# Advice on Canon PRIMES



## PikkieChick (Feb 8, 2015)

Hi everyone - just wanted to let you know (after the fantastic advice) that I ended up getting the 5d3 + 24-70mm f/2.8 II USM IS + 70-300mm f/4 - 5.6L IS USM + 16-35mm f2.8 Mark II USM and have travelled extensively with the 1st 2 lenses and handled it fine !

I love the sharpness of the 24-70mm and the 70-300mm has been on my camera ALOT ! Even tho the reach for Africa may have been lacking - but thats OK as I knew that would be the case !

In found in Africa I was taking so many close up people shots, esp of the kids....so cute ! Also as I previously mentioned landscapes and architecture are still on my hot list. Im thinking I now need a prime that helps me with the sharpness in some of these situations.

SO Im now looking at some PRIMES after owning my gear for a year. My range of shooting is so big, but considering that I have some good lenses at certain focal lengths Im not sure what to consider.

35/50/85/100/135 - eeek too much to consider ~ Advice would be great.


----------



## gwflauto (Feb 8, 2015)

You have the standard focal length range covered from 16 to 300 mm. With what are you unhappy? Did you ever think, something is missing?
My standard lens has always been a short tele or a portrait lens like 85/1,8. I like the shallow depth of field. Therefore I need wider open apertures, than the zooms can provide. I like my 35mm/1,4 very much. But for birding I need a longer reach, than 300mm. 

Do you need macro for close ups? The 100mm/2,8 macro L IS II is a very fine lens


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 8, 2015)

It's best to have some space so 24/50/100 or 35/85/135 are good sets. Personally I have the latter.


----------



## gigabellone (Feb 9, 2015)

PikkieChick said:


> Hi everyone - just wanted to let you know (after the fantastic advice) that I ended up getting the 5d3 + 24-70mm f/2.8 II USM IS + 70-300mm f/4 - 5.6L IS USM + 16-35mm f2.8 Mark II USM and have travelled extensively with the 1st 2 lenses and handled it fine !
> 
> I love the sharpness of the 24-70mm and the 70-300mm has been on my camera ALOT ! Even tho the reach for Africa may have been lacking - but thats OK as I knew that would be the case !
> 
> ...


For the kind of close up photos you talk about my favorite focal length is 35mm, and for this purpose i got a Sigma 35/14 Art a year ago. The lens can't stop amaze me for its sharpness, color rendition, shallow depth of field, and hefty but pleasant vignetting. Some people complain about its AF system, but i never got a single problem using it on my 6D, and it didn't even need any microadjustments. Try it, and i'm sure you'll be pleased as well. I also have a canon 85/1.8, but after buying it i discovered i don't fancy that focal length much. The Canon 100/2.8 macro can make both a great macro lens and a decent portrait lens, so it could be a good choice. For tightly framed portraits you should also consider the legendary 135/2, which was built for that purpose, but obviously lacks the macro capabilities.


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 9, 2015)

Not sure why you think primes will give you more sharpness than your current lenses, especially when shooting close up.

Sounds like a pretty blatant case of G.A.S to me


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 9, 2015)

You've got a great set of zooms, so I'd look at your needs:

35L - best for low light work, environmental portraits between f/1.4-2. Not as sharp as the 24-70 f/2.8 II
50L - also great for low light and portraits from full body to headshots. Killer bokeh, but nowhere near as sharp as the 24-70 f/2.8 II. f/1.2 is very tough to use with this lens mainly because you can't focus & recompose due to field curvature
85L II - unbelievable bokeh, killer portrait lens for all but environmental portraits (where the 24-70 f/2.8 II does quite well). Slow AF, very exposed rear element making fast lens changes perilous. 3.5+ more stops of light than your 70-300!
100L Macro - macro, if you like shooting close up - nice for headshots. Has IS!
135L - Amazing bokeh, great for low light, head shots, and if room, head & shoulders & 3/4 length portraits. takes extenders, but not sharp until stopped down 2-3 stops with them. Around 3 stops more light than the 70-300.

I don't know what you are specifically looking for, but the macro and 85L II are probably going to give you the most in terms of additional capabilities. You're likely to be disappointed with the 35 and 50 in terms of sharpness compared to the 24-70 f/2.8 II.


----------



## Rahul (Feb 9, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> Not sure why you think primes will give you more sharpness than your current lenses, especially when shooting close up.
> 
> Sounds like a pretty blatant case of G.A.S to me



+1

New age zoom lenses such as the 24-70 II and 70-200 II are so sharp that they put some of the primes to shame in the sharpness battle. The only reason I use primes over the zooms is when I need to shoot at max apertures that are not available on zooms.


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 9, 2015)

Your 24-70 II has the sharpness covered. You do not need the 24 to 70 primes for specifically those lengths to gain sharpness.

Five years ago the primes were sharper than the 24-70 I, not so today. Which makes primes even more of a specialty tool.


If you have a specialty or particular interest, name it and there will be a prime for it. Macguyver gave you a good list and explanation in his reply.

Your 16-35mm is your best 16mm, but your 24-70 II beats it at everything above 23mm. If you shoot at 16mm and need this wide I think I would like at replacing the 16-35mm with a good wide prime.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 9, 2015)

PikkieChick said:


> 35/50/85/100/135 - eeek too much to consider ~ Advice would be great.



Standard advice when in doubt: get the 100L. It doubles as a portrait and macro lens and has the most "fun factor" of them all. It also integrates nicely with your current gear, longer than your standard zoom, sharper and faster than your 100L. It's my combination, too, and I don't regret it.


----------



## PikkieChick (Feb 10, 2015)

Hi everyone - thanks for all your input. I guess I'm venturing into primes wanting to not be lazy with my zooms, be more creative and after better IQ in lower light situations, shallower DOF etc. I know I have some great lenses, but I can get some of these lenses at great prices very soon & didnt want to pass up the opporunity.

I guess I was referring more to bettering my street photography, candid people shots (more candid people shots than actual posed portraits), so possibly the 35mm and 85mm would be good options.

Ive heard that there can be issues hand holding the 135mm re sharpness, any truth to that ? Ive read that people go with the 100mm with IS instead, but is this lens primarily for macro (which I dont do a lot)

Also the 85mm 1.2 may not be worth the extra money due to bulk especially when the 1.8 performs nearly as well ?


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 10, 2015)

PikkieChick said:


> Ive heard that there can be issues hand holding the 135mm re sharpness, any truth to that ? Ive read that people go with the 100mm with IS instead, but is this lens primarily for macro (which I dont do a lot)



You might do more macro if you've got the lens as it's a lot of fun if the iq is right 

In any case, yes, as you should know from your 70-300 zoom the IS is definitely a big help even at 100mm unless you only shoot motion - but in that case the 100L's af system is rather slow and the 135L is more adequate for quick street shots from the hip. 



PikkieChick said:


> Also the 85mm 1.2 may not be worth the extra money due to bulk especially when the 1.8 performs nearly as well



The f1.8 isn't as bokehlicious as the f1.2 and the cheaper/older lens has CA (though that's mostly removable in post). Only you can say if the f1.2 is "worth it", it's one of Canon's best lenses but it's bulky, has slow af and is certainly not such good value as the 135L.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 10, 2015)

PikkieChick said:


> Ive heard that there can be issues hand holding the 135mm re sharpness, any truth to that ? Ive read that people go with the 100mm with IS instead, but is this lens primarily for macro (which I dont do a lot)
> 
> Also the 85mm 1.2 may not be worth the extra money due to bulk especially when the 1.8 performs nearly as well ?


The 135 is a killer lens and I don't ever remember having any issues hand holding it, even on a crop body. It's really discrete and the IQ wide open is excellent and at f/2.8 amazing. The 100 macro overlaps with the 70-200 f/2.8 II (for non-macro work), but since you have the 70-300, f/2.8 would be a lot faster and the IS is great, and gives you 2-3 stops advantage in low light over the 135 for still subjects.

The 85L vs. 85 f/1.8 is a very long debate - you can find many threads on it if you search. They are both fine lenses, but the 85L is really special. It's really a dedicated portrait lens, however, and not great for much else in comparison to the 1.8.


----------



## Besisika (Feb 10, 2015)

If I were you, I would wait.
If all you do is street photography (or similar staff) you have everything you need and indeed buying primes would be just GAS.
Anything on top of what you already have is a specialty lens and you should go for that once you know exactly what is it for.

Example: I am a low light shooter. Whenever flash is allowed I do not shoot below ISO 800. People are hot about high ISO - that is the case for me only when flash is not allowed and I am fully aware that it is not my choice. That is the case of sport. 
But when flash is allowed, I would shoot above ISO 800 only when existing light is flat. But as soon as contrast is high I shoot only ISO 800 and below. I shoot lifestyle and ambient becomes an important factor in my photos. I need it blurred, but I do need it clear and no noise.
All of your lenses are 2.8, for that kind of photo that is not low light enough. My go to lens is the 85 1.2, and now I am trying to incorporate the ART 35mm as all photos at 85mm becomes boring.
Standard setup is around ISO 800, 1/50th, f1.4 (max 2.0) and if needed I would drug the shutter. Subject is lit by a flash at 1/3rd stop of ambient. Sometimes that is not enough, then I would kill totally the ambient light by going to ISO 100, 1/160th and lit the ambient with other flashes.
That is just an example, your need could go in other direction: Macro, longer reach or tilt shift could be what you need.
Besides, zoom or prime, lenses are sharpest at 1 stop above it's widest aperture. If 2.8 is your thing, you better get 2.0 lens or wider, if you are a sharpness-addict.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Feb 10, 2015)

Since you want to do close up of children, it is important to have fast and accurate AF. For these types of photos, I love my 100mm F2. This has not Image Stabilizer, but it is small, light, and image quality wide open outweighs any lens in this price range.

Obviously 100mm L has Image Stabilizer, but size and price are much larger, and maximum aperture is F2.8 only.


----------



## wtlloyd (Feb 10, 2015)

As others have noted, you've got zooms that rival primes for sharpness, or as near as matters anyway. You can only cary so much glass at a time, so primes in a range you've already got covered don't make sense unless you have a specific use for a particular lens.

You're just looking for trouble, and the 24mm TS-E will fit the bill perfectly.
Tack sharp, and the uses of this manual focus PC lens will keep you challenged for some time. Highly recommended for someone who is saying "what's next?".


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 10, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> PikkieChick said:
> 
> 
> > 35/50/85/100/135 - eeek too much to consider ~ Advice would be great.
> ...



+1.

That's all you are missing, unless you want super wide.


----------



## bholliman (Feb 10, 2015)

The question you need to ask is what a prime can give you that your zooms can't. You have every focal length between 16mm and 300mm covered, so primes in this range need to provide something your zooms can't to be worth owning. You own some terrific zooms that are razor sharp. Unless you are looking at a Zeiss Otus, you are not going to improve sharpness with a prime.

I own 2 of the 3 same zoom lenses you have (only different on the long end, I have the 70-200 2.8 II instead of the 70-300L). I own the following primes for the reasons listed:

35/2 IS - Smaller, lighter and 1-stop faster than my 24-70/2.8 II. The f/2 aperture and IS allow hand-held shots in really low light that are not possible without a tripod using my standard zoom.

100L Macro - Macro capability and a nice portrait lens. I often pair it with my 24-70 or 35mm for day trips. This is one of my most used lenses and as Marsu42 mentioned has a great fun factor.

135/2 - Awesome head shot or head/shoulders portrait lens. Also great for indoor sports, sharp and super fast AF. Incredible bokeh wide open. Worth owning in addition to my 70-200 2.8 due to its compact size, inconspicuous black color and extra stop of light.

I'm looking to add a 50mm prime. At this point I'm strongly considering a Sigma 50mm ART. I rented one for a week over the holidays and loved it. The only thing I don't like about it is that it's almost as large and heavy as my 24-70. I suppose I'm still hopeful that Canon will come out with a new 50/1.4 IS. If they come out with a 50mm prime as good as my 35/2 IS, I'd buy it in a heart beat. A fast 50 would give me better low light capability and ability to isolate my subject than my standard zoom. A Canon IS lens would also be smaller and lighter.

I'm also looking to buy a 300/2.8 II this year if I can every convince my wife that I really "need" it.​


----------



## marcel (Feb 10, 2015)

If spending little money is not a problem for you, the ef 50 1.8 is a fantastic lens. I have the mk l first version. With ef 35 f 2.0, are my favorites.
Nor should we forget the ef 28 1.8!


----------



## Maiaibing (Feb 10, 2015)

For great value and truly adding to your photographic options I suggest the Sima 50mm ART and 135L. Both will give you more flexibility with ambient light and longer shooting days compared to your zooms. Also shooting them wide open will give you a very different background rendering. Together they will add significantly to your current kit,

35L could replace the 50 ART and 85L the 135L. But the price is much higher and the results not that different,

Good luck with your choice.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 10, 2015)

marcel said:


> If spending little money is not a problem for you, the ef 50 1.8 is a fantastic lens.



Uh-um, not to nitpick, but that shot (while a nice swan) shows why this combination is not exactly my favorite: clipped highlights killing the feather detail (yo there, Canon dynamic range) and big focus miss on the eyes  ... might still look fine on the camera lcd, but even web-sized this wouldn't be a keeper for me.


----------



## Pookie (Feb 10, 2015)

marcel said:


> If spending little money is not a problem for you, the ef 50 1.8 is a fantastic lens. I have the mk l first version. With ef 35 f 2.0, are my favorites.
> Nor should we forget the ef 28 1.8!



Nor should we forget to focus ???

Anything in the trinity would be a good addition... 35, (50), 85, or 135. There is a reason Canon provides fast primes in this range, especially for portraiture.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Feb 10, 2015)

Get creative, buy a lensbaby, the Sweet 35 optic, the fisheye optic, add the macro bits and the plastic/singleglass/pinhole optics too...

Cost ? A lot less than a F1.4 prime, a lot lighter and a lot of fun.


----------



## TexPhoto (Feb 10, 2015)

The zoom lenses you have are too good. Sell them and buy some terrible ones, then get some primes.

You next lens is a matter of preference. I suggest a 8-15mm fisheye, but that is just me, I love fisheye. And that lens works great on FF 1.3 and 1.6 crop cameras. 

How about a 50mm f1.4 prime just for shallow dof shots, or a 1.2 50 or 85 if you have the cash.

You know what is great for macro? A macro lens. Oooo and they are primes. 

How about a 300/400mm f2.8? for nature sports? Used with no IS, not that bad $$$.

In other words don't buy primes to have primes. Buy the next lens to take your photos in the direction you want.


----------



## sdsr (Feb 10, 2015)

PikkieChick said:


> Hi everyone - thanks for all your input. I guess I'm venturing into primes wanting to not be lazy with my zooms, be more creative and after better IQ in lower light situations, shallower DOF etc. I know I have some great lenses, but I can get some of these lenses at great prices very soon & didnt want to pass up the opporunity.
> 
> I guess I was referring more to bettering my street photography, candid people shots (more candid people shots than actual posed portraits), so possibly the 35mm and 85mm would be good options.
> 
> ...



If by "candid" you mean photographing people who aren't aware you're taking their photo (or who you hope won't notice), you may be better off with greater distance - 35mm would likely be too short; 85mm may be too; though this depends in part on what the environment is: how much available space there is, how crowded the scene is, etc. Very fast, accurate AF helps in such situations too, which would likely rule out the 85L and, if you're likely to be changing the distance from your subject a great deal, maybe the 100L wouldn't be ideal either (wonderful though it is in every other way). AF on the 85 1.8 and 135L is very fast and accurate (same for the 100 f2, apparently, though I've not used one); the 85 1.8 and 100 f2 have the additional advantages of being small, relatively inconspicuous, light and inexpensive. The main flaw of the 85 1.8 is purple fringing, but the 85L is at least as bad (though it has a "look" the 85 1.8 can't quite match). I probably use a fast 50mm more than any other prime, but I don't know what I would recommend there for use on Canon (the ones I use are all cheap old MF lenses that I use on Sony mirrorless bodies).


----------



## tiltshift (Feb 10, 2015)

I have a similar lens set up as well as a few of the primes your thinking of getting. whats in my bag right now is:16-35II, 24-70II, 70-200II IS, 100-400L, 100L macro, 35ART, and the 50 zeiss.

I really really like the sigma 35. its a focal length I use a lot, it super sharp, I like the colors and mine has none of the AF issues other seem to have. 

the 100L also gets a lot of use. obviously the macro aspect is something you'll be adding and I find it much easier to work with than the 70-200II IS

The zeiss I rarely use. I am not impressed with its performance. 

before I buy any prime I look through my exif and see how much I really use that focal length. I started doing this after buying a 24II and a 24II TSE (not at the same time). both I seldom used as its not a focal length I used often. 

my only advise is to look at what focal lengths you actually use then look at primes in that same length. I think this beats thinking of lenses for a particular subject you like to photograph as each person will like a different focal length. for example portraiture, everyone has a different style, dont buy a lens based on someone elses style or because that lens is really good. pick a focal length that suits you then pick the specific lens by what to you gain, what do you lose.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Feb 10, 2015)

PikkieChick said:


> Hi everyone - just wanted to let you know (after the fantastic advice) that I ended up getting the 5d3 + 24-70mm f/2.8 II USM IS + 70-300mm f/4 - 5.6L IS USM + 16-35mm f2.8 Mark II USM and have travelled extensively with the 1st 2 lenses and handled it fine !
> 
> I love the sharpness of the 24-70mm and the 70-300mm has been on my camera ALOT ! Even tho the reach for Africa may have been lacking - but thats OK as I knew that would be the case !
> 
> ...


I'm gonna throw more GAS on the fire by suggesting the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II + a geared tripod-head + a sturdy tripod ;D

It's a manual focus lens ideally for controlled tripod work. It has a bit of a learning-curve, but a very rewarding lens.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Feb 11, 2015)

@Mackguyver: great run down on the lenses, but according to TDP and my own experience the 35L is at least equivalent to the 24-70 II at f/2.8 and at wider apertures, the lack of sharpness might actually be due to the CA.

@OP: 
I have all the three focal lengths, and for me the 35mm is just an amazing versatile FL that works for everything from landscape to street photography to portraits. There is shallow enough DoF and great bokeh at f/1.4, practically no distortion, and it is tack sharp. Focuses pretty quickly and accurately, and is quite compact. If you want to save $$ and need IS (like you, I have nothing with IS below 70mm) then you might want to go with the 35/2, but for me the f/1.4 was more important. I needed something for those truly dark times...  The Sigma is a great lens and I loved it during the short time I owned it, but I am not willing to deal with AF inconsistencies. I don't think that additional bit of sharpness will make me a great photographer, but images with missed focus (esp. those I can't detect in the LCD) are lost forever.
The 85mm is a perfect portrait (1/4-1/2 body) lens. I just bought the f/1.8 with a lot of hesitation as whoever compliments it, qualifies it with ("for the price"). However, it is a pretty good lens. It is as sharp as you NEED wide open, and has really fast AF and is light and compact. I will probably sell it soon after I don't need it anymore (right now I don't have access to my f/2.8 zooms) as it is only 1 stop faster than my 70-200. However, you will greatly benefit from the faster AF (the accuracy of multiple AF points in your camera are much faster with a >f/2.8 lens). It is also a great candid street lens, as I think a longer focal length with great subject isolation helps me most in that situation.
The 135mm is my most favorite lens. It travels with me everywhere. Amazing whenever I use it. As Mackguyver said, absolutely no problem hand holding. However, in your case as so many have said, the 100L probably makes more sense (for me, it doesn't offer much more than macro in relation to the 70-200). It is also close enough to 85mm that it can do double duty for portraits. And it is not too slow to AF, with the AF limiter on.

So, in your place I would probably go with a 35mm and the 100mm macro.


----------



## brad-man (Feb 11, 2015)

While I don't have a prime solution to offer (though I agree with the 100L suggestion), may I recommend that you consider selling your 16-35L ll and replacing it with the newer 16-35 f/4L IS. Though you will loose quite a bit of light gathering ability, the newer lens is sharper throughout the frame, particularly at larger apertures, and has very effective IS. If you want maximum sharpness, it's something to consider.


----------



## zlatko (Feb 11, 2015)

PikkieChick said:


> Hi everyone - thanks for all your input. I guess I'm venturing into primes wanting to not be lazy with my zooms, be more creative and after better IQ in lower light situations, shallower DOF etc. I know I have some great lenses, but I can get some of these lenses at great prices very soon & didnt want to pass up the opporunity.
> 
> *I guess I was referring more to bettering my street photography, candid people shots (more candid people shots than actual posed portraits), so possibly the 35mm and 85mm would be good options.*
> 
> ...



The 24-70/2.8II is as sharp as it gets. For the photography you're describing, I'd recommend just these two:

35/2 IS
85/1.8

Don't buy too many lenses — they'll be a pain to carry around! The L versions of the 35 and 85 are great, but too heavy for general use, especially if you also carry one or more heavy zooms.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Feb 11, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> It's best to have some space so 24/50/100 or 35/85/135 are good sets. Personally I have the latter.


I have the 100L Macro lens and it works fine also for portraits. However, my most used prime focal lenght is 35mm. 
BTW I also have the trinity of zooms and 5D3.


----------



## martti (Feb 11, 2015)

You get 'sharp' with your version II zooms. 
You want something else, like 'magic', then the 85mm L f/1.2 is a strong contender especially for portraits.
Most people agree, there is nothing like it. My favorit prime is the 35mm f/1.4. OK, there is the Sigma 'ART' series and the 'Zeiss' manual focus that are supposedly so much better only that they obviously are not. Try to find a 35mm L second hand at a reasonable price. Market is always right.

The 100 mm f/2.8 L macro is another magic lens for the macro use. Its rendition is absolutely great. It seems like a faultless lens. I cried when I gave it back.

Well, these are lenses I have used. I probably _must_ get either the EF 50mm f/1.2 or the Zeiss 55mm f/1.8. The latter is the bes of the ormal normal lenses around, with the Otus towering above. Canon EF is still twice the price of the Zeiss with all it glitches....frankly, I do not need them either as I got the 50mm f/1.4 that still is working after 12 years.

Well, that's the subject.
You take protraits, rent the 85mm L and see if it sings for you.
You take social gatherings, see if the 24mm or the 35mm L responds beter to your needs.
You interest is architecture...test the TS-lenses, they are magnificent.


Lensbaby?


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 11, 2015)

martti said:


> The 100 mm f/2.8 L macro is another magic lens for the macro use. Its rendition is absolutely great. It seems like a faultless lens. I cried when I gave it back.



I agree, but I find the bokeh "faultless" and even to the point of "boring" though - it's optimized for macro, and you certainly don't get results like these f1.2 primes from it. Even the bokeh my 70-300L looks more interesting most of the time, but of course that's personal taste.


----------



## NWPhil (Feb 12, 2015)

Lanscapes and architecture...
two people already mentioned it - TS-E lenses, more specifically the 24mkii or even the 17mm

There is always room to upgrade , but seem that you are doing fime with current setup (pleased with results and using them a lot)

Sure, there is macro and nightscapes photography to consider, among other fields, but if your focus is more around travelling photography, I would rather consider trade the current 16-35 for the f4 or better yet get the new 11-24 ;D

I think you should look into more creative and/or specialized lenses after thinking about it for a bit longer - your lens coverage is pretty good for travelling - time to broad you options into different fields


----------



## martti (Feb 14, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> martti said:
> 
> 
> > The 100 mm f/2.8 L macro is another magic lens for the macro use. Its rendition is absolutely great. It seems like a faultless lens. I cried when I gave it back.
> ...



What would be the point of bringing up two defferent lenses with two differents kinds of magic if they were similar?
You find the bokeh of the 100mm L macro boring because the lens is too perfect.
You do realize that you are a snob, don't you?


----------



## sagittariansrock (Feb 18, 2015)

martti said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > martti said:
> ...



I think that's a bit harsh. As Marsu said- it is a matter of personal taste. I also didn't like the bokeh on the 100L and decided against purchasing it. Perfection can be relative- the 100L is not designed to be a portrait lens. It is also not designed to be a fast focusing lens. So on those counts, the 85L and 135L are better choices. Horses for courses.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 18, 2015)

martti said:


> You find the bokeh of the 100mm L macro boring because the lens is too perfect. You do realize that you are a snob, don't you?



Ugh? Next to sounding rather insulting (or did you forget a smiley?), you're contradicting yourself in the next sentence. If I'd like perfect lenses with smooooooooooth bokeh, I might be a "snob" (whatever that is, exactly). But as it happens I like grunge, dirty, and natural - that's why a very even bokeh doesn't appeal to me.


----------

