# Prime Lenses



## UOduck23 (Dec 20, 2011)

I'm looking to invest in some L series prime lenses. I'm working towards owning both the 7d and the 5d Mk2 (or 3 soon). I've heard nothing but glowing reviews of the 35mm 1.4, the 50mm 1.2, and the 85mm 1.2. But besides the 35 being a bit faster is there much difference between these lenses? Would I simply be picking one based on how close I predict being from my subjects or do the lenses actually perform better/worse?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 20, 2011)

The 35mm L is best for both 7D and 5D MK II, the 85mm L is a portrait lens, and really recommended for someone experienced with portrait photography.

The 50L is even more specialized. 

Other than the 35mm L, I do not recommend them for a first prime lens, the risk of disappointment is too high.

Tell us more about your experience with DSLR's, maybe they are right for you.


----------



## Cosk (Dec 20, 2011)

Primes are fantastic - better than any zoom lens out there. 

But start with the non-L primes. You can get an entire set of non-Ls for less than a single L. The a couple years from now, look back at your absolute favorite photos. Whatever lenses you used to take them... that's where you start upgrading.

On a 7D, I say start with a 50 1.4 (portrait) and 24/2.8 (street/landscape).

Any day you're shooting, pick one prime and use it... keep the other in your bag - but you don't want to be switching lenses every shot you take - that defeats the purpose.


----------



## JR (Dec 20, 2011)

All three are amazing lenses in my mind. I agree with "Spokane" that the 50L is more specialized, but I have to say it is always sitting on my 5DmkII! I love all of these three lenses and I think they can each work with a 7D or 5D. It really depends on which camera body you get first (APS-C versus FF) and what will be your main needs to decide which focal lenght best suite your need..


----------



## handsomerob (Dec 20, 2011)

UOduck23 said:


> I'm looking to invest in some L series prime lenses. I'm working towards owning both the 7d and the 5d Mk2 (or 3 soon). I've heard nothing but glowing reviews of the 35mm 1.4, the 50mm 1.2, and the 85mm 1.2. *But besides the 35 being a bit faster is there much difference between these lenses?* Would I simply be picking one based on how close I predict being from my subjects or do the lenses actually perform better/worse?



Hmm.. 35mm f/1.4 L is the slowest of these three lenses (by 1/3 EV).

All three have stellar optics. The 35mm is rumored to be replaced very soon and will most probably be even more awesome. What do you like to shoot? 24mm f/1.4 L, 100mm f/2.8 L IS Macro and 135mm f/2 L are also fantastic primes.

If you need anything between 70 and 200mm and can live with 'only' f/2.8, the 70-200 f/2.8 L USM II is definitely worth a look, offering prime quality with the flexibility of a zoom.


----------



## Freshprince08 (Dec 20, 2011)

You could get hooked shooting on primes once you start 

I'd suggest the 35mm f1.4L out of the three choices! Works well on both the 7D and 5Dii, assuming you aren't planning any tight portraits. You could throw in the 50mm f1.8 for less than Â£100 too which will give you an idea about that focal length!


----------



## Flake (Dec 20, 2011)

I'm always a little cautious reccomending lenses costing so much, but doubly so then the poster doesn't actually own a camera that can use them fully, and to make matters worse doesn't seem to have a grasp on the principles of photography.

Here's my advice, and I don't mean it to be insulting, spend the money on a photography course, there are some very good ones around, it's possible to get very good results with a pinhole camera - you simply don't need expensive lenses to make good images, what you do need is some technical knowledge and some talent.

FWIW longer focal length lenses give less depth of field, the also compress perspective, choosing one focal length can hide facial features of exagerate them. Wide angle lenses can distort faces, especially if you get close.

Prime lenses are not without their faults, and the 1.2 50mm & 85mm suffer from slow focussing and deliberately defoccused borders - great for portraits, but not for other types of photography, they are specialised lenses. 35mm a bit too short for portraiture.


----------



## pwp (Dec 20, 2011)

Reading between the lines here I see a need to develop your fundamental photography skills and see what direction that takes you. Primes are nice but there is a fundamental trade-off with them...the fixed focal length. 

A high percentage of professional photographers will regard the classic zoom trifecta, that is the 16-35 f/2.8, the 24-70 f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/2.8isII as the core kit which will do most of the work. Why do you suppose this is?

Primes will come into the picture for specialized shooting or shooting environments such as 300 f/2.8 and 400 f/2.8 for action sports, macro, tilt-shift for architecture and landscapes, ultrawides for interiors, 85 f/1.2 for specialized portraiture etc. But these purchases often come later as needs and shooting styles evolve, and as income increases!

Take care not to paint yourself into a corner with narrow choices that could ultimately disappoint. The 35 f/1.4 is probably the most useful and definitely the fastest focusing of these three lenses. But seriously...don't believe all the hype about zooms being inferior. Most times they'll help get you the best shots. Cheap zooms can be awful, yet good copies are plentiful. The L zooms probably account for a very high percentage of all published (Canon shot) photos on the planet. 

The update 24-70 f/2.8II may be announced in the new year. It's got your name all over it.

Paul Wright


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 20, 2011)

pwp said:


> A high percentage of professional photographers will regard the classic zoom trifecta, that is the 16-35 f/2.8, the 24-70 f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/2.8isII as the core kit which will do most of the work. Why do you suppose this is?



Nicely put.

Dont forget that most travel photography is done with zooms as well - the 70-300L is gaining favour due to its light weight, but the travel stalwarts are the 28-300L and its predessor the 35-350L


----------



## crjiro (Dec 20, 2011)

Of the primes you mentioned, i have some concern with the 50/1.2 with the things i've read. 
The 50/1.4 and Sigma 50/1.4 is often compared and i'm not sure if i would go with the 50/1.2L for what you get with the price. I definitely would go with the 24/1.4, 85/1.2 and 100/2.8IS Macro II. I'd have to look into the 35/1.4 and others.


----------



## tt (Dec 20, 2011)

UOduck23 said:


> I'm looking to invest in some L series prime lenses. I'm working towards owning both the 7d and the 5d Mk2 (or 3 soon). I've heard nothing but glowing reviews of the 35mm 1.4, the 50mm 1.2, and the 85mm 1.2. But besides the 35 being a bit faster is there much difference between these lenses? Would I simply be picking one based on how close I predict being from my subjects or do the lenses actually perform better/worse?



I'm new to photography, but from what i'm slowly learning - yes - they're great lenses, but they each have unique characteristics, primarily their focal length - 

Jasmine Star covers these lenses and their effects here: http://www.jasminestarblog.com/index.cfm?postID=990&review-canon-mm (and here gear guide covers those lenses here http://www.jasminestarblog.com/index.cfm?postID=1233&jasmine-star-lenses-and-camera)
Even if you've got the subject the same position and size in the frame - they're going to look different - think in the extremes fish eye all the way up to compressed at the 300mm look. You've also got an effect on the compression of the background - the larger focal lengths will compress the background more, magnify it more and vice versa.

7D's a cropped sensor, so your lenses will look different between a 5D Mark II and the 7D. Effectively using the 35mm on the 7D, you'll see a cropped version of what you'd see on the 5D. Great lenses, and i'm sure many would love to get them too! As for characteristics, you've got AF, time till update, sweet spot for their aperture (is similar?). 
Your proximity to the subjects is one issue, but as above - they're going to look different, even if you move your feet so the subject is the same size in your shot. 

Looking to get all 3 might not help you improve so quickly as getting to know one, then building from there - e.g. choosing to do portraits, you could take the 50mm on the 7D (similar to 85mm due to the crop), then it'll be 50mm on the 5D. 

What are your subjects? What do you want to shoot, and how? Do you like tight in close crops of people, or wider views?
(the the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ of these lenses I think goes more into the usual uses of these different lenses).

Final point - it's going to take some getting used to focusing, and shooting with these wide open - the depth of subject that'll be in focus will be very thin. Double edged sword of the lenses!


----------



## Axilrod (Dec 20, 2011)

I would seriously recommend not buying more than a couple lenses when you are just starting. I went crazy and ended up with like 11 or 12 different lenses and all it did was make things harder. I gradually narrowed them down to what's left in my signature. But you have to take the time to learn each lens and its quirks, and sometimes having too many choices just makes things harder. 

You will be happy with any of the previously mentioned lenses, but it doesnt really make sense to buy one of the three you mentioned if its going to be your only lens. But if you have to have one, I'd go for the 35L, like they said its pretty versatile on APS-C (7D, 60D) and FF sensors (5DII, 1Ds3). 

I also agree with the other poster about photography classes, as it does kind of sound like you know more about the equipment than photography itself.


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 20, 2011)

If f/4 is sufficient for you a 24-105 would be a sound start for your lens collection


----------



## Axilrod (Dec 20, 2011)

crjiro said:


> Of the primes you mentioned, i have some concern with the 50/1.2 with the things i've read.
> The 50/1.4 and Sigma 50/1.4 is often compared and i'm not sure if i would go with the 50/1.2L for what you get with the price.
> I definitely would go with the 24/1.4, 85/1.2 and 100/2.8IS Macro II. I'd have to looking into the 35/1.4 and others.



I love my 50mm, sure the AF is a little slow (but not as bad as the 85L II) but when you "get the shot" damn does it look good. A lot of people say its inconsistent, but I suspect this may have more to do with the super short hyper focal length...if the subject moves even an inch it can throw off the focus.


----------



## UOduck23 (Dec 21, 2011)

I think that Flake and PWP misunderstood the nature of my question. I own the 40D, 70-200 L 2.8 IS II, 24-70 L 2.8, and 50 1.4. I'm looking to upgrade my camera to the 5DM3 once it's available and then upgrade my APS-C to the 7D. I have several years of experience with this equipment (70-200 since it's release) and a great deal of technical knowledge regarding the features of my camera and lenses. Since I do not own the primes I mentioned I was asking about the performance of those lenses against one another. I understand my style and how close I'd like to be to my subjects.


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 21, 2011)

with regard to the 85 do yourself a favour and test the canon 85 f1.2 side by side with the sigma 85 f1.4

I did and went with the sigma it is much faster AF and lighter smaller and exceptionally well made and ALOT cheaper. depending on what you are shooting really but i think the slow AF of the 1.2 would struggle to keep up in certain conditions also and even more shallow depth of field making it harder to nail the shot.

Best you go into a shop get the lenses side by side on a 5D2 and shoot various things, change focus near far near far to get a feel for the response check the depth of field of both see what will suit you most and see if the 1.2 is worth 2.5 times the cost of the sigma.

I've also been bitten by the prime bug looking into a wide prime next but I think the 24 1.4 would be a better choice than the 35 but thats just what will suit me so you have to look at your uses. the wide end is such a hard choice for primes especially between the 2 canon 24mm offerings


----------



## branden (Dec 21, 2011)

UOduck23 said:


> I'm looking to invest in some L series prime lenses. I'm working towards owning both the 7d and the 5d Mk2 (or 3 soon). I've heard nothing but glowing reviews of the 35mm 1.4, the 50mm 1.2, and the 85mm 1.2. But besides the 35 being a bit faster is there much difference between these lenses? Would I simply be picking one based on how close I predict being from my subjects or do the lenses actually perform better/worse?





UOduck23 said:


> I think that Flake and PWP misunderstood the nature of my question. I own the 40D, 70-200 L 2.8 IS II, 24-70 L 2.8, and 50 1.4. I'm looking to upgrade my camera to the 5DM3 once it's available and then upgrade my APS-C to the 7D. I have several years of experience with this equipment (70-200 since it's release) and a great deal of technical knowledge regarding the features of my camera and lenses. Since I do not own the primes I mentioned I was asking about the performance of those lenses against one another. I understand my style and how close I'd like to be to my subjects.



Sorry, but I still find your original question very confusing. It's impossible to say whether the 35mm, 50mm, or 85mm lenses are better than one another, because each of them does something wildly different. Deciding which one to choose is a decision of what focal length you need, not which performs best.


----------



## handsomerob (Dec 21, 2011)

UOduck23 said:


> I think that Flake and PWP misunderstood the nature of my question. I own the 40D, 70-200 L 2.8 IS II, 24-70 L 2.8, and 50 1.4. I'm looking to upgrade my camera to the 5DM3 once it's available and then upgrade my APS-C to the 7D. I have several years of experience with this equipment (70-200 since it's release) and a great deal of technical knowledge regarding the features of my camera and lenses. Since I do not own the primes I mentioned I was asking about the performance of those lenses against one another. I understand my style and how close I'd like to be to my subjects.



Well, you already have some great glass!! And we still don't know what you most like to shoot ??? 
And this is kinda important since you'll be paying quite a lot for a decent L prime (they are all decent!!!).

Those three lenses you were asking about are different in many ways, most significant and important difference being their focal length... That's what you gotta choose first... If you really have no clue, you could start by sorting your photos with the focal length used and see in which range you mostly frame your shots. Then you can maybe start considering if you want to replace that focal length with a prime *and if that will be worth all the investment*. 

For instance, 70-200 f/2.8 IS II absolutely rocks, so unless you need the faster aperture of the 85mm f/1.2 L and you take a lot of portraits, buying it would be a waste of money that could be spent on other gear (tripod, flash, filters, batteries, cards, blablabla) or better, help you fund your 5DIII...

Also, you already have a 50mm prime, the f/1.4 version. Do you use that lens a lot? If yes, do you mostly shoot wide open? If yes, maybe you can consider the 50mm f/1.2 L, otherwise it's, again, a waste of money...

You got 35mm covered by the 24-70 f/2.8 L so again, do you shoot a lot around 35mm? 2 extra stops might sound very appealing but do YOU really need it? Is it worth all that cash for your particular case?

wickidwombat's suggestion is great! You could rent those primes and see which one YOU like the most. At the end, YOU are the one who is gonna dump all that cash for it 

Please take no offense here, but I think you first need to answer your own questions. And I'm sure with all that gear, experience and technical knowledge you say you got you'll make a much wiser *choice based on YOUR real needs* than anyone here making the choice for you based on his very own experiences.

I wish you good luck with your decision. You will absolutely LOVE any of those primes!!


----------



## pwp (Dec 21, 2011)

UOduck23 said:


> I think that Flake and PWP misunderstood the nature of my question. I own the 40D, 70-200 L 2.8 IS II, 24-70 L 2.8, and 50 1.4. I'm looking to upgrade my camera to the 5DM3 once it's available and then upgrade my APS-C to the 7D. I have several years of experience with this equipment (70-200 since it's release) and a great deal of technical knowledge regarding the features of my camera and lenses. Since I do not own the primes I mentioned I was asking about the performance of those lenses against one another. I understand my style and how close I'd like to be to my subjects.



OK my apologies. It can be dangerous to read between the lines! You clearly are in a far more experienced position than I interpreted from your first post. 

One great way of assessing whether a new lens is a good fit with your shooting style is to rent for a weekend. My local dealer is also a lens rental outlet and will zero the lens rental amount if I go ahead and buy the lens. 

Or buy second hand and lose almost nothing on the deal if it's not working for you.

Paul Wright


----------



## UOduck23 (Dec 21, 2011)

Thanks to all of you for your input. It's nice to have an outlet like CR to discuss these things and learn from others in the same position as well as those with far more expertise. 

I enjoy shooting mostly abstract landscapes and candid people but like the rest of you, I enjoy any chance I have to press the shutter. Lately I've been getting work shooting engagement photos and families so I guess portrait work is becoming a larger part of my photography. 

Wanting to take my work to a higher level I thought it would be best to invest in some great glass and I feel like I've got some great lenses already. But having heard that so many pros use prime lenses (I'm sure there are plenty who use telephotos) because of how crisp they are and how well they perform in a variety of situations I just assumed that I'd need to add those to my arsenal. What I'm reading from you guys is that I'd be buying myself a few aperture stops and not a bunch more. Knowing that I think that I'll experiment with the improved ISO on the 5D versus my 40D and see if I'll even need more than that. If so I'll just rent a couple primes for a weekend and see what works best for me. Thanks again.

Cheers,
UOduck23


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 21, 2011)

UOduck23 said:


> What I'm reading from you guys is that I'd be buying myself a few aperture stops and not a bunch more. Knowing that I think that I'll experiment with the improved ISO on the 5D versus my 40D and see if I'll even need more than that.



It's true that at comparable apertures, there's not much real-world difference between the 70-200 II and the primes (same for the 135L). So in that sense, you are just getting a few aperture stops (and smaller, lighter lenses, but less versatile, too).

Those few stops of aperture mean more light, for which as you state, an ISO bump can substitute. But a wider aperture also means a shallower DoF - I'd argue that for the 50L and 85L, at least, that's the primary motivation. Still, I think it's not a bad idea to try FF with the lenses you have - after all, your f/2.8 zooms will give you DoF on FF equivalent to f/1.8 on your 40D. The 35L can deliver shallow DoF, too, with close subjects...but being a wide angle lens (on FF), low-light situational shooting is a common use. 

To your original question, there's little to distinguish the three lenses you mention from an IQ standpoint, although the 50L is a little weaker on sharpness (it's a portrait lens, and intentional sacrifice of sharpness was made to improve the bokeh). The 50L also has focus shift, which makes it more challenging to work with between f/1.4 and f/4. The 85L focuses slooowwwwwly. It takes some getting used to. The 35L has no quirks, just goodness. 

Personally, I don't have the 50L, but I have the 'holy trinity' of primes - 35L, 85L II, 135L. My 24-105mm and 70-200mm II see much more use, but the primes are wonderful in certain situations. 35L for indoor family shooting in ambient light and nighttime walkaround/street shooting (on 5DII), 85L for portraits (on 5DII), 135L for tight portraits (on 5DII) and indoor sports (e.g. swimming, on 7D).


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Dec 21, 2011)

UOduck23 said:


> I've heard nothing but glowing reviews of the 35mm 1.4, the 50mm 1.2, and the 85mm 1.2. But besides the 35 being a bit faster is there much difference between these lenses? Would I simply be picking one based on how close I predict being from my subjects or do the lenses actually perform better/worse?


Minimum focus distances and maximum magnifications, borrowed from The-Digital-Picture:

35mm: .3m / 0.18x (0.97x with 25mm extension tube)
50mm: .45m / 0.15x (the author notes some barrel distortion focused closer than about 1m)
85mm: .95m / 0.11x (0.42x to 0.33x with 25mm extension tube)


----------



## Cosk (Dec 21, 2011)

I'll revise my earlier post now that I know you already have some good glass.

When I had a cropped body, I had the following:
24/2.8 (street)
50/1.4 (candid/children/pets)
85/1.8 (portrait)

The 50 and 85 are awesome - and great value. I strongly recommend getting those two lenses.

The 24/2.8 is annoying - it has an old micro motor focus and sounds like an electric shaver. Although I hated using that lens and rarely put it on my camera, a very high percentage of the images that ever came through that piece of glass are now framed on my wall.

When I moved to a 5D, I sold the 24/2.8 and bought the 35/1.4, and I love it... amazing image quality and it just feels right. 

I also bought the 50/1.2, 85/1.2, and the 135/2. I returned the 50/1.2 - I like the 1.4 better. I kept both 85s - the 1.2 is more magical than the 1.8, but only about $500 more magical, which annoys me. And the 135 is new... I'm still learning it. 


I'd say start with a 50mm 1.4 the add the 85 1.8. Next, add the 24L if you still have a cropped body or 35L if you have a FF by then. 

And those "couple stops" make all the difference. It add a level of three-dimensionality to your images that is really challenging with even a 2.8 lens.


----------



## Axilrod (Dec 25, 2011)

UOduck23 said:


> I think that Flake and PWP misunderstood the nature of my question. I own the 40D, 70-200 L 2.8 IS II, 24-70 L 2.8, and 50 1.4. I'm looking to upgrade my camera to the 5DM3 once it's available and then upgrade my APS-C to the 7D. I have several years of experience with this equipment (70-200 since it's release) and a great deal of technical knowledge regarding the features of my camera and lenses. Since I do not own the primes I mentioned I was asking about the performance of those lenses against one another. I understand my style and how close I'd like to be to my subjects.



Nobody misunderstood anything, you left that information out completely. There wasnt any mention of you owning any gear in your first post. The information you gave would lead most to believe that youre new to photography and tryin to pick some lenses. It just seems like someone that already owned a 24-70, 70-200 ii, and 50 1.4 wouldnt be asking such basic questions....


----------

