? On a crop body, that's effectively 216mm. $1000 for a first prime that's only useable in certain situations? 30,35 or 50mm are far more usefull fl's for far more situations.


----------



## KmH (Jul 31, 2010)

LiveStrong2009 said:


> How do you decide which prime to get?


With an understanding of how lenses and photography work, deciding what lens to get is easy. You get the prime lens that does what you need it to do.

It's only hard to decide if you don't know how it all works.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 31, 2010)

Primes are predictable and dependable--you always know where to stand, and what your framing will be with a prime lens. You know "how far away to stand" with a prime lens after using it for a while. After a good period of use with a prime lens, you can mentally envision what picture it will make...you get a feel for its depth of field, you learn how it renders its backgrounds (defocus, background blur, bokeh) and you learn what kind of apparent expansion of space (ultra-wides, wide-angles) and compression of space and background enlargement (telephotos) each prime lens will impart to the images shot with it.

When assembling a prime lens kit, it's often useful to think in terms of doubling/halving your focal length, such as 24/50/100/200. In my opinion, which includes a lot of years using only primes for most things, a few lengths come in really,really hand, and they are the 300mm f/4, a 200/4 or 200/2.8 or a 180mm, a fast 135mm either f/2.8 or f/2, and a 100 or 105mm lens of f/2.8 or faster, and the 85mm 1.8 or 1.4.

Out of those above, the 85mm/1.8 and the 300mm f/4 are probably the single most-useful, most essential prime lenses on either FF or 1.5x bodies. Both the 85mm and 300mm primes give a LOT of very useful capability to one's overall kit...they have very high optical quality, and the 85 is good in low light indoors, usually focuses very rapidly, and can be used for sports, portraiture,landscapes,and travel. The 300mm/4 is invariably a high-quality lens, of decent aperture speed, is usually fast-focusimg, and can be used for sports,nature,landscapes, outdoor people photography, and with an extension tube added, can be pressed into service as a bug-butterfly- pseudo macro lens.


----------



## Neil S. (Jul 31, 2010)

Good post Derrel.

I hadn't even thought about the "You know how far away to stand" and "you can mentally envision what picture it will make" parts. :thumbup:

Primes do seem to help improve your skills in many ways. Thats one of the reasons I recommend everyone buy at least one or two. The non pro level ones are so cheap too, no reason not to.

I realized when getting mine that they force you to learn to focus better when shooting wide open. Most zooms arent fast enough to have a shallow DOF, so focus isnt quite as big of an issue for them.


----------



## LiveStrong2009 (Jul 31, 2010)

WOW!  Thank you very much, these are by far the most helpful responses I have gotten on any of my threads.

Alright, So imagine that I may use these lenses to photograph architecture, landscapes, macro, and possibly some portraits, what focal lengths would you recommend?

What would you say are the best uses for each lens?
What is the best use for a 24mm, a 50mm, and an 85mm?


----------



## Overread (Jul 31, 2010)

It's generally best to approach things from the point of what your use will be and then research the lenses that people typically use for those subjects. There will generally be a patten to what people use and justification for those reasons. 

Approaching things the other way is somewhat self defeating since a lens of any focal length can be used for anything provided it fits with the photographers creative vision and ideas. (eg I've used my 18-55mm at 18mm to take a photo of a wild bird before - but conventional wisdom says use a 400 or 500mm - thyey are of course right and hte 18mm is a rare occasion but it shows the point).


For macro let me first ask what sort of macro are you looking to make - specifically are you interested in insects.


----------



## usayit (Jul 31, 2010)

LiveStrong2009 said:


> WOW!  Thank you very much, these are by far the most helpful responses I have gotten on any of my threads.
> 
> Alright, So imagine that I may use these lenses to photograph architecture, landscapes, macro, and possibly some portraits, what focal lengths would you recommend?




MACRO is a different ballgame.  Not all lenses can shoot macro because it requires close focusing distances (and lighting).  It is specialized.

For architecture, landscapes = I find 24mm-ish focal length a good start.   Its not too wide that you start see a lot of distortion yet a good focal length for that type of photography.  Incidentally, 24, 28, and 35mm are well liked for street photographers and journalists... they are what I like to call "story telling" focal lengths... meaning you are not just bringing focus to a single subject but sometimes using these focal lengths to show them doing something or interacting with their environment.  You are expanding the representation of space which adds to the "story".

For portraits, you will want a mild telephoto... on a crop 50-85 is a good start.   You'll want to examine the way a lens renders bokeh.  These mild telephotos to me are more "subject" focal lengths.  You are isolating a particular subject and compressing "space" which tends to present portraits very nicely.  

This doesn't mean that these are rules that cannot be broken.  Its kinda like a painters brush.... its how you paint.. er.. shoot.   There are definitely some good portraits shot with wider angle focal lengths too and vice versa. 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is no one focal length to recommend..  its a personal choice.


----------



## LiveStrong2009 (Aug 1, 2010)

Alright, So how does one then narrow down that fine line between 24,28,35?

The macro that I would do most likely would involve all types of nature: Plants, insects, animals perhaps.  Would something like a 90mm 2.8 be more acceptable for macro?

I was looking through a book at the store that had an entire chapter devoted to 50mm f1.8 lenses.  Especially after reading that chapter, I intend on buying a 50mm 1.8 very soon.


----------



## usayit (Aug 1, 2010)

LiveStrong2009 said:


> Alright, So how does one then narrow down that fine line between 24,28,35?



Again.. no way to recommend because it is a very personal preference.   Here's something you can do...  Your kit zoom covers all those focal lengths.  Tape  your zoom at 24mm and shoot a bit.  Do the same at 28mm and 35mm.  Which of the three are most comfortable to YOU?

Your looking for an easy answer.. there isn't one. 


As for macro, my favorite lens is a Tamron 90mm f/2.5 adaptall.  So yes.. 90mm might be good enough.  Tamron has a newer version of this lens in various mounts with AF and 1:1.  Some other shooters might prefer the 180mm macro because of the longer working distance.  This is especially true if you are intending to shoot bugs.

Oh btw...  for macro, lighting is often just as (or more) important than the glass itself.  Just something to think about.


----------



## LiveStrong2009 (Aug 1, 2010)

That is a good idea, I will give that a try tomorrow.

Thanks for all of your help with this topic.


----------



## Sep (Aug 1, 2010)

Everyone has basically said the advantages of prime. I talked to alot of professional photographers and they made it clear to me that good lens = $$$, like the L series lens. And that a kit lens will never be half decent. Well.. I bought a XT body and a 50mm 1.8. Guess what? I learned a lot. The 50mm 1.8, even though 100 bucks was actually a half decent lens. It taught me a lot, and I learned a lot. It helped me understand aperture. 1.8 is a pretty fast lens, and that helped me understand the affects of open aperture, and closed aperture. It's one thing to read about it, it's another to do it and experience it. 

Anywho, I sold the 50mm 1.8 and got zoom lenses. What do you know? 2 years down the road and I have a 50mm 1.4 But to be honest, I'm thinking about selling the 50mm 1.4 as well. It's just not ideal for what I shoot, due to my rebel XTs 1.6 crop factor. Sure, I've grown out of th camera, and feel like the Xt holds me back, but I can always work around things and just try to do my best. I'm concidering either a 24mm or the 24-70mm 2.8L, hence why the sell. Definitely get a 50mm 1.8 if thats what u can afford. Fun lens. Gets u some exercising.


----------



## superhornet59 (Aug 1, 2010)

I use prime lenses because I get the same image quality as some of those $2000+ zoom Nikkors. The only thing you're paying for with those lenses is the convenience of zoom. My 50 f/1.8 will smoke those things in any optical performance comparison.

Film photographers will often tell you they keep a 50mm lens, and use it as their 'walkaround' lens, and if they want to frame things differently ('zoom' in or out) they just take a step in or out. Personally I have been capturing more 'in the moment' photos ever since I got my prime lenses.. because instead of wasting time thinking about bokeh / how the background will look and feature exaggeration (Do I take a step back and zoom in!? or do I take a step in and zoom out!? AHHH), I just frame and shoot. In real life, the less things you have to 'set' (ie focus points, exposure settings, etc) the better. Zoom is just one of those things for me.

With digital's 1.6x cropping, I find a 28mm would be a better walkaround lens for us, as it ends up being nearly 50mm after crop anyway. Unfortunately they only go as fast as f/2.8


----------



## Overread (Aug 1, 2010)

isn't there a 30mm prime that has a fast aperture (f1.4 or something like that?) I'm sure there is a fast 30mm or 35mm on the market.


----------



## subscuck (Aug 1, 2010)

Overread said:


> isn't there a 30mm prime that has a fast aperture (f1.4 or something like that?) I'm sure there is a fast 30mm or 35mm on the market.


 
Sigma 30 1.4. It's a great lens, only downfall is it's crop body only.


----------



## superhornet59 (Aug 1, 2010)

subscuck said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > isn't there a 30mm prime that has a fast aperture (f1.4 or something like that?) I'm sure there is a fast 30mm or 35mm on the market.
> ...



Whoa! I've never even heard of this lens! I never knew there were primes between 28 and 35! Time to go shopping... Anyone looking to buy a 28mm f/2.8??? :mrgreen:


----------



## LiveStrong2009 (Aug 1, 2010)

superhornet59 said:


> subscuck said:
> 
> 
> > Overread said:
> ...



Are you serious?  If you are really considering selling it, I may be interested.  What model is it, how old, condition, etc?


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Aug 1, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Primes are predictable and dependable...



Not anymore than zooms you use on a regular basis and have taken the time to know.

I don't like zooms which are a waste of money imho but this statement is total BS. Zooms will be as predictable as primes if you take the time to get to know them. Dependable is another story since zooms have a bit more technology involved but, overall, they are as dependable.

Yes, zooms are a waste of money. Just take a few steps forwards or backwards and you have a poor man's zoom. Not only that but, as you take those few steps, you may actually see/notice something you wouldn't have with a zoom.

Zooms are the lazy photogs way. One lens on one body and we're ready to go. That is extremely funny since the digital age tends to make a lot of photogs carry more than one body just in case... one of them fails.

Back in the film days we were not so worried about bodies failing. We carried more than one, with different lenses, because that was our way to zoom when speedy changes were needed.

I've said it a number of times but I don't get the nifty fifty thing at all. A 50mm is the most boring lens for a 35mm camera. Or a full frame. It is not a bad lens on a crop body but that's it.

If they are so great, why are they so cheap on the resale market?


----------



## Derrel (Aug 2, 2010)

c.cloudwalker said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Primes are predictable and dependable...
> ...



Amusing effort at stirring the pot without contributing much of anything c.cloudy. Crack open another bottle,okay?


----------



## LiveStrong2009 (Aug 2, 2010)

Well, we are all entitled to our own opinions.  Surely zooms are useful sometimes, but primes also have their advantages.

The 50mm will be on order very soon.


----------



## DirtyDFeckers (Aug 3, 2010)

Thanks to everyone for the valuable information... I was in the same boat as the person who started this thread... You guys have enlightened me.  Thank you all!


----------



## KenC (Aug 6, 2010)

Zooms are more useful in the telephoto range, where the optical quality and speed are not compromised as much relative to primes, and they save a lot of weight.  For example, if one had to carry, say, 135, 200 and 400 mm lenses to approximate the range of a 100-400, one would be carrying around a lot more bulk and weight than the zoom for the sake of a modest increase in speed (assuming your average telephoto lenses, not the superfast ones).  On the other hand, to cover 35-105 mm, one could get away with a 35 and a 100 which weigh and cost less than the zoom.  Yes, the perspective at about 45-75 is a little different than either lens, but if that bothered you, a 50 wouldn't add much weight or cost to the set.


----------



## Josh66 (Aug 6, 2010)

KenC said:


> On the other hand, to cover 35-105 mm, one could get away with a 35 and a 100 which weigh and cost less than the zoom.



Missing a few aren't you?

I think I would throw a 50 and an 85 in there too.

But I see what you're saying...

50 is kinda close to 35, and 85 is kinda close to 100...


Interesting, lol.  Never really considered that such a range could be covered with just two lenses...  I think I'd still bring the others along too though, just in case.  

At least one somewhere between 35 & 100...  A 35, 85, and 135 would be better - IMO.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 6, 2010)

KenC said:


> Zooms are more useful in the telephoto range, where the optical quality and speed are not compromised as much relative to primes, and they save a lot of weight.  For example, if one had to carry, say, 135, 200 and 400 mm lenses to approximate the range of a 100-400, one would be carrying around a lot more bulk and weight than the zoom for the sake of a modest increase in speed (assuming your average telephoto lenses, not the superfast ones).  On the other hand, to cover 35-105 mm, one could get away with a 35 and a 100 which weigh and cost less than the zoom.  Yes, the perspective at about 45-75 is a little different than either lens, but if that bothered you, a 50 wouldn't add much weight or cost to the set.



Ken's point is pretty valid about the telephoto range, and in fact, the optical quality of some of the better, professional telephoto zoom lenses is as good as many prime lenses in the same focal length range, and in the case of some of the best normal or wide-angle zooms, the zooms can actually be significantly BETTER than the manufacturer's own prime lenses. Canon's new 70-200/2.8 IS USM Mark II is an outstanding zoom lens! So is Nikon's new VR-II re-design. Nikon's 14-24mm AF-S G is actually the BEST LENS on the market at several lengths, easily bettering prime lenses from Canon, Zeiss, Leica, and Nikon, at several points throughout its range. The 14-24 AF-S G is in fact "the best" wide-angle zoom lens on the market, and is in large part responsible for the new Novoflex Nikon-to-Canon lens adapter with electronic contacts to operate the G-series Nikkor's diaphragm when it's mounted on a high-resolution Canon. Stop by the hardcore landscape shooter's web testing page and see for yourself, a zoom lens that easily beats many prime lenses, from respected makers. Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 G First Test: Introduction

Nikon's regular wide AF series primes, like their 14,16,18,20,24/2.8,28/2.8,35/2 are all just that: regular prime wide-angles. Small, compact, affordable, reliable. Some of their absolute best designs however, are the older Ai-S manual focus wides, which were made until the mid-2000's. There really is not much of a market anymore for wide-angle primes...they do not sell very well, unless they offer something very special, like really high speed. Most people vastly prefer the convenience of a zoom lens, and the "pro" Nikon and "pro" Canon zoom lenses are really quite good,and have basically killed off most of the interest in owning four or five or six different prime lenses.

The new Nikon 16-35 f/4 AF-S VR-G is one I am going to try out later this summer...it has a 16,18,20,24,28,and 35mm all in ONE barrel..that is SIX lenses in one barrel...with VR. Sure, it's heavier than any one of the six prime wides, but it weighs less than all of them put together.

Prime lenses are,at the wider end, replaceable by the best,modern wide zooms, for most people and many shooting conditions. Prime lenses are irreplaceable at the longer end, or when you need the absolute best, widest-aperture performance at say, 24mm, 50mm, 85mm, 100 or 105mm, 135mm, 200, 300, or 400mm. 85mm 1.8 to 1.4 to 1.2 primes are really nice tools to have for lower-light work. The 200/2 and 300/2.8 are irreplaceable by any zoom, at the same quality level; Sigma's 120-300 is a 1980's grade 300...it's not up to snuff,and it's not really 300mm either.

As to using a 35mm and a 100mm in place of a 35-105 zoom...I can see that...many people do not like the 50-85 range very well,and often do without....35 is semi-wide, 100 is medium tele...I'd like a high-speed 50 in the middle,though, since it's so small.

The "attitude" some people have toward zooms and or primes is largely a function of their age and experiences with both. I see some 1960's-1970's "attitude" here in this thread, that does not square with the reality of actual zooms on the market now in 2010...and among younger shooters, there is less experience with prime lenses. Primes have become "exotic" these days, whereas they used to be regular,mundane,and commonly used. There are myths and misunderstandings galore on this primes vs. zooms topic. There are quite a few "primes-only" old guys, and also among newer shooters, there's a primes-only snobbishness that's fashionable among a sub-set of people who are young and new to photography. Then, there's the majority of the market....you know who you are...


----------



## usayit (Aug 6, 2010)

Nothing new...

Zooms versus primes debate can be dwindled down to flexibility or use versus. IQ.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 6, 2010)

But the fact is, there are quite a few modern zoom lenses that are BETTER in optical quality than the prime lenses they replace...like most all of Nikon 's entire prime wide-angle autofocus lineup...the 14-24 is better than basically any of those old primes...
the new 70-200 2.8 from Nikon is optically, much better than the 180mm f/2.8 ED AF-D--the zoom focuses much,much faster AND has almost no chromatic aberration...the prime focuses slowly, clunkily, and fringes like a SOB...

The modern zoom lens is in fact, much better than most older primes..the new 24-70/2.8 models from Canon and Nikon are better than older 28,35,and 50mm lenses...same with the Tamron 28-75...it is hugely better when shot right at the sun than the Canon 50mm 1.8...


----------



## usayit (Aug 6, 2010)

Apples versus oranges..

Of course Modern Zoom can perform better than Old Primes.. (well not all).   

Compare Old Zooms to Old Primes... the zooms were not all that great
Compare Old Zooms to Modern Primes... duh.
Compare Modern Zooms to Modern Primes.. this is the only comparison worth noting.



> The modern zoom lens is in fact, much better than most older primes..the new 24-70/2.8 models from Canon and Nikon are better than older 28,35,and 50mm lenses.



Not totally true... 24-70f/2.8 can't match a 24mm f/1.4L, 35mm f/1.4L, nor the 50mm f/1.4 in terms of max aperture.  I'm fairly impressed with the 24mmL and 50mm I owned and you have pointed out some weak points in the 24-70f/2.8L in the past.

Simply put.....

Primes versus Zoom debate can be easily summed up as a choice between flexibility versus IQ.   Its not that complicated.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Aug 6, 2010)

It's all been stated already, and it is down to what/how you shoot. 

I'm starting to prefer midrange primes not for street cred, or because of a "that's how dad did it" mentality, but because most midrange primes do what zooms can't. 

Take Nikon's or Canon's 24-70's. They're both great lenses. All have a surgical sharpness to them which is good for resolving 24mp+ cameras. However, they don't open up to f/1.4. Which for some lenses like the 24mm f/1.4, offer HUGE creative potential. Same with a 35, 50, or 85mm f/1.4. Have a lens that brings in 4 times the light and you can do anything. Not to mention if you need that surgical sharpness, generally the fast midrange primes are about perfect once they're at f/2.8. 

A 24-70 at 50mm and f/2.8 cannot do this:






And a 24mm lens at f/2.8 would have required a 1 minute exposure at ISO 6400 to do this, which would have changed everything because the stars would be trails:


----------



## Derrel (Aug 6, 2010)

usayit said:


> Not totally true... 24-70f/2.8 can't match a 24mm f/1.4L, 35mm f/1.4L, nor the 50mm f/1.4 in terms of max aperture.  I'm fairly impressed with the 24mmL and 50mm I owned and you have pointed out some weak points in the 24-70f/2.8L in the past.
> 
> Simply put.....
> 
> Primes versus Zoom debate can be easily summed up as a choice between flexibility versus IQ.   Its not that complicated.




Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 G First Test: Introduction

PHOTO:Canon 24mm f/1.4-L  c24l_f5_zcn.jpg

at f/5.6, the corners look like crap. Total crap. Some premium 24mm 1.4 lens,eh?

Nikon 14-24mm zoom at f/5.0--even wider-open  PHOTO
nik1424_24mm_f5_zcn.jpg   looks excellent

Canon makes some pretty horrible wide-angle lenses, and has for years. Same with wide-angle zooms. Nikon has a clear edge over Canon and has for years...I was being charitable above and including the 24-70 Canon along with the 28-70 AF-S G Nikkor, which is newer, and better. The Canon 16-35-II is streets below the 14-24 Nikkor... Canon's "regular" 28,35,and 50mm lenses are optically not all that great,and those are the ones I am comparing with the "pro" 2.8 zooms in the 24-70 category above...the Nikkor primes in the above AF category are also not as good as the 24-70 AF-S G, and the zoom is like 20+ years newer in design that the oldest of the 24-50mm Nikkor primes most people have...

Make any sense now? Do you need it spelled out lens for lens for lens for lens for lens?? Again, look at that hand-picked 24mm f/1.4 Canon L prime and see how crappy it really is compared to a newer Nikon 14-24mm zoom...and that with the zoom wider-open too! AND both images were SHOT ON THE SAME  Canon BODY,with a lens adapter!!!


----------



## Derrel (Aug 6, 2010)

Sw1tchFX said:


> And a 24mm lens at f/2.8 would have required a 1 minute exposure at ISO 6400 to do this, which would have changed everything because the stars would be trails:



Sw1tchFX: If you had shot that night-time star shot with the Canon 24mm f/1.4-L prime, the edges of the frame would have been absolutely riddled with coma...you happen to own one of the most well-corrected, newest, best-designed 24mm lenses in existence...the Nikon 24/1.4 AF-S G.

Here is a seriously,seriously hard-core Canon shooter's review of the 24/1.4-L from Canon...Castleman is one of the people whose opinions on Canon gear one can take to the bank. As he points out, the 24 1.4-L from Canon is very soft, and bad at the corners, until it is "significantly stopped down." So much for the L-myth...

Review of the Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L USM Lens


----------



## usayit (Aug 6, 2010)

Derrel.. I don't mean to be harsh here.. but simply put .. get a life.  Everything with you is nikon versus canon.  ITS really tiresome.  grep through my post... do you see anything "nikon"?

You missed my point...  The post I replied to is simply stating that comparing a modern zoom to an old prime is an apples versus oranges comparison.  Two... you can't shoot any of the zooms you rave about at f/1.4 aperture.

I believe Sw1tch said the same.  Furthermore, for any lens you can find raves and rants online.


Do you sleep with your overrated equipment?  I hope you do because you LOVE them.  that's all well too.


----------



## table1349 (Aug 6, 2010)

Anybody want to bet which is sharper.  My 70-200 f2.8L at 200mm or my 200mm f1.8L or 200 f2.8L.  I know, that's why I own both the 200 f1.8L and the 200 f2.8L along with a 300 f2.8L and a 400 f2.8L.


----------



## Overread (Aug 6, 2010)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Anybody want to bet which is sharper.  My 70-200 f2.8L at 200mm or my 200mm f1.8L or 200 f2.8L.  I know, that's why I own both the 200 f1.8L and the 200 f2.8L along with a 300 f2.8L and a 400 f2.8L.



Darn it you just made me soooo jealous! :greenpbl:
you know with all those fine sharp 200mm lenses and that nice 400mm do you really ever get to use that 300mm? The poor thing must be starving for use - and I know a good home for it


----------



## Derrel (Aug 7, 2010)

usayit said:


> Derrel.. I don't mean to be harsh here.. but simply put .. get a life.  Everything with you is nikon versus canon.  ITS really tiresome.  grep through my post... do you see anything "nikon"?
> 
> You missed my point...  The post I replied to is simply stating that comparing a modern zoom to an old prime is an apples versus oranges comparison.  Two... you can't shoot any of the zooms you rave about at f/1.4 aperture.
> 
> ...



Here you go usayit...I don't mean to be rude, but you sir need to get a life...I don't even know you and I have seen MULTIPLE photos of your collection of Leicas, 4/3 cameras, your Lenny Kravitz-owned Leica 90mm, and on and on...all you and your camera gear porn pics.... do you sleep with your overated Leicas and min-cams??? ....we've all seen your desk, your camera collection, and your "gear porn" snaps. Many times...

Grep through my posts above: I am comparing MODERN ZOOMS with MODERN primes. Can you not see that? Can you not get a clue? You say the Canon 24/1.4-L is a great lens, but it sucks, mostly. According to one of the web's single largest Canon shooters and lens testers...Castleman! The truth really must sting when it comes from a well-respected, capable Canon shooter like Castleman that one of "your own personal lenses" sucks, and sucks badly...and that your "modern" prime gets blown away by a "modern zoom" and a modern prime from a company that YOU do not happen to shoot with. Ouch..that's gotta' sting...

Again, sorry to bring facts into the discussion, with actual examples...but please, get a ,life yourself usayit...you made an allegation that the 24-L was "faster" than an f/2.8 zoom, but in reality, its optical performance falls short of modern zooms, and modern primes....so much for the L-myth...but, again, you're an owner of the 24/L, so you have an axe to grind...I get that.

Here's a photo for you, usayit...it was shot with a Canon Digital Rebel at 25mm by LCARSx32. He gave me permission to modify it and post it. I slapped on the logos yesterday. You can be the goat on the left, the Canon goat.


----------



## usayit (Aug 7, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Here you go usayit...I don't mean to be rude, but you sir need to get a life...I don't even know you and I have seen MULTIPLE photos of your collection of Leicas, 4/3 cameras, your Lenny Kravitz-owned Leica 90mm, and on and on...all you and your camera gear porn pics.... do you sleep with your overated Leicas and min-cams??? ....we've all seen your desk, your camera collection, and your "gear porn" snaps. Many times...



Yeh... sure...  Here's more about me

Earning a good income while posting (desk job managing computers)

Buying small cameras that fit my life rather than the other way around

No time to post pages and pages of Nikon vs Canon B.S.

No time to troll the internet looking for more MTF graphs and useless reviews

No time to write pages on yet another useless blog.  Much less pages directed against you nemesis, inTempus.

If I did have a blog, it would contain more than just photography.

I have a post count that you'll pass up in 2-3 years that took me nearly 10 years.



The only reason why all you know about me are through quick snaps of my own gear pertinent to the topics I respond to is because.... I do have a life.



You need to replace "Canon" with "Leica" on that goat... I'm a Leica shooter.  YOu didn't know that because I don't go ranting "Leica is the best" in 9/10 of my posts like you do with "Nikon".  See my avatar... idiot.


[EDIT] Thanks the PM... you had time to write a couple screens worth with links to your blog?  Wow... I'll read through it when... you guessed it... my life allows me to.  Excuse me.. time to head out to enjoy the weather with my Son.


----------



## OlyNikonLearner (Aug 8, 2010)

I use a Nikkor 35mm F/1.8 regularly. At $150 (or less) street, you can't beat the price (and at this price bracket there's no reason NOT having the 35mm in your bag, unless of course you have decided you don't need it). I shoot portraits, interiors, and cityscapes with it. It handles everything with aplomb. It gathers light like no other. People get surprised when they see me shooting nonstop indoors without the flash gun going pop,pop,pop. The results are always excellent. Recently, I went through a museum with the 35mm and shot some 130 pictures. Almost ALL of them came out as planned. Little post processing and a happy (amateur) photographer. You can't lose, really. Use the 35mm to your heart's delight!


----------



## Derrel (Aug 8, 2010)

Hey, usayit, glad to see you back after your little melt-down yesterday.

I bought and still own $10,000 worth of Canon equipment, and when I want to do any serious photography, the camera I reach for is --wait for it,wait for it--MY CANON 5D. Look at my avatar--it's ME, holding a Canon 5D with grip and a prime lens! Oh-my-Gawd!!!!!!!!!! Derrel, with his Canon 5D! In his avatar photo!!!

Apparently you really don't know the guy you're personally trying to discredit, but your brand loyalty leads you quite astray. I'm sooooo glad you're managing to make a good living from your desk job managing computers. Computers are not people, so you probably get along with the job just great.

I've been writing the blog for 5 years, 101 articles. Enjoy your Leicas and toy cameras!

And, think about what longtime Nikon Fanboy Joe Chia says at the end of this video:
he says, "I think Canon better! Canon support! Yeeeeahhhh!" (fist-pump!))

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJsgRoTTe-s[/ame]


----------



## usayit (Aug 8, 2010)

* Still tired of your Canon versus Nikon rants... I don't care what you shoot with.  Your "I'm not only the president but I'm also a client" response is totally B.S. in my book.  
* I have no "Brand Loyalty".  You should've figured out that by now.... Pentax, Samsung, Olympus, Panasonic, Canon, and Leica.
* I don't care what experience you have... you still need to get a life.

also

My intention is not to discredit you.. you do have good amount of background and knowledge... but you are still annoying never the less...   I'm not the only one who voiced this..  But you are too self centered to realize this.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 8, 2010)

I love you too!


----------



## usayit (Aug 8, 2010)

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/off-topic-chat/186104-unofficial-derrel-intempus-thread.html

Hahaha 

Your special... i don't have one of these threads... lol


----------

