# The Unholy Trinity of Non-L Primes?



## Synomis192 (Oct 7, 2012)

I've always heard photographers that praise a photographer for collecting either a 35/50/85 or 24/50/135 lens collection. Those are really really great lens and I've only got to spend 30 minutes with a 50 f/1.2 and I ultimately fell in love with it. 

Is there a non-L prime trinity out there that offers the best images?

Like this is what I'm thinking, if I were to get the non-L versions of the 35/50/135 lens is that a good enough prime collection?


----------



## macrodust (Oct 7, 2012)

Both the 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.8 are really good value for the money, and I don't hesitate a second to recommend these. 

On the wide end it's a bit trickier to find good non-L primes. I have the 28mm 1.8 and while I think it's a great focal length (being in between 24mm and 35mm), it really is a mediocre lens. I haven't tried the 35 2.0, but I frequently use the 40mm 2.8, which is a fantastic little lens considering the price and size!

I don't see any non-L "replacement" for the 135mm 2.0L. Save up for one! It's great, and it's cheap-ish for being an L lens.


----------



## Hillsilly (Oct 7, 2012)

A prime lens collection that is "good enough" is a difficult question. I'm reasonably confident in saying that there aren't any "bad" lenses in the Canon collection. Most are good and more than adequate for most things. Some are very good and fill in the gaps for special needs. 

Even the cheapest lens - the 50mm f/1.8 - is actually quite good once you've stopped it down a bit. In fact, virtually every cheap option is almost essentially as good as the "L" option except that they generally aren't as sharp at the widest apertures, feel a little flimsy, and their out of focus backgrounds aren't as nice.

For most things, the non-L 35/50/100 lenses will be almost as good, and you'd have to look closely to tell the differences. And even then, "differences" doesn't actually mean "better" (although, admittedly, generally it will). And as mentioned above, the 135mm f/2 is a very good lens if that's a focal length that interests you. Its worthwhile saving up.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Oct 7, 2012)

the 100mm f2 is better then the 85mm f1.8.

i don´t know why everyone recommends the 85mm.
the purple fringing of that lens, even when fixable in post, is annoying.


----------



## Rat (Oct 7, 2012)

macrodust said:


> I don't see any non-L "replacement" for the 135mm 2.0L. Save up for one! It's great, and it's cheap-ish for being an L lens.


There is a non-L 135mm f/2.8 that includes a softfocus setting, which is about half as expensive as the 135L. I have *no* idea how good or how usable that lens is, but it's there


----------



## The Bad Duck (Oct 7, 2012)

As said, the 100/2.0 and the 85/1.8 are really great lenses. I have the 85 and love it, although if I was to get one of these lenses today it would be the 100. I am using a 5D mkII. If I had used a crop camera I would have prefered the 85 /1.8.

The 28/1.8 has a bad reputation, but I find mine really good; it seems every bit as sharp as my 35 /1.4 L but with less wonderful contrast/colours, and less interesting focal length. On crop, I would get the 20/ 2.8 based on what I read from reviews.

The 50 /1.8 I had only lasted two mounths. It broke in two pieces. The glass was good though. 
The 50 /1.4 is rather ok from f/2. I like the focal length but I will probably get the L-version of this lens at some point (but I will not get the L-version of the 85 since the 1.8 seems good enough). On crop, the sigma 30 /1.4 should do the trick.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Oct 7, 2012)

I own the 50mm f/1.4, the 85mm f/1.8, and the 35mm f/2 as part of my kit. I use both a 5D MK2 body and a Canon 60D body. I would have to say of those three lens that the 50mm f/1.4 is my least favorite. The 85mm is a well known; a great lens that produces a similar effect/result (just not as pronounced) to the 135mm f/2L. 

The 35mm f/2 is an interesting lens. It is very sharp on a FF body even wide open. It produces good color. It is also buzzy in AF and can produce slightly busy bokeh for my tastes. It is also somewhat prone to purple fringing, but fortunately the latest version of Lightroom makes that a non-issue these days, and from what I understand, the MK3 deals with that in body. But one of its biggest plusses (besides a great focal length) is that is has great delineation. You can have more in the frame but yet very nice separation of your subject from the background. It also focuses much closer than the other two lens.

I wish that Canon would revisit the lens and update it with USM and perhaps a little smoother transition to ooF areas. Of course, with Canon's revised pricing it would probably cost $800. Right now it is a bargain. Light. Sharp. An easy lens to throw in the pocket and as is sharper than either my 17-40mm f/4L or 24-105mm f/4L IS by f/2.8. This shot was taken this week, wide open, with the 35mm f/2. There is some small processing in Lightroom 4, but more to do with color/saturation than any kind of sharpness.


----------



## elflord (Oct 7, 2012)

Synomis192 said:


> I've always heard photographers that praise a photographer for collecting either a 35/50/85 or 24/50/135 lens collection. Those are really really great lens and I've only got to spend 30 minutes with a 50 f/1.2 and I ultimately fell in love with it.
> 
> Is there a non-L prime trinity out there that offers the best images?
> 
> Like this is what I'm thinking, if I were to get the non-L versions of the 35/50/135 lens is that a good enough prime collection?



The Sigma 85mm is an obvious choice, though at its price point and quality it really plays with L glass. 35 f/2 / Sigma 85 f/1.4 / 135L would make a pretty solid budget trinity. 

The only issues with your proposed trinity are that 35mm and 50mm are pretty close together (if you have a 50, you might start looking at 24mm instead of 35mm), and there's not much point getting a budget 135 (the 135L is one of the best values in the lineup). 

If you can live with manual focus, Samyang's lenses are a steal at the wide angle.


----------



## sandymandy (Oct 7, 2012)

100mm macro 2.8 is as good as the L version of it.


----------



## crasher8 (Oct 7, 2012)

I think the 40 2.8 is my solution for a great low priced 35mm on FF. This little gem has more going for it than cons. I had the 35 f/2 and used it on both crop and FF and just couldn't deal with the CA, buzzing and hunting/seeking AF. I liked the color rendering and FL but the low blade count made the blur too choppy. 

If I was to buy Primes on a semi-budget I'd get:

Sigma 30 1.4 (crop)
Canon Pancake 40 (FF-it's a weird FL on a crop)
Sigma 50 1.4 (both)
Canon 100 f/2 (Very underrated, no CA issues like the 85)
EF 135 L (This and the 70-200 f/4 L are two L lenses you should really get, best bargains in the Canon lineup)
Another great portrait lens is the Canon 100 f/2.8 Macro. Almost too sharp for some folks. Better on kids and youth portraits.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 7, 2012)

Synomis192 said:


> I've always heard photographers that praise a photographer for collecting either a 35/50/85 or 24/50/135 lens collection.


Point of order - the phrase 'holy trinity of primes' usually refers to the 35-85-135 combo.


----------



## LostArk (Oct 7, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Synomis192 said:
> 
> 
> > I've always heard photographers that praise a photographer for collecting either a 35/50/85 or 24/50/135 lens collection.
> ...



While I wouldn't hesitate to call the 35-85-135 a "holy trinity" of lenses, I find that the difference in perspective between 85 and 135 to be minimal, so to have both in one's trinity strikes me as redundant. 

As for the "unholy trinity" of non-L primes, that's easy:

24mm f/2.8 IS, Sigma 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8 (or 100 f/2)


----------



## CharlieB (Oct 8, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> the 100mm f2 is better then the 85mm f1.8.
> 
> i don´t know why everyone recommends the 85mm.
> the purple fringing of that lens, even when fixable in post, is annoying.



Yup +1

I've got the 28/1.8, and have tested it against the 24-105L at 28mm and F/4.0. The 28/1.8 is much better than the 24-105L at F/4.0. And, you can let things suffer a little, and open it up 2-1/3 more stops if need be.

If I had three, and only three CANON lenses to pick... whew... tough choice. 

I'd go 100/2.8 macro, non-L over the 100/2.0

I'd go 50/1.4 but if I could find a version-I of the 50/1.8, I'd get it.

And, 28/1.8 easily for wide.

And thats IF my only choice was three.

People hate it, but the 20/2.8 is not a bad performer... especially when you have peripheral illumination correction.


----------



## dr croubie (Oct 8, 2012)

I've got the Samyang 35/1.4, 40/2.8 Pancake, Takumar 50/1.4, EF 50/1.8 II, FL 55/1.2, EF 85/1.8, EF 100/2.0.

Pick any of those and you've got your 'unholy non-L trinity' (my best suggestion would be the Samyang 35, FL55/1.2, EF 100/2.0, that's generally what's in my bag if there's only space for 3).
Lack of AF at the wider ends really doesn't bother me, there's always Live View and Katz Eye screens...

Edit: I just realised I've also got the 40 Pancake (it's so small I forget it's there sometimes). That can replace the Samyang 35 in some situations, but then nothing's really wide. So it could replace both the 35mm and 50/55mm lengths, then add in the Tokina 17/3.5 or Mir 20/2.5, or any number of 28/2.8s I seem to have to cover the wide end, and keep either the 85/1.8 or 100/2.0 (of course that will depend if i'm shooing crop or FFFilm)

Aren't interchangeable lenses great?


----------



## wickidwombat (Oct 8, 2012)

My current Non L Unholy trinity

20mm Voigtlander color skopar f3.5 SLII
40mm Canon f2.8 Pancake
85mm Sigma f1.4

I basically carry these everywhere with my 5Dmk3

however I am eagerly awaiting the new sigma 35 f1.4 which will most likely replace the 40mm pancake in this trinity

I also have the 50mm sigma f1.4 which is really good too but much bigger than the shorty forty.
The 20mm and 40mm both take 52mm filters so they can share, and i have CPL, 10stop ND and IR filters in 52mm which stay in the bag with these guys.


----------



## spinworkxroy (Oct 8, 2012)

The question is not which lens to buy but which focal length you really need?
Granted, having the trinity L lense is alwasys a dream of almost everyone but i also know not everyone has the budget for it so it's good know know which focal length is the mostly used for yourself then you can make a better decision.

For myself, although many people swear by a 50mm lens, i actually find that my LEAST most used lens.
THe most used one is the 85 f1.8 because of what i shoot.
And when i'm out and about just shooting for fun, i usually use the 24-105 or 17-40. I almost never use the 50mm.


----------



## wayno (Oct 8, 2012)

As far as IQ relative to cost goes, the Trinity would surely be:
50 1.4
85 1.8
100 macro non L
?


----------



## ciao_chao (Oct 8, 2012)

Personally, I quite enjoy using the 28/85 combo. The 28 is a lovely length, and I do like the fastness of it, so it's not the best optically, but it's good. While I'll accept 85/1.8 is an ancient lens, it's a good one mainly because I find the 100mm length a bit neither here nor there.

Well, as to 135mm replacements, I have a CZJ Sonnar f3.5, now it's totally different to the f2L but it has some of that Zeiss magic that a lot of people talk about, and while I know many of you will be dubious, but so was I until I actually used it, and no it's not expensive either.


----------



## dgan1 (Oct 8, 2012)

Dont know about the perfect trinity but ive been quite impressed by all the non l primes ive used but the ones i own are the only ones i will comment on.

28 1.8 used at f2 and above is nice and sharp, well at least my copy is, very fast focussing too. Great "street" lens. 

50 2.5 macro. Not a true macro, but focusses close, produces nice smooth out of focus areas, is razor sharp and very cheap, i got mine for $150 (considering its performance) second hand. But it does have possibly the slowest/hunting auto focus of any lens i have used, but i still love it as the image quality is just fantastic.

100 2.8 (non L) macro great lens sharp and i doubt you would notice any difference between it and the L macro (apart from build quality and IS) Ive owned both and kept the non L. Heres a gallery of my pics using the 100 2.8 and raynox dcr250 combo the 100 2.8 on its own is sharper again http://gippslandimages.com.au/p1056430360 the jumping spider on the white bground is taken with the 50 2.5 and manual extension tubes.

Cheers
Daniel


----------



## Synomis192 (Oct 8, 2012)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> I own the 50mm f/1.4, the 85mm f/1.8, and the 35mm f/2 as part of my kit. I use both a 5D MK2 body and a Canon 60D body. I would have to say of those three lens that the 50mm f/1.4 is my least favorite. The 85mm is a well known; a great lens that produces a similar effect/result (just not as pronounced) to the 135mm f/2L.
> 
> The 35mm f/2 is an interesting lens. It is very sharp on a FF body even wide open. It produces good color. It is also buzzy in AF and can produce slightly busy bokeh for my tastes. It is also somewhat prone to purple fringing, but fortunately the latest version of Lightroom makes that a non-issue these days, and from what I understand, the MK3 deals with that in body. But one of its biggest plusses (besides a great focal length) is that is has great delineation. You can have more in the frame but yet very nice separation of your subject from the background. It also focuses much closer than the other two lens.
> 
> I wish that Canon would revisit the lens and update it with USM and perhaps a little smoother transition to ooF areas. Of course, with Canon's revised pricing it would probably cost $800. Right now it is a bargain. Light. Sharp. An easy lens to throw in the pocket and as is sharper than either my 17-40mm f/4L or 24-105mm f/4L IS by f/2.8. This shot was taken this week, wide open, with the 35mm f/2. There is some small processing in Lightroom 4, but more to do with color/saturation than any kind of sharpness.



I was thinking about getting that combo too, but I feel like if I get the 35/50/85 I'll be missing some stuff on the wider end of the spectrum. Especially since I'm on an APS-C sensor right now. I'd probably have to pick up a Rokinon 14mm and add it to that collection. Thanks for giving your input about the 35mm f/2 though. I was always so curious about that little guy. He seems so promising, but some people don't like the lens at all for some reason. I'm just glad that Canon hasn't made a 35mm f/2.8 IS. That would just break the bank. They might as well just make an 85mm f/2.8 IS haha.



spinworkxroy said:


> The question is not which lens to buy but which focal length you really need?
> Granted, having the trinity L lense is alwasys a dream of almost everyone but i also know not everyone has the budget for it so it's good know know which focal length is the mostly used for yourself then you can make a better decision.
> 
> For myself, although many people swear by a 50mm lens, i actually find that my LEAST most used lens.
> ...



I understand what you mean about the whole focal length situation. My problem is that I have extreme days where I have my kit lens stuck at 18mm and I shot wide, or I have some days (like at the moment) where I slap on my 55-250 and keep it on. I don't know what my favorite focal lenght is so I'm just trying to decided what kind of "trinity" of primes I should build my collection from. Lightroom said that my most used focal lengths are 18mm, 28mm, 55mm. So should I try to build a collection from that data?



dr croubie said:


> I've got the Samyang 35/1.4, 40/2.8 Pancake, Takumar 50/1.4, EF 50/1.8 II, FL 55/1.2, EF 85/1.8, EF 100/2.0.
> 
> Pick any of those and you've got your 'unholy non-L trinity' (my best suggestion would be the Samyang 35, FL55/1.2, EF 100/2.0, that's generally what's in my bag if there's only space for 3).
> Lack of AF at the wider ends really doesn't bother me, there's always Live View and Katz Eye screens...
> ...



Yes, interchangeable lenses are amazing.  My problem about getting Rokinon/FL mount lenses is that I'll be "upgrading" so to speak to a Canon 5Dc. My live view capabilties are going to go bye bye haha. I don't use live view anyways. It's a hassle and I like having quick AF.



CharlieB said:


> I've got the 28/1.8, and have tested it against the 24-105L at 28mm and F/4.0. The 28/1.8 is much better than the 24-105L at F/4.0. And, you can let things suffer a little, and open it up 2-1/3 more stops if need be.
> 
> If I had three, and only three CANON lenses to pick... whew... tough choice.
> 
> ...



I like that combo suggestion, interesting that you throw the 20mm into the fray. I've been thinking about purchasing that lens once I got FF because it seems like it'd be a good wide angle when I need it. A lot if people say that it performs well on a FF body.


----------



## Sitting Elf (Oct 8, 2012)

My trio + 1
These are the only non L Primes I have. Don't use them much, but occasional for walk-around.

15mm Fisheye
40mm 2.8 Pancake
50mm 1.8 Nifty Fifty
85mm 1.8 (Needs a nickname ;D )

I also have one additional non-L... but it's a specialty lens
MP-E 65mm 1-5X Macro

All the rest are "L's"


----------



## robbymack (Oct 9, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> the 100mm f2 is better then the 85mm f1.8.
> 
> i don´t know why everyone recommends the 85mm.
> the purple fringing of that lens, even when fixable in post, is annoying.



It's not that bad if you stay away from high contrast areas and dont shoot wide open. plus the 100 f2 suffers much the same plight as its essentially exactly the same lens just 15mm longer. In any case I think the reason it gets recommended is two fold. First price, relatively cheap. Second it's a good fl on both crop and ff. on crop 100mm could get a little long, and on ff you're probably more likely to buy the 135L than a 100.


----------



## Synomis192 (Oct 9, 2012)

robbymack said:


> It's not that bad if you stay away from high contrast areas and dont shoot wide open. plus the 100 f2 suffers much the same plight as its essentially exactly the same lens just 15mm longer. In any case I think the reason it gets recommended is two fold. First price, relatively cheap. Second it's a good fl on both crop and ff. on crop 100mm could get a little long, and on ff you're probably more likely to buy the 135L than a 100.



So what you're saying is that if I'm really considering getting a 100mm f/2, I'd be better off getting an 85mm f/1.8 and the 135mm f/2L? If that's the case, I think I'll try that combo one day when I'm older and more wiser about photography. (and when my budget allows some guilt less spending haha)



Sitting Elf said:


> My trio + 1
> These are the only non L Primes I have. Don't use them much, but occasional for walk-around.
> 
> 15mm Fisheye
> ...



What is the MP-E 65mm? Is that strictly a macro lens that is super special? haha

and for the nickname of the 85mm. How about the Sassy Glass? Seeing that DXOmarks show that the 85mm f/1.8 is one of the best canon prime lenses to have that's not an L glass? I dunno. It's 2:00am here. I need sleep. x]


----------



## verysimplejason (Oct 9, 2012)

MP-E 65mm is the ultimate non-custom macro lens that exists in this known world.


----------



## ecka (Oct 9, 2012)

For FF:
EF 40/2.8 STM
EF 85/1.8 USM
Σ 150/2.8 HSM Macro

For crop:
EF 28/1.8 USM or Σ 30/1.4 HSM
Σ 50/1.4 HSM
EF 100/2.8USM Macro


----------



## Synomis192 (Oct 10, 2012)

ecka said:


> For FF:
> EF 40/2.8 STM
> EF 85/1.8 USM
> Σ 150/2.8 HSM Macro
> ...



So, I'm guessing that you aren't recommending any prime wide angles on a FF camera because they suck haha. I'd be better off getting an ultra-wide variable zoom (ex. 17-40mm or 12-24mm) and a collection of primes?


----------



## ecka (Oct 10, 2012)

Synomis192 said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > For FF:
> ...



That's not the case. I'd recommend Samyang 14/2.8UMC for FF, but we are talking about the trinity, which means 3 lenses, not 4 
For crop - yes, get the zoom


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 10, 2012)

my current non-L EF prime trinity is
EF 40/2.8 pancake ... super compact, great IQ, not so great AF 
EF 50/1.4 ... and still waiting for a really great Mk. II 
EF 100/2.0 ... simply an amazing lens 

I wish there was a great and affordable 20/2.8 ... dont need IS and high price, just great image quality.


----------



## AdamJ (Oct 11, 2012)

I believe I first used the 'unholy trinity' tag in relation to non-L primes so I'm claiming the right to define them. 

Actually, they define themselves as the poor man's holy trinity (35L, 50L, 85L), namely the 28mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8. They share the same mid-range external design theme and build quality, thus the cohesion to justify the 'trinity' description. 

Please let this be agreed because it will give me small sense of achievement on this forum, which I badly need. :-[ ;D


----------



## dr croubie (Oct 11, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> EF 100/2.0 ... simply an amazing lens



Damn straight


----------



## grey4 (Oct 11, 2012)

I'm currently using an unholy trinity with my 7d. 

20mm f/2.8
50mm f/1.4
85mm f/1.8

The USM AF on the 7d is excellent. It's not a huge hit on the wallet either.


----------



## Synomis192 (Oct 11, 2012)

grey4 said:


> I'm currently using an unholy trinity with my 7d.
> 
> 20mm f/2.8
> 50mm f/1.4
> ...



ooooh, how well does the 20mm perform on your 7D? I'm pretty interested in that lens haha


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Oct 12, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> the 100mm f2 is better then the 85mm f1.8.
> 
> i don´t know why everyone recommends the 85mm.
> the purple fringing of that lens, even when fixable in post, is annoying.



I have both of these lenses and found something interesting when I was doing focus calibration with my new 5D Mark III.

Both have substantial and virtually identical color fringing just in front of the point of focus. This is at the center, not in the corners. 

I plan to do more testing when I have time. I did not use these lenses much with my 5D classic, since the autofocus system wasn't accurate enough to use them wide open. The Mark III is a huge improvement in focus accuracy and I am really looking forward to playing around with these two primes.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 12, 2012)

drmikeinpdx said:


> Both have substantial and virtually identical color fringing just in front of the point of focus. This is at the center, not in the corners.



That's longitudinal CA. Lateral CA occurs at the edges, longitudinal CA anywhere in the frame. Pretty much all fast primes have it, to some degree.


----------



## crasher8 (Oct 12, 2012)

How's the CA on the 100 2.8 macro? Negligible? I have one on the way and it will be my main macro lens but double as a portrait too.


----------



## peederj (Oct 14, 2012)

The 50/1.4 and 100/2.8 Macro are my picks for non-L primes in the Canon lineup. I ended up liking the 40 shorty a lot and have it as my body cap and shoot more with it than I should. On the wide end, potentially the new 24 or 28 IS versions are good, but I haven't tried them. I have the Zeiss 25/2 in that range, which makes sense as I do a lot of video. With stills I am usually using zooms (Canon 16-35 II, 10-22) on the wide end, fast apertures aren't so very crucial there but proper framing is (want to maximize resolution).


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 14, 2012)

Synomis192 said:


> I've always heard photographers that praise a photographer for collecting either a 35/50/85 or 24/50/135 lens collection. Those are really really great lens and I've only got to spend 30 minutes with a 50 f/1.2 and I ultimately fell in love with it.
> 
> Is there a non-L prime trinity out there that offers the best images?
> 
> Like this is what I'm thinking, if I were to get the non-L versions of the 35/50/135 lens is that a good enough prime collection?



As the owner of the 24/50/135L prime trinity, I can say its the most practical setup I've ever used.

But if you don't have the cash, I would do this setup

5Dc

28mm 1.8
50mm 1.4
100mm F/2

I can do 90% of all my work with those 3 lenses.


----------



## Synomis192 (Oct 14, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> As the owner of the 24/50/135L prime trinity, I can say its the most practical setup I've ever used.
> 
> But if you don't have the cash, I would do this setup
> 
> ...



Thanks for the suggestion, I'll just start saving now to reach a combo that is worthy of being unholy haha. Is the jump from 50mm to 100mm going to make me miss some shots?


----------



## joshmurrah (Oct 15, 2012)

So question for the experts here... 

I see the 100mm f/2 get recommended over the 85 1.8 a lot.

Why (with a limited budget keeping you out of the L lenses) would you have this lens over the non-L 100 macro?

Does it come down to the larger-than f/2.8, and faster (I'm guessing here) focus, versus having the macro capability?

Seems like if you needed macro, you'd do maybe the 85 plus the 100 macro.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 15, 2012)

joshmurrah said:


> I see the 100mm f/2 get recommended over the 85 1.8 a lot.
> Why (with a limited budget keeping you out of the L lenses) would you have this lens over the non-L 100 macro?
> Does it come down to the larger-than f/2.8, and faster (I'm guessing here) focus, versus having the macro capability?
> Seems like if you needed macro, you'd do maybe the 85 plus the 100 macro.



if you need a macro.. you need a macro - yes. The 100/2.0 is a different beast .. i love it for street, concerts and some events, and occasionally for indoor sports. It is 1 full stop faster than the 100 Macro Non IS, has more background blur - especially on APS-C - and the AF is way faster. I would not want to exchange it for the non-IS 100 Macro.

And for me 85mm and 100mm are too close to bother having both focal lengths in primes. 

However, I have been toying with the idea to sell both my EF-S 60 Macro and the 100/2.0 ... to get the 100/2.8 Macro L IS ... only 1 lens, FF capable, IS ... but then, I need f/2.0 miore than IS, becaus my subjects are often not static but in motion and in rather low light.


----------



## KyleSTL (Oct 15, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Synomis192 said:
> 
> 
> > I've always heard photographers that praise a photographer for collecting either a 35/50/85 or 24/50/135 lens collection.
> ...


I always thought it was 24-50-85 for the Holy Trinity. In reality, any three of 24, 35, 50, 85, 135 could be considered, IMO.

I like the idea of 28 f/1.8, 50 f/1.4, and 100 f/2. I like my 35 f/2, but IQ is not nearly as good as the 50 I, or 85. Additionally, focusing is a joke compared to the 85 (similar speed to 50 I). I had the 28 2.8 for a while, and it's focusing speed was surprizingly fast for non-USM (likely due to the really short travel of MFD->inf) and noticably quicker than the 35 2.

I think 20 f/2.8, 35 f/2 (EDIT: or 40mm f/2.8 STM) and 85 f/1.8 could be a good set as well. I would not count the 24 and 28 IS lenses in with the unholy trinity, due to their near-L cost (even if their IQ is up there with current L lenses).


----------



## joshmurrah (Oct 15, 2012)

I thought I'd also put in my 2c here, and say that I believe the "holy trinity" of lenses for cheaper non-L lenses, would be the 28 f/1.8, 50 f/1.4 and 85/1.8... these three lenses have the largest apertures and cheapest prices, while still having USM "full time manual" focus features. I could easily see the 100 f/2.0 being substitued also.

Choice and differing opinions are what keeps our lives interesting, I'm glad to see all the discussion that's happening.

Oh, and "AvTvM" that's a great forum name, took me a few minutes to catch that!


----------



## sawsedge (Oct 15, 2012)

The 100mm f/2.8 USM macro is a fantastic lens. I can't see myself giving it up... great macros and landscapes. However, it is very slow focusing, and sometimes struggles to focus at all in low light. It definitely can't keep up with my kids when they run around. For portraits, I plan to pick up an 85 f/1.8 or the 100 f/2. 

I have the 50mm f/1.4. Great lens overall. 

I'm still trying to decide what to do for a wide. I've considered the Samyang 14mm, Canon 20 or 24 f/2.8, Olympus 21mm, Nikon AI-S 20 or 24, or the Voigtlander 20mm. In the end, I feel probably the 17-40 has a better bang-for-buck than any of the primes. Of course that will mess up the trinity thing and ends up being somewhat larger...


----------



## crasher8 (Oct 15, 2012)

*Here's my sacrilegious prime factors*

40 Pancake
(missing lens)
100 2.8 Macro

or is it…


(missing lens)
40 Pancake
100 2.8 Macro

??????????


----------



## ecka (Oct 16, 2012)

*Re: Here's my sacrilegious prime factors*



crasher8 said:


> 40 Pancake
> (missing lens)
> 100 2.8 Macro
> 
> ...



It depends on sensor size. You need something wider than 40mm for APS-C.


----------



## crasher8 (Oct 16, 2012)

*Re: Here's my sacrilegious prime factors*



ecka said:


> crasher8 said:
> 
> 
> > 40 Pancake
> ...



FF (5D3)


----------



## ecka (Oct 16, 2012)

*Re: Here's my sacrilegious prime factors*



crasher8 said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > crasher8 said:
> ...



40mm is pretty close to 35mm, but I don't think that I'd need another must-have prime between 40mm and 100mm for the trinity, which is 35~50 / 70~100 / 135~200.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 16, 2012)

*Re: Here's my sacrilegious prime factors*



crasher8 said:


> > > (missing lens)
> > > 40 Pancake
> > > 100 2.8 Macro
> >
> ...



I would want something wider. Problem is, Canon has not a single really good Non-L prime wideangle lens, except the new 24/2.8 IS and 28/2.8 IS. And even these two expensive beasts aber not better IQ-wise than the new 24-70 II. 

That's why I often take along my 17-55 plus 100/2.0 ...


----------



## crasher8 (Oct 16, 2012)

I'd consider the Sigma 28 1.8 to complete the 

blank
pancake
100 Macro

It is hellofva lot sharper center and corner wise than the Canon counterpart and built a lot better as well but the back/front focusing hassles and sending it back funtimes are not something I look forward to. If I knew I would get a good copy then it would be a no brainer.


----------

