Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


PRIZES GALORE! Enter The ePHOTOzine Exclusive Christmas Prize Draw; Over £10,000 Worth of Prizes! Plus A Gift For Everybody On Christmas Day!

Do I REALLY need a prime lens ?


JanieB43 6 47 6 England
26 Aug 2009 7:41PM
I have a canon 400D & like to photograph a variety of subjects,mainly landscapes,but sometimes I venture into portraits and wildlife ! I have a small collection of lenses, namely a 90-300mm,18-55mm and a sigma 10-20mm. Being a bit naive about lenses I'm wondering if it's worth getting a prime, if so, what size would be best ( nothing too extortionate price wise - probably less than 400 - I'm not exactly in the big money ).ALSO I've been drawn to the canon 28-135mm IS ( as I read somewhere that they are good for landscapes ). I would appreciate some advice here please guys - nothing too technical though as I AM BLONDE !!!! & obviously NOT over endowed with the old grey matter LOL !!!!

Jane

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

colin beeley e2
12 1.1k 10 England
26 Aug 2009 7:59PM
hi janie you have a very good lens the 10/20 ! the canon 28/135 would not be that good on your camera it would be 44/216 mm because of the 1.6 crop factor you can read about it here
User_Removed 7 736 4
26 Aug 2009 8:14PM
50mm 1.8, or 1.4 if budget will stretch (which it will if your budget is 400). Top quality optics, fast and inexpensive. On full frame, it's what the eye sees (more or less) but with the 1.6 crop factor on a Canon, that means a short tele (80mm) which is ideal for portraits. Coupled with the Photographer's Universal Zoom (i.e. Your Legs), it's an essential bit of kit. Used to be THE kit lens back in the olden days.
User_Removed 7 2.2k 3 United Kingdom
26 Aug 2009 8:17PM
I'm seriously considering moving to exclusively prime lenses.
rossd 11 1.1k England
26 Aug 2009 8:47PM
Those of us of a certain age (i.e me) will remember a time long long ago (Sad) when zoom lenses were virtually unaffordable and the standard lens was a 50mm and a 35mm was a 'wide angle'. Seemed to have gone full circle as I now only use a 50mm, 85mm and a 17-40mm as a zoom.

Definitely go for a prime if I were you.
Picture_Newport 6 659 19 United Kingdom
26 Aug 2009 8:51PM
Hi Jane.

As you already have a perfect Ladscape Lens (10-20) and enjoy varied subjects including Portraiture & Wildlife, have you considered venturing into the Macro World. The Sigma 105mm f2.8 is a fantastic lens and just under your budget, it's a great portrait lens and could open up a whole new world of Macro Wildlife Photography.

Regards

Paul
User_Removed 11 455 13 United Kingdom
26 Aug 2009 8:51PM
I've moved to primes, almost unintentionally. I have a 10-22mm which I still use, but I tend to stick a 28mm on and work with that a lot (more or less equivalent of the 50mm on full frame). With a 24mm, 50mm and a 100mm Macro I have some flexibility. It suits what I do and I'm satisfied with the quality without spending out on Canon L lenses.

The 24mm, 28mm, and 50mm (Mk1) all came from eBay at bargain prices (part of a sets of camera kits I sold on and covered my costs. The 28mm is probably the one I use most.
User_Removed 10 17.9k 8 Norway
26 Aug 2009 9:16PM

Quote:
Do I REALLY need a prime lens ?

Short answer..??

Yes.

BUT....

Remember this.

Despite modern optical technology advances, the concept of variable focal lengths of a given range in one lens (zoom lenses Wink) always was - and always WILL BE a compromise.

If you want absolute total image quality (assuming one has a top-flight camera in the first place) then a fixed focal-length (i.e. Prime) lens, used by a competent and knowledgeable photographer, will ALWAYS deliver the better output image.
Kris_Dutson 12 8.2k 1 England
26 Aug 2009 9:18PM

Quote:....a fixed focal-length (i.e. Prime) lens, used by a competent and knowledgeable photographer, will ALWAYS deliver the better output image


I've never used a prime lens in over 30 years of photography.

Guess that makes my images second rate then. Wink
User_Removed 7 736 4
26 Aug 2009 9:28PM

Quote:

As you already have a perfect Ladscape Lens (10-20).....



..... I'd kill for a Ladscape lens. Does it render said Lads in perfect focus, with strong forearms? If not, I'm not buying it.
Coleslaw e2
9 13.4k 28 Wales
26 Aug 2009 9:30PM
Do you need a prime lens? Probably not.

Do you want a prime lens? Probably yes.

Smile
JanieB43 6 47 6 England
26 Aug 2009 9:38PM

Quote: I'd kill for a Ladscape lens. Does it render said Lads in perfect focus, with strong forearms? If not, I'm not buying it.


PMSL !!! Wink
User_Removed 10 17.9k 8 Norway
26 Aug 2009 9:39PM
LOL @ Kris
User_Removed 7 736 4
26 Aug 2009 9:41PM

Quote:Quote: I'd kill for a Ladscape lens. Does it render said Lads in perfect focus, with strong forearms? If not, I'm not buying it.PMSL !!!


Nobutyeahbutnobut......I LOVE forearms.....I only noticed I did when I started juggling (about 15 years ago - don't really do it any more) and was forced to watch the forearms of accomplished jongleurs. If there's a lens that prioritises that then I'm buying it.
Paul Morgan e2
13 16.1k 6 England
26 Aug 2009 10:14PM

Quote:..... I'd kill for a Ladscape lens. Does it render said Lads in perfect focus, with strong forearms? If not, I'm not buying it.



Quote:Nobutyeahbutnobut......I LOVE forearms.....I only noticed I did when I started juggling (about 15 years ago - don't really do it any more) and was forced to watch the forearms of accomplished jongleurs. If there's a lens that prioritises that then I'm buying it.


Just use a lensbaby, place the sweet spot on anything but the forearm, then just fantasize to your hearts content Smile

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.