# "Walkaround" prime for FF?



## lexonio (Mar 10, 2012)

I'm upgrading to the 5dmkIII soon, and I have never used any FF cameras before. I already have the 24-105mm for general walkaround stuff, but I sure do need some prime for more creative shots with shallower DoF and a nice bokeh, not to mention low light situations. Which fixed lens would you recommend for walkaround purposes? I have heard that 50mm lenses fill that niche, but I'm interested in the opinion of CR's community.

Thank you!


----------



## Tijn (Mar 10, 2012)

50mm is great and versatile on full-frame. The Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 is a very good value lens. Build quality is decent enough, full-time manual focus adjustments are enabled... Very sharp from f/2 onwards, and gives a slightly "dreamy" look at its widest aperture. It may actually appeal to you!


----------



## Jim K (Mar 10, 2012)

Ask some old person (like me) what lens did they want/buy when they got a new 35mm film body (that's Full Frame)? 

Probably 49 out of 50 will say the *50mm f/1.4*. It was considered to be the "Normal" lens focal length and everyone wanted the 1.4 rather than the 1.8/1.9/2.0 that was offered at a lower price.

It's still the best "walk around" "prime."


----------



## pz-photography (Mar 10, 2012)

I'd go for the Sigma 1.4 rather than the canon 1.4. Its clearly better in terms of sharpness and bokeh! I have also now the 50 1.2, but its not as sharp as the sigma. The reason why I bought it is the even better bokeh and the weather sealing. so my personal rating for good walkaround primes is: 50 1.8, 50 1.4 canon, 50 1.4 sigma, (35 1.4, both on crop or full frame if you like a wider angle) and last the 50 1.2, I have the 3 last I meantioned and I'm really happy, although my sigma has to go now....


----------



## elflord (Mar 10, 2012)

lexonio said:


> I'm upgrading to the 5dmkIII soon, and I have never used any FF cameras before. I already have the 24-105mm for general walkaround stuff, but I sure do need some prime for more creative shots with shallower DoF and a nice bokeh, not to mention low light situations. Which fixed lens would you recommend for walkaround purposes? I have heard that 50mm lenses fill that niche, but I'm interested in the opinion of CR's community.
> 
> Thank you!



The 50mm focal length is very versatile -- so if you want to glue a prime to your camera and photograph several different types of subject matter, that's a nice go-to lens. I'd recommend getting a 50mm f/1.4. Besides being very versatile, it's great in low light because being a shorter lens it only needs about 1/50s shutter speed, and at f/1.4 it usually can get it (especially on a full frame body which can handle high ISOs gracefully) 

You could also consider 35mm or 85mm lenses. If you're always using the 24-105 lens at 24mm on your APS-C, then 35mm might be a good fit. If it looks like you're using the mid to long part of the range (50-105mm), an 85mm might be a better fit.


----------



## ew20 (Mar 10, 2012)

I used the 50/1.4 for a long time, it's a great lens and for the price you can't go wrong with it. I'm finding my ZE 35/2.0 is ending up on my body most of the time now, It's a lot more versatile. It costs more than the 50, but is razor sharp with nice bokeh and a unique draw style. I prefer it to the 35L, and it's quite a bit cheaper than that one to boot.


----------



## chito (Mar 10, 2012)

ew20 said:


> I used the 50/1.4 for a long time, it's a great lens and for the price you can't go wrong with it. I'm finding my ZE 35/2.0 is ending up on my body most of the time now, It's a lot more versatile. It costs more than the 50, but is razor sharp with nice bokeh and a unique draw style. I prefer it to the 35L, and it's quite a bit cheaper than that one to boot.



Yeah, except it is manual focus only, and the 5D3 doesn't have interchangable focus screens.


----------



## dr croubie (Mar 10, 2012)

I'd suggest the FL 55 f/1.2 with an EdMika adapter, probably $3-400 all up, but it doesn't work on a 5D2, but does work on the 1Ds-series. Remains to be seen if it'll work on the 5D3 or 1DX.

My Asahi Pentax Takumar 50 f/1.4 is also a great fast normal prime, $100 or less shipped, they're fairly common. Great colours and sharp as all hell after f/2.

But both of them are MF-only, and the 5D3 doesn't have changeable focussing screens. If you're shooting street you can always f/8 and Hyperfocal, set it to M on 1/100 or so and auto-iso, the 5D3 looks clean up to iso 6k or so, you should get great images that way.


Or with Autofocuses, it's the Nifty Fifty f/1.8 II or 50 f/1.4, the 1.8 is sharp stopped down but built like a toy, the 1.4 is badly in need of an upgrade which should happen this year (which we've all been saying for the last 5 years). Never used the Sigmas, from what I hear they're sharper than the canons, but the autofocus is iffy...


----------



## dr croubie (Mar 10, 2012)

chito said:


> Yeah, except it is manual focus only, and the 5D3 doesn't have interchangable focus screens.



There's always live-view, 5x or 10x focussing if your subject is still enough.
f/8 hyperfocal for street doesn't need a focussing screen, or even a viewfinder.
Or just wait until KatzEye makes a split-prism screen for it, won't be too many months after release.

All depends on shooting style, MF is good for street, kids running around you'll need the best AF you can get...


----------



## codewizpt (Mar 11, 2012)

I use the 35mm f2 sometimes as walkaround. Very small. The 50mm f1.4 has better quality, but in small arresta isn't wide enough


----------



## Michael_pfh (Mar 11, 2012)

I recommend the Canon 50mm f1.2L.


----------



## 00Q (Mar 11, 2012)

The 50 1.4 as people have said. The sigma is a better lens than the canon equivalent.


----------



## Leopard Lupus (Mar 11, 2012)

For FF I (as many others do) prefer the 50mm focal length. For me, it's the "classical" choice because it is so versatile and what was attached to my first 35mm film setup. It gives a very natural view which is just a tad longer than what the human eye sees. The Canon 50mm f/1.4 is great, but because I wanted a unique 50 and didn't mind manually focusing, I bought the Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 and fell in love with the beast. Solid and killer IQ. My 50s remain on my bodies 90% of the time.
Another walk-around option would be a 35mm lens. I love the Canon 35mm f/1.4 L, even though it's a little large. It gives just a bit wider of a view but still allows versatility.


----------



## Caps18 (Mar 11, 2012)

If I only had 1 prime lens, it would be the 24mm.


----------



## Michael_pfh (Mar 11, 2012)

Caps18 said:


> If I only had 1 prime lens, it would be the 24mm.



Why would you pick the 24mm?


----------



## CanineCandidsByL (Mar 11, 2012)

50's are good lens from starter to expert. f1.8 are cheap, f1.4 very reasonable.

If you can take a survey of your existing photos and can figure out what focal length you normally shoot at, it might help you determine where the best area to look at a prime. I did this and found that on my 7D, I tended to shoot about 25% between 24 and 28, 60% between 65 and 70, and the remaining 15% in the middle. So doing this exercise, and accounting for the crop factor, I'd be better off with an 85mm.

If you do the same kind of check, you may find your similar or tend to shoot wide or do go right in the middle.

Hope it helps.


----------



## Dave T (Mar 11, 2012)

As far back as the 1970s, with 35mm, I preferred a 35mm as my "normal" lens to any 50mm. Today that would mean the 35/1.4 or wait for later in the year when CR says the 35/1.4L II will be introduced. That's what I'm waiting for.

Dave


----------



## dbduchene (Mar 11, 2012)

As to my prime I tend you use my 85 F1.2 the most. That said it is heavy. Most of the time I do not use a prime as a walk around. depending on what I am doing most of the time it is the 28-300 L.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Mar 11, 2012)

I love using my 50mm lens or even the 85 on my 5D for portraits, but for walking around, I think a wider lens would be better. With modern full frame DSLRs, you can do so much cropping that is is almost like having a zoom lens. 

The combat photographer Michael Yon used a wide prime on his 1Ds instead of a zoom, because he found that he could crop down to the image he wanted. It saved him from carrying the extra weight and bulk of an L series zoom.

A 28mm lens seems a bit wide to me, since the perspective is so easily distorted. 35mm would be good.

I've been reading reports that Canon is coming out with a low priced 40mm prime soon. I believe it is supposed to be an F2.8 pancake (flat/short) lens that would be very lightweight and easy to carry around at Disneyland.

One thing I laugh at are the tourists who carry their full size DSLRs with huge zoom lenses as they walk around at theme parks and other touristy places. I know how much that combination weighs and it doesn't get any lighter after a couple of hours of walking around. A pancake lens might help you have more fun at the park instead of feeling like a beast of burden.

Mike


----------



## DJL329 (Mar 11, 2012)

lexonio said:


> I'm upgrading to the 5dmkIII soon, and I have never used any FF cameras before. I already have the 24-105mm for general walkaround stuff, but I sure do need some prime for more creative shots with shallower DoF and a nice bokeh, not to mention low light situations. Which fixed lens would you recommend for walkaround purposes? I have heard that 50mm lenses fill that niche, but I'm interested in the opinion of CR's community.
> 
> Thank you!



Why not review some of your own favorite shots to see _approximately_ which focal length (within 10-15mm or so) you use most and then choose a lens in that range? Just remember to convert the focal length to account for the 1.6x crop factor for shots taken with an EF lens (not EF-S ones), such as your EF 24-105mm.

For example, when using your crop body and your EF 24-105mm lens, let's say a lot of your best shots are _around_ 50mm (45mm to 55mm). This would mean they were actually _around_ 80mm (50mm x 1.6 = 80mm). So in this example, an 85mm lens on a FF body might suit you best.


----------



## pwp (Mar 11, 2012)

It's an impossible question to answer because everyone has a subtley different shooting style. Lot's pf people have suggested to 50 f/1.4. Whether Canon or Sigma, they both great lenses. Bear in mind that the Sigma is much bigger and heavier than the Canon 50 f/1.4 which may be a consideration for a walkabout.

One way to find the answer to your question is to spend half an hour polling the exif data on your existing shots you've done with your 24-105 f/4is. For example if the greatest percentage of shots are done at the wide end, then your answer is you'd need a 24mm prime. If your budget allows, the 24mmL f/1.4II is unbelievable, and a lot of shooters favourite lens. If most shots are up at 105 then check out the 85 f/1.8 or f/1.2L or the stunningly good EF 100mm f/2.8L M.

You get the idea.

Then of course there is the rumored EF 40 f/2.8 Pancake lens that was discussed on CR on Feb 22. Lots of choices! Just a matter of making the one that's best for you.

Paul Wright


----------



## Mark1 (Mar 11, 2012)

I have the 24-105 F4L and it's a fabulous all rounder but as far as primes go you can't beat the Canon 50mm f1.4 on a 5D2. I use it frequently for indoor stuff with the kids and you can easily take it out for day trips etc and not struggle atall with the range. 

50mm range is a no-brainer in my view. If you go for a 24mm or 35mm on a full frame you can't really say you have a 'walkaround prime' as they're quite wide. Which one you go for may be down to budget but I can tell you that the Canon 1.4 on a 5d2 is a dream to walk around with and hold as it's very light yet still balanced. Also you can keep the hood on permanently which protects the extending front barrell and it's still shorter than the 24-105mm.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 11, 2012)

For a prime walkabout on a ff it would be either the 85 f/1.8 or the 135 f/2.

For street then the 135 f/2 or even the 200 f/2.8 as it is better to be further away than closer


----------



## lexonio (Mar 11, 2012)

Thank you everyone for your replies. Since I asked this question I got 2 smites for no apparent reason - I have no idea how does this system work.

As for 50mm, I currently do have the Sigma lens, and its autofocus bothers me to no end. Thank you for advising me to work with my EXIF data, I will devote some time to this specific task. But in the end I'll be interested to see that rumored 40mm pancake, thanks for bringing that up.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 12, 2012)

lexonio said:


> As for 50mm, I currently do have the Sigma lens, and its autofocus bothers me to no end. Thank you for advising me to work with my EXIF data, I will devote some time to this specific task. But in the end I'll be interested to see that rumored 40mm pancake, thanks for bringing that up.


I like the canon 50 f1.4 i will usually stop it down to f2 unless I am going for maximum blur and bokeh
even wide open its not to bad, a bit softer but i find it a really nice all round lens
I am looking forward to an update to make it compete with the Nikon 50 f1.4G lens
I have been hoping for a L build similar to the 100 f2.8 macro that is considerably cheaper than the f1.2
and hope the size stays quite compact as the compact size is one of the major benfits


----------



## Hillsilly (Mar 12, 2012)

I'd go for either an 85, 100, or 135mm. The 135 would be an interesting choice. Its slightly longer than your regular lens and therefore you're not doubling up. It would be ideal for isolating detail. Its a couple of stops faster, which would be good in low light photos where there's a bit of movement. Great bokeh and narrow depth of field. Also very sharp wide open. Its a fun lens to have.


----------



## Mark1 (Mar 12, 2012)

lexonio said:


> Since I asked this question I got 2 smites for no apparent reason - I have no idea how does this system work.



Don't worry. I got a smite just for my reply. I got 2 smites recently for starting a poll. There are some weirdos out there! Current smite was -4 before I write this but see what happens now!


----------



## mb66energy (Mar 12, 2012)

I have no definite answer - just not for myself. But ...

1) I like round about 40mm (equiv to the 24mm on a crop body) for landscape, towns, nature ...
2) I like round about 100mm (equiv to the 60mm on a crop body) for landscape, towns, nature, macro, people, architecture, etc. - for me 100mm are the standard focal length.

If I had to choose just one lens: I would go for a 100mm (macro).
If I had to choose two lenses: I would go for the f/2.0 100mm and a f/2.0 40mm pancake.
If I had to choose three lenses: The three lenses mentioned above because the f/2.0 100 doesn't attract any attention, 40 + 100mm is lightweight and compact and a macro for special tasks.

Or the bottom line: It depends on each ones photographic style which lens is "THE" walkaround lens. With my 40D I like to use just the old EF 24mm/2.8 and the EF-S 60mm/2.8
as a light, compact and very versatile walkaround set. Sometimes two 40Ds with both lenses mounted - balances the weight on left and right shoulder 

Best - Michael


----------



## Caps18 (Mar 12, 2012)

Michael_pfh said:


> Caps18 said:
> 
> 
> > If I only had 1 prime lens, it would be the 24mm.
> ...



It is wide enough to take pictures of landmarks and people. It is a compromise, I obviously picked the 16-35mm and still am ok with it over the 24 (TS or f/1.4), but I think the 24mm would still work the best for a one prime camera. 

If I were going to a national park, I would go with the 17mm or 14mm...


----------



## Legio (Mar 12, 2012)

drmikeinpdx said:


> One thing I laugh at are the tourists who carry their full size DSLRs with huge zoom lenses as they walk around at theme parks and other touristy places. I know how much that combination weighs and it doesn't get any lighter after a couple of hours of walking around. A pancake lens might help you have more fun at the park instead of feeling like a beast of burden.
> 
> Mike



I like to carry my 5D MII with a BG and a heavy lens but it's then I have the most fun on the theme parks.


----------



## Hillsilly (Mar 12, 2012)

Carrying big lenses, a tripod and a backpack full of gear is good exercise. That's why we're all fitter, stronger. healthier, better looking and more interesting than non-photographers.


----------



## tonyp (Mar 13, 2012)

I'd recommend the 35L 1.4 AMAZING LENS and tack sharp from f/2 on up


----------



## dolina (Mar 13, 2012)

35 and 50 were the street lenses of Bresson. Choose the f-number of your budget.


----------



## EOBeav (Mar 13, 2012)

Michael_pfh said:


> I recommend the Canon 50mm f1.2L.



If you've got the bucks, sure. But for my money, the difference in IQ is negligible.


----------



## ecka (Mar 13, 2012)

If there was a single best prime for everybody, then you wouldn't ask for advice, because the answer would be obvious. For me it is 35 or 50, but many are using 24, 85, 135 or even 200. Choose what is better for your style of photography.
Maybe it's just me ... but if you want to buy something and you don't know what exactly you want to buy, then perhaps you don't need it.


----------



## Michael_pfh (Mar 13, 2012)

Caps18 said:


> Michael_pfh said:
> 
> 
> > Caps18 said:
> ...



For me the 24 is too wide to be my walk around (on APS-H), die 16-35 does a much better job so if not the 50 1.2L the 35 1.4L could be a good choice...


----------

