Prime lenses

[Code]

I really don't want to spend quite that much for a lens that may get limited use.

I've read a few reviews on the 28mm lens and it seems pretty decent for the $. Any opinions?

I have the Sigma 30mm f1.4 and like it alot, but I'm no voice of experience as it is my first fast prime. I use a 4/3rds camera so the effective focal length is a bit longer than it would be for you (60mm equivalent for me). I don't have any fast zooms, and it ended up being my most used lens on our trip and probably continues to be at home.. that might even be the case if I did have a faster short zoom as I really like shooting indoors in natural light and I need the fast shutter speed to keep up with my nephew.

The 28 1.8 isn't a 4/3rds option but I did look at the 24 1.8.. the reviews turned me off a bit but also the hulking size, and the HSM on the 30mm was very appealing.

Focus with the HSM is outstanding. Biggest issue I've read on this lens is a "front focus" issue. not sure exactly what that is, but the people who have had it have sent the lens back to Sigma and got it repaired with no issues.

The HSM is very nice, I've been playing with continuous AF since posting on the "Pirates of the f1.8" thread and it works very well.

I had read about the front focus issue and meant to test mine, thanks for the reminder.

In practice, how much difference will that full stop make? I have some aperature charts in my collection of "stuff" that show pictures of the lens blades at different f stops, but they all start a f2. At f2, it looks pretty much wide open. At f1.4, do the blades really open up that much more? At least on paper, there is quite a difference between f2 and f2.8. Will I really notice a difference between 1.4 and 2?

A full stop difference in any case is what it is... twice as much light reaching the sensor, meaning twice as fast shutter to get the same exposure. f1.4 is twice as much as f2, four times f2.8, eight times f4, etc etc... depending on the situation it may be the difference that even makes a shot possible, or it may just keep you away from high ISO. For night and ride shots at Disney I found it was sometimes the difference that made a handheld shot even possible, which is all the difference in the world. On the flip side of the coin, the very shallow DoF at 1.4 sometimes ruined the very shot the large aperture made possible. Give and take.

Oh and since you asked, f1.4 on the Sigma 30mm is with the iris fully open, the blades don't close at all with the shutter.

 

[Steve's Girl]

OK, now I have narrowed my choices down to these two lenses (at least for today )

Sigma 30mm 1.4

Tamron 28-75 2.8

The Tamron has been on my wish list for quite some time. But I don't think it will be fast enough for the night parades, etc. The Sigma is definitely faster and wide enough for parades, etc. But will it be too limiting for other uses? I'm trying to think beyond WDW and what lens would be the most practical for other uses, etc. I have decided against the Nikon 35mm f2 lens. While a great lens, I'm not sure there would be a huge difference from the 50mm 1.8 I already have. So, whattya think?

 

[Anewman]

OK, now I have narrowed my choices down to these two lenses (at least for today )

Sigma 30mm 1.4

Tamron 28-75 2.8

The Tamron has been on my wish list for quite some time. But I don't think it will be fast enough for the night parades, etc. The Sigma is definitely faster and wide enough for parades, etc. But will it be too limiting for other uses? I'm trying to think beyond WDW and what lens would be the most practical for other uses, etc. I have decided against the Nikon 35mm f2 lens. While a great lens, I'm not sure there would be a huge difference from the 50mm 1.8 I already have. So, whattya think?

I have the Canon version of the Tamron you are considering, it has become my walk around lens.

 

[handicap18]

Keep this in mind about the 30mm. Back in the day of film when Primes ruled the world, the 50mm lens was the standard walk around lens.

With the 1.5 crop, the 30mm has the field of view of a 45mm lens on film. I've use my 50mm on my dSLR for general purpose stuff, but have found it to be just a bit to long. This is another reason I'm going to get the 30mm. I've noticed I do take a lot of pics between the high 20's and mid 30's so the 30mm should fit in pretty nicely for general purpose stuff along with using it for night/low light shots while traveling.

 

[Groucho]

I have that Tamron lens as well (in a Pentax mount obviously, but the lens is identical otherwise) - I'm pretty happy with it.

I would definitely choose that over the 30mm F1.4. Partly because the 30mm gets somewhat funky reviews, but mostly because the Tamron makes a very good "main" lens, and gives you more speed for a variety of situations, while the 30mm is going to get you two more stops but only at the given focal length, and with apparently some somewhat strange sharpness issues.

 

[feistyblue]

I'm looking to buy a 50mm prime lens for my Canon Rebel and wondered if the f/1.8 was the recommended one or if there was something better? I've tried searching the board as I was recommended one on here in the past but the search just isn't working for me!

 

[DisneyFreak06]

I'm looking to buy a 50mm prime lens for my Canon Rebel and wondered if the f/1.8 was the recommended one or if there was something better? I've tried searching the board as I was recommended one on here in the past but the search just isn't working for me!

The search has not been working lately for me either. I have a Rebel XT and I remember reading quite a bit about the 50 mm 1.8, so that is what I bought last summer. I like it. (I'm not a professional by any means) That's the one that everyone recommends here.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Canon makes a lot of 50mm lenses. The f/1.8 is the cheapest ($70). It's drawbacks are that it is moderately slow to focus, somewhat noisy, and doesn't have FTM (full time manual focus).

The f/2.5 macro is $230. It's not as good in low light, but it allows you to focus very close so you can take pictures of really small things.

The f/1.4 is $290. It gives you a bit more light than the f/1.8 and full time manual focus. It's a bit sharper, but you probably won't notice the difference.

The f/1.2 is $1,260. It gives you a bit more light than the f/1.4 but is not quite as sharp.

Unless you know that you really need FTM or the little bit of extra light, I would recommend the f/1.8. Save the $200 and use it for something that will have more impact. If you think you'll really use the lens a lot (some people consider their 50mm prime as their primary lens), the f/1.4 might be more attractive. For most people, I think the f/1.8 is the way to go.

 

[DueyDooDah]

I'll let you know what I think on Tuesday. My f/1.4 arrives on Monday.

 

[feistyblue]

Thanks for the replies everyone, I'm going to go with the 1.8 and see how I like it.

 

[Groucho]

The F1.4 will also have better bokeh (more aperture blades), better color, and reportedly the construction is much better - the F1.8 isn't exactly known for its build quality.

There are some side-by-side shots here.

 

[Master Mason]

Also if you change the "skin" of the board to california gold, then the search funtions should work for you....

 

[Miss Kelly]

I vote for 85mm f/1.8 lens. The bokeh on that lens is incredible!

 

[deletedpenguin]

I've used, though not owned, the 50mm 1.8, 1.4, and 1.2, and can honestly say spend the money and forget the 1.8, but save your money and get the 1.4. All around the 1.4 is the best of the three.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I received the following question in a PM yesterday and thought that it could be answered better via a forum discussion than a simple PM reply. I also bet that more forum readers than just the sender could benefit from the answer.

...I am somewhat new to "real" photography. I just bought the Pentax K200D with the kit lens, a Pentax 50-200mm F4-5.6 ED lens and a Pentax 50mm F1.4 lens. I have learned quite a bit by just reading some of the threads but I need some advice on the 50mm. Is this the lens I want to use shooting fireworks? Will it give me good results shooting the night parades if I am in a good spot and use no flash? I guess mainly, with what conditions do I get the best use out of this lens? Thanks so much.

First, congratulations on getting a DSLR. I love using mine and always find myself learning new things with it.

Here are some general rules about when to use a zoom vs when to use a prime:

1) Obviously, a zoom is better when you need flexibility in how you compose your shot.

2) As a general rule, a prime will give you a better picture than a zoom at the same focal length (that is, when the zoom is zoomed to show the same amount of stuff as the prime). The picture quality difference usually isn't too big at f/11 or higher, but as you open your aperture wider, the difference becomes bigger.

In your case, you would want to use your prime when there isn't enough light to use your zoom OR when you want shallower depth-of-field (you want your subject in focus and the background blurry). At night or on dark rides, the 50mm prime will definitely be the best choice.

One odd exception is with fireworks. Despite happening at night, fireworks are really quite bright. Most fireworks pictures are taken around f/11, so you won't get a significant advantage by using the prime and you'll lose the ability to zoom. The key to getting the best fireworks pictures isn't choosing a prime or a zoom; the key is keeping the camera stable. Ideally, that means using a tripod and a remote cable release. When that isn't possible, try to find something to sit your camera on or brace it against. You will probably be taking pictures will exposures between 1/2 to 8 seconds when shooting fireworks and it is a real challenge to keep the camera steady that long without a tripod.

This is going to sound weird, but flash isn't nearly as useful as most people think at night. It often means getting a mediocre picture instead of none at all, but it rarely leads to getting a good picture at night. It is much better to use a higher ISO and a wider aperture (lower f-number) than it is to resort to using a flash. The problem is that the power of the flash falls off quickly with distance. So someone 10 feet in front of you will get a lot of light from the flash; something 20 feet from you will get only 1/4 as much light; and something 40 feet from you gets only 1/16 as much light. If you increase the power of the flash to help things farther away, it gives too much light on the close subjects. Shooting good pictures with flash is a challenge.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Great thread, Mark. I just got my first prime and am playing around with it. I had fun with it yesterday in the bowels of a battleship.

I've been wondering if it's best kept to use in low/lower light conditions as opposed to day/bright light conditions? Any thoughts you have about that are appreciated.

 

[Pooh_Girl]

Great thread, Mark. I just got my first prime and am playing around with it. I had fun with it yesterday in the bowels of a battleship.

I've been wondering if it's best kept to use in low/lower light conditions as opposed to day/bright light conditions? Any thoughts you have about that are appreciated.

I know I'm no expert or even close to Mark, but I'd like to take a stab at this one. What I have found out is that the prime lens REALLY shows off in the low/lower light situations, but it's not useless either in the daylight. The thing to keep in mind with the daylight is though, it won't change the quality of the picture too much, but it does give you more options to do with the photograph. For instance, everyone has seen those shots where the subject is crystal clear, but everything around it is blurry. This really brings the focus to the subject as well as giving you a really interesting shot. THAT'S where the prime comes in handy. It is REALLY great at doing that! Here are a couple examples. Not GREAT pictures, but some of my early ones where I was experimenting with the prime lens. Hope this helps!!

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I know I'm no expert or even close to Mark, but I'd like to take a stab at this one. What I have found out is that the prime lens REALLY shows off in the low/lower light situations, but it's not useless either in the daylight. The thing to keep in mind with the daylight is though, it won't change the quality of the picture too much, but it does give you more options to do with the photograph. For instance, everyone has seen those shots where the subject is crystal clear, but everything around it is blurry. This really brings the focus to the subject as well as giving you a really interesting shot. THAT'S where the prime comes in handy. It is REALLY great at doing that! Here are a couple examples. Not GREAT pictures, but some of my early ones where I was experimenting with the prime lens. Hope this helps!!

Thank you. I love the look of shallow depth of field and that's one of the reasons I got the lens. It hasn't disappointed in that way. I'm just finding that, in bright sun with a wide open aperture, pictures tend to be overexposed, so I've had to make other adjustments in order to try to get the shot I want. I'm still feeling my way around with it...

 

[Pea-n-Me]

But funny, I think Mark inadvertantly answered my question on a 15 month old thread which was just bumped up.

Incidentally, if you've ever wondered why your camera has an obsurdly fast maximum shutter speed (1/2000, 1/4000, or even 1/8000), it's generally not used because you need to eliminate motion blur on bullets whizzing past you. It's because you sometimes need that to make everything else fit on the scales I posted. On a bright sunny day, you may have so much light that you use ISO 100 on your camera. You may be taking a portrait on want really shallow DOF, so you use f/2.8. That might force you to use a 1/4000s shutter speed just to keep from overexposing. Another alternative is to put a neutral density filter (like sunglasses for your camera) on your lens.

This is what I wanted to know. I probably need to invest in a filter at some point. And I'm a lot better at understanding ISO and aperture than I am shutter speed, which I find still confuse me a bit. I'm going to print out that table in the other thread and keep it in my bag as a reference - thanks. (Am also going to include it in TLC thread. I can't believe I missed that before!)

 

[bamata2]

That is exactly the kind of advice I was looking for, Mark. I can't wait to get to WDW and try out my new toys. I'll let you know how it went.