# Revenge of the Primes



## FunPhotons (Nov 12, 2012)

When I was putting my kit together a few years ago (5DMKII, 70-200/2.8II, 24-105, 8-16, 16-35) I beat around the bush for awhile trying to get a good range of focal lengths with primes. For whatever reason I like the simplicity of a few good primes and in the old days I enjoyed my AE-1 immensely with its 35mm and 50mm lenses. But now in the electronic age it seems Canon was letting their primes languish with only these really old designs. So I bought the zooms.

But now Canon seems to be coming out with a refreshed line of high IQ primes, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 40mm and a rumored 50mm. All of them with similar high quality (and price). If I knew they were coming out with a 20mm (my favorite) that would cinch it. 

Thoughts on ditching my present collection for a set of primes? I'd probably keep the 70-200mm/2.8.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 12, 2012)

24L - 50L - 135L were my choice. Very expensive and took time to get but well worth it. 

Or

28mm 1.8 - 50mm 1.4 - 100mm f/2. Much more reasonable setup.


----------



## insanitybeard (Nov 12, 2012)

I suppose the 3 new primes (24, 28 and 35) replaced designs which were even older than the 20 2.8 which at least had USM, but maybe it's due an upgrade somewhere down the line. I must admit I am finding some of the new non-L primes tempting. Price is a bit steep at the moment but given a bit of time to drop, I can see me going for at least one of them!


----------



## Random Orbits (Nov 12, 2012)

Depends on whether or not you need IS. The non-L 24 and 28 are f/2.8 and the 35 is f/2. Those 3 lenses would cost more (and take more space) than the 24-70 II, and their IQs are not better than the new zoom. If given that choice, I'd pick the 24-70 II and pick up a high speed prime at the desired focal length.


----------



## FunPhotons (Nov 12, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> The non-L 24 and 28 are f/2.8 and the 35 is f/2. Those 3 lenses would cost more (and take more space) than the 24-70 II, and their IQs are not better than the new zoom.



Good point. Any idea how they compare to the 24-105?


----------



## Daniel Flather (Nov 12, 2012)

Daniel Flather said:


> ef 14-24mm f2.8L
> ef 20mm f1.8L


+1
+1


----------



## Random Orbits (Nov 12, 2012)

FunPhotons said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > The non-L 24 and 28 are f/2.8 and the 35 is f/2. Those 3 lenses would cost more (and take more space) than the 24-70 II, and their IQs are not better than the new zoom.
> ...



According to TDP, the 24 and 28 IS primes are better than the 24-105. They're about the same in the center, but the primes do much better mid-frame and at the corners.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=788&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=355&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=789&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=355&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 12, 2012)

Its likely that the 24-85 range of primes use the same or very similar optical formula. the 24 might not. A ultra wide like 20mm is going to be difficult to make, so Canon will look at potential sales volume versus the amount of money they can charge. I suspect the sales volume will be low, so the price would be high. Can they charge $900 for a 20mm f/4 or $1500 for a f/2.8?


----------



## tron (Nov 12, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Can they charge $900 for a 20mm f/4 or $1500 for a f/2.8?


No, but that doesn't mean they won't if they ever make these lenses !


----------



## bakker (Nov 12, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> 24L - 50L - 135L were my choice. Very expensive and took time to get but well worth it.
> 
> Or
> 
> 28mm 1.8 - 50mm 1.4 - 100mm f/2. Much more reasonable setup.



That's what I've got: 28mm 1.8 - 50mm 1.8 - 100mm f/2. All nice lenses, the 100 is great for sports. Although I have to say I never use the 28 anymore since I got the 17-40 a few months ago. 

Usually I switch between the 17-40 and the 50. Since I've got the cheapy 1.8 this new rumored 50 sounds very interesting to me!

But to answer your question: if you do a lot of landscape/wide-angle then I wouldn't go for primes. The comfort of being able to zoom beats shallower DOF.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 12, 2012)

bakker said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > 24L - 50L - 135L were my choice. Very expensive and took time to get but well worth it.
> ...



I do hope your not excluding the 17mm & 24mm T&S.


----------



## wickidwombat (Nov 12, 2012)

I too would be super excited about a fast aperture 20mm L


----------



## tron (Nov 13, 2012)

bakker said:


> if you do a lot of landscape/wide-angle then I wouldn't go for primes. The comfort of being able to zoom beats shallower DOF.


The zoom cannot beat the quality at the edges though. Zoom lenses are worse.


----------



## insanitybeard (Nov 13, 2012)

tron said:


> bakker said:
> 
> 
> > if you do a lot of landscape/wide-angle then I wouldn't go for primes. The comfort of being able to zoom beats shallower DOF.
> ...



Having the said that, in the case of some of the older primes like the 28 1.8 and 20 2.8 the corner performance isn't really any better (and in some cases worse) than the zooms. I considered getting the 28 1.8 as a fast standard prime for a crop camera but was put off for that reason.


----------



## tron (Nov 13, 2012)

insanitybeard said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > bakker said:
> ...


In an attempt to compare apples to apples I do not think that 28 1.8 is a good example. I mean the comparison must be between L lenses and L zooms or non-L lenses and non-L zooms


----------



## insanitybeard (Nov 13, 2012)

tron said:


> insanitybeard said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



Very true..... mind you, the non-L full frame zooms are getting a bit thin on the ground these days!


----------

