Canon Community Canon Community
 


Reply
VIP
Posts: 11,097
Registered: ‎12-07-2012

Re: Looking for input on lens purchase

"Think about it, the OP of this thread is about to spend 1/3 of the cost of that lens."

 

You lost me? Relevance?

EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV, even less and less other stuff.
Respected Contributor
Posts: 1,967
Registered: ‎02-26-2015

Re: Looking for input on lens purchase


@ebiggs1 wrote:

"Think about it, the OP of this thread is about to spend 1/3 of the cost of that lens."

 

You lost me? Relevance?


Image quality improvement per dollar spent.

VIP
Posts: 11,097
Registered: ‎12-07-2012

Re: Looking for input on lens purchase

"Image quality improvement per dollar spent."

 

Certainly you jest? Or you have not had your morning coffee!  $11,000 vs $2000?

EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV, even less and less other stuff.
Reputable Contributor
Posts: 766
Registered: ‎06-11-2013

Re: Looking for input on lens purchase

[ Edited ]

@ebiggs1 wrote:

My take at this point is get the 5D Mk III and the Tammy.  Forget any primes.  You simply will not use it when you get this combo.  The disadvantages with primes far out weight a slightly more than one stop faster aperture....:


I think a lot of it comes down to personal preference.

 

I've been shooting for going on four decades. So I grew up using primes because, back in those bad old days, zooms really sucked.

 

Gradually I've started using more zooms and today one or two are among my most used lenses. In fact, for certain types of shoots I carry mostly primes.

 

But I also still use a lot of primes. The reason is not that primes necessarily offer better image quality. Sometimes they do, but the zooms I use are top notch, too. Nor is it because primes tend to be smaller, more unobtrusive and less intimidating, although there are times it's a real advantage. It's also not just because primes can offer a 2 or 3 stop larger aperture than a zoom, which I generally appreciate more for it's ability to blur down a background, than for low light shooting capabilities.

 

In thing for me it's because shooting with a prime is different than shooting with a zoom. When I use a zoom I tend to stay in one spot longer. With primes I move around more, looking for angles and exploring the subject more thoroughly. In a sense, zooms let me be lazier, while primes make me work with the subject in a different way. As a result I think I tend to find more interesting shots with a prime than with a zoom.

 

Not sayin' one way is better than the other. Just sayin' that sooner or later anyone who is moderately serious about their photography should try both to explore what benefits they get from each, then decide for themselves. Someone who has never shot with a prime should get one and use it for a while, to see if it works for them or not. And the opposite holds true for anyone who has never used a zoom, although I'm sure those folks are rather rare these days.

 

Henri Cartier-Bresson shot almost exclusively with a "normal" prime, throughout his career. The vast majority of his work was a 50mm lens on his Leica rangefinder. 

 

I personally don't care for 50mm lenses on full frame (but I love one on a crop DSLR, where it's a fast, short telephoto/portrait lens). I tend to prefer a slightly wide normal, such as 40mm or 35mm on full frame.... But I would never have known this unless I tried shooting with a 50mm and saw how it "felt".  

 

And, things change. I've had a couple of the "big white" primes (300/2.8 IS and 500/4 IS) for more than ten years and they are truly superb. But today one of my top "dream lenses" is the EF 200-400/4L IS 1.4X... for its sheer versatility and uncompromising image quality. For what I shoot with a big telephoto, a zoom covering the range from 200mm to 560mm would likely be very useful and help me get some shots I'm missing now using primes. With big lenses like the 300 and 500mm, I'm not terribly mobile anyway... so I'm not seeing the same "prime effect" I mentioned above. More often with these lenses I'm set up on a tripod in a blind and waiting for a subject, or similar. Soon as I win the lottery, I'll be buying a 200-400/4 1.4X!  

 

Sometimes just changing out your gear or adding a new lens can stimulate or reinvigorate your shooting and take you places you didn't know existed. And you'll never know, unless you try.

 

To each his own!

 

***********


Alan Myers
San Jose, Calif., USA
"Walk softly and carry a big lens."
GEAR: 5DII, 7D(x2), 50D(x3), some other cameras, various lenses & accessories
FLICKR & EXPOSUREMANAGER 

Respected Contributor
Posts: 1,967
Registered: ‎02-26-2015

Re: Looking for input on lens purchase


@ebiggs1 wrote:

"Image quality improvement per dollar spent."

 

Certainly you jest? Or you have not had your morning coffee!  $11,000 vs $2000?


It's $3000+ when you add the Tamron lens and in my opinion he will only see marginal improvement in image quality. Especially considering he could spend 1/10 that buying a prime lens for his T4i and get the same degree of improvement for the narrow usage where he needs it.

VIP
Posts: 11,097
Registered: ‎12-07-2012

Re: Looking for input on lens purchase

TTMartin I am totally lost.  Somewhere in this you lost me completely.

 


ebiggs1 wrote:

"Image quality improvement per dollar spent."

 

Certainly you jest? Or you have not had your morning coffee!  $11,000 vs $2000?


It's $3000+ when you add the Tamron lens and in my opinion he will only see marginal improvement in image quality. Especially considering he could spend 1/10 that buying a prime lens for his T4i and get the same degree of improvement for the narrow usage where he needs it.

 

 

I was referring to your decision to buy a EF 600mm vs the Sigma S lens.  If you see $9000 dollars worth of improvement than so be it.  I do not having an older 600 and the newer Sigma S.

EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV, even less and less other stuff.
Frequent Contributor
Posts: 31
Registered: ‎08-21-2015

Re: Looking for input on lens purchase


@TTMartin wrote:



It's $3000+ when you add the Tamron lens and in my opinion he will only see marginal improvement in image quality. Especially considering he could spend 1/10 that buying a prime lens for his T4i and get the same degree of improvement for the narrow usage where he needs it.


You're really having trouble dealing with me purchasing a new camera and lens. Perhaps I may refer you to a 12 f-stop program for your anxiety.

Respected Contributor
Posts: 1,967
Registered: ‎02-26-2015

Re: Looking for input on lens purchase


@Orcrone wrote:

@TTMartin wrote:
It's $3000+ when you add the Tamron lens and in my opinion he will only see marginal improvement in image quality. Especially considering he could spend 1/10 that buying a prime lens for his T4i and get the same degree of improvement for the narrow usage where he needs it.

You're really having trouble dealing with me purchasing a new camera and lens. Perhaps I may refer you to a 12 f-stop program for your anxiety.


It's your money spend it how you want. I can only offer advice based on my personal experience and knowledge.

 

If you are only looking for improvements in image quality you are spending way more than you need to.

 

However, if you get personal satisfaction and status from owning a full frame camera then go for it.

VIP
Posts: 11,097
Registered: ‎12-07-2012

Re: Looking for input on lens purchase

He lost me a long time ago.

Go get your 5D Mk III and Tammy and take some great photos!

EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV, even less and less other stuff.
VIP
Posts: 11,097
Registered: ‎12-07-2012

Re: Looking for input on lens purchase

[ Edited ]

"If you are only looking for improvements in image quality you are spending way more than you need to."

 

Whoa there cowboy!  And you aren't?  C'mon.  Comparing a $11,000 to a $2000 lens?

EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV, even less and less other stuff.
powered by Lithium

LIKE US on Facebook FOLLOW US on Twitter WATCH US on YouTube CONNECT WITH US on Linkedin WATCH US on Vimeo FOLLOW US on Instagram SHOP CANON at the Canon Online Store
© Canon U.S.A., Inc.   |    Terms of Use   |    Privacy Statement