Prime vs. Tele

[Grey Ghost]

The only prime I own is my old Canon 1.8, metal mount, 50mm. Is there an advantage or disadvantage to primes? If I used a tele at the exact same focal length of a prime. Would I see a difference in image quality? I imagine if you used a 300mm prime, etc...you would rely on cropping the image to get the composure you wanted? Only having a crappy old 8mp 20d. If I crop very much. The image quality really goes downhill. I"m guessing it is pixel density of the sensor?

[Giraffe (He/Him)]

I have two. The 85mm 1.8 and the 100mm 2.8 Macro. The 85 is the sharpest lens I own by far. It's incredible. The 100mm macro comes in a close second, and it's good for a lot more than macro work.

[Grey Ghost]

Originally Posted by Thomas

I have two. The 85mm 1.8 and the 100mm 2.8 Macro. The 85 is the sharpest lens I own by far. It's incredible. The 100mm macro comes in a close second, and it's good for a lot more than macro work.

The majority of my shooting is outside and involves motion or quick snaps. Do you use a prime at the dog shows? Backyard in the snow pics, etc...? Or just inside studio type pics?

[Giraffe (He/Him)]

Most, but not all of the back yard dog pics are the 100-400 zoom. Some are with the 100mm macro. The 85mm works really well inside when I set up lights.

I seem to shoot at the 400 end of the 100-400 often, which is why I'm considering dumping it for the 400mm prime. The 100-400 had a learning curve. You just can't slap it on your body and start taking great shots. DOF is limited at the 400 end for one thing. Another issue is it'll throw a bad shot from time to time for no apparent reason when capturing movement.

The two snow pics below were with the 100-400. The little guy was standing pretty still.



This was the 85mm @ 1.8. Notice the razor thin DOF.

Bottom line, I LOVE my primes. LOVE them. I don't think you'll find a zoom half as sharp as a prime.

[Giraffe (He/Him)]

Would I see a difference in image quality?

Between a prime and a zoom? Yes, with few exceptions if any.

[Nitro-C5]

Originally Posted by Grey Ghost

The only prime I own is my old Canon 1.8, metal mount, 50mm. Is there an advantage or disadvantage to primes? If I used a tele at the exact same focal length of a prime. Would I see a difference in image quality? I imagine if you used a 300mm prime, etc...you would rely on cropping the image to get the composure you wanted? Only having a crappy old 8mp 20d. If I crop very much. The image quality really goes downhill. I"m guessing it is pixel density of the sensor?

A couple of variables to consider, but a for almost all lenses, at the same aperture, the Primes will be sharper...on some lenses...much, much sharper.

I shoot using (9) lenses - (5) Prime and (4) Zooms...and if I know the basic focal length I will be shooting from I always go for the prime lenses first. Alot more flexibility in creativity when you know basically where the subject is going to be and distances from you to them is not going to change drastically. Shooting for example (below) using a fast wide angle lens opened up gives a look that is impossible to achieve by any other means.

On the other hand if the object is moving fast or erratic then nothing beats the flexibility of a zoom in that scenario. Also if I'm shooting studio type stuff at around 6.3f-stop and up I almost always use my zooms simply because of the fact that at 6.3 the difference between a Prime and Zoom is almost impossible to differentiate.


24mm @1.6f



100mm @ 2.0f



35mm 2.2f



85mm 1.6f



50mm 1.6f

[Grey Ghost]

Interesting read and something to play with if you get bored:

LensRentals.com - Setting Up an Optical Testing Station

This puppy had my attention:

Tamron 150-600mm f5-6.3 Di VC USD Canon mount lens review: New contender - DxOMark

[Giraffe (He/Him)]

a crappy old 8mp 20d

I took a LOT of action shots with the 20D, and that was when I had the original 5D which sucked for any sort of action photo.

[Giraffe (He/Him)]

This puppy had my attention:

I've read a couple reviews on this beast and they're generally very good. I'll say this though, hand holding @ 600mm even with IS is gonna be tough.

[Grey Ghost]

Originally Posted by Thomas

I took a LOT of action shots with the 20D, and that was when I had the original 5D which sucked for any sort of action photo.

I had thoughts about a used 5D. Most everything I shoot is based on action, so I guess a 5D is out of the picture. Maybe another xxD.

[Giraffe (He/Him)]

At 3 FPS the 5D is extremely weak. Capturing someone walking is one thing. Capturing your dogs running in the yard will require a lot more than 3 FPS.

Maybe look at a 7D. That one does 8 FPS. A friend of mine has the 7D and loves it.

[Nitro-C5]

Originally Posted by Thomas

At 3 FPS the 5D is extremely weak. Capturing someone walking is one thing. Capturing your dogs running in the yard will require a lot more than 3 FPS.

Maybe look at a 7D. That one does 8 FPS. A friend of mine has the 7D and loves it.

I agree with Thomas. If you are looking to capture action get a 7D. An upgrade from the xxD line, but still a crop so your EFs lenses will still work. It would be a substantial improvement over the 20d. I also agree the 5D and even to some extent the 5Dii are not the best choices for action.

[Giraffe (He/Him)]

I can't imagine what a 150-600mm lens would be like.

Have you put your hands on the 100-400? It's a BIG lens. With the hood it look like a club.

[Giraffe (He/Him)]

Rental rates from the local shop.

[Grey Ghost]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Have you put your hands on the 100-400? It's a BIG lens. With the hood it look like a club.

3lbs? I asked others about it awhile back. They said it was easily hand held...

[Giraffe (He/Him)]

They said it was easily hand held...

It is. But it's still a big ass lens.

[carlton_fritz]

The new Sigma 24-105 F4 Art series lens is reviewed as good as or better than Canon L glass. Same with the 18-35 1.8.

[Giraffe (He/Him)]

Originally Posted by carlton_fritz

The new Sigma 24-105 F4 Art series lens is reviewed as good as or better than Canon L glass. Same with the 18-35 1.8.

Good for Sigma, kinda bad for Canon, GREAT for the rest of us. Competition won't hurt Canon one bit.

[carlton_fritz]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Good for Sigma, kinda bad for Canon, GREAT for the rest of us. Competition won't hurt Canon one bit.