Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 32 of 32

Thread: Basic Prime VS Better Zoom

  1. #21

    Default Re: Basic Prime VS Better Zoom

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentSeth View Post
    Oh I meant reviews that gives you measurable/comparable sharpness result such as MTF number. something like DXO, Photozone, or DPreview. You can then easily compare MTF number between lens A & lens B. Granted, they may have different testing methods, but if all reputable reviewers say lens A has higher MTF number than lens B, then I generally agree that lens A is sharper than lens B. Other websites such as the-digital-picture.com gives you 100% crop comparison. I think sharpness wise TS can also use it to compare lenses.

    Other than that.. yeah I also don't care much about reviews that only provide comments.. "This thing is razor sharp!".. or "Booookehlicious!" . Those are almost pointless

    I also agree that some things must be experienced first hand. For example, if we talk about lens weight, let's say lens A is 300 grams heavier than lens B. Probably for some this is already too much, but for others 300 grams is negligible.

    Btw I still think that TS doesn't need that 20mm f/2.8 lens

    haha..ok great

  2. #22

    Default Re: Basic Prime VS Better Zoom

    I don't see how getting better gear makes better images.

    I suggest upgrading the "equipment" behind the viewfinder.
    $20-80 for a good technique book.
    宁愿遇见丢失幼崽的母熊,也不愿碰上做蠢事的愚人

  3. #23

    Default

    Your 35 f2, 50 f1.8 & 85 f1.8 can be a good portrait lens, question is which is your prefer focal length? And why are these lens not suitable in your opinion?

  4. #24
    Moderator rhino123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    NA
    Posts
    5,247

    Default Re: Basic Prime VS Better Zoom

    Quote Originally Posted by Shizuma View Post
    I don't see how getting better gear makes better images.

    I suggest upgrading the "equipment" behind the viewfinder.
    $20-80 for a good technique book.
    Actually having better gear do make getting better images easier. That is also why many photographer (pro or otherwise, me included) upgrade to better equipment now and then. Of course techniques are important... but don't ever discount the gears.
    I am not a photographer, just someone who happened to have a couple of cameras.
    My lousy shots

  5. #25
    Moderator rhino123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    NA
    Posts
    5,247

    Default Re: Basic Prime VS Better Zoom

    Actually... TS... another option would be to look at third party options like the Sigma's 35mm and 50mm. These are of excellent quality (built and image quality) and value for money. No need to keep sticking to Canon's native lenses.
    I am not a photographer, just someone who happened to have a couple of cameras.
    My lousy shots

  6. #26
    Moderator catchlights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Punggol, Singapore
    Posts
    21,901

    Default Re: Basic Prime VS Better Zoom

    Quote Originally Posted by rhino123 View Post
    Actually having better gear do make getting better images easier. That is also why many photographer (pro or otherwise, me included) upgrade to better equipment now and then. Of course techniques are important... but don't ever discount the gears.

    Correct,
    better gears will enhance whatever the photographers already have,

    good photos will become better, bad photos will become ___________.
    Shoot to Live, Live to Shoot
    www.benjaminloo.com | iStock portfolio

  7. #27

    Default

    I haven't used the 20mm Canon prime, but I would think the 17-55mm f/2.8 is good enough. Some primes probably have no zoom equal, like the 85mm f/1.2L or the 200mm f/2L, but at the wide-angle end, I haven't heard of any Canon prime that is of particular interest.
    KF Photography
    Thanks for viewing!

  8. #28
    Moderator Octarine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Pasir Ris
    Posts
    12,422

    Default Re: Basic Prime VS Better Zoom

    Quote Originally Posted by Shizuma View Post
    I don't see how getting better gear makes better images.
    In this rare case, the prime is not even the better gear. Setting the 17-55 to 20mm focal length is all what TS needs to do.
    EOS

  9. #29

    Default Re: Basic Prime VS Better Zoom

    Quote Originally Posted by rhino123 View Post
    Actually having better gear do make getting better images easier. That is also why many photographer (pro or otherwise, me included) upgrade to better equipment now and then. Of course techniques are important... but don't ever discount the gears.
    17-55 King of Crop already.
    current aperture capability matches the proposed prime 2.8 if I am not wrong.

    The difference would be marginal if changing lenses
    As opposed to perhaps learning other stunning photographic techniques to add to the thread starter's (hopefully formidable) repertoire.
    宁愿遇见丢失幼崽的母熊,也不愿碰上做蠢事的愚人

  10. #30
    Moderator rhino123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    NA
    Posts
    5,247

    Default Re: Basic Prime VS Better Zoom

    Quote Originally Posted by Shizuma View Post
    17-55 King of Crop already.
    current aperture capability matches the proposed prime 2.8 if I am not wrong.

    The difference would be marginal if changing lenses
    As opposed to perhaps learning other stunning photographic techniques to add to the thread starter's (hopefully formidable) repertoire.
    Yes. I agree with what you have mentioned now.

    But I don't agree to what you said before, hence my reply to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shizuma View Post
    I don't see how getting better gear makes better images.

    I suggest upgrading the "equipment" behind the viewfinder.
    $20-80 for a good technique book.
    Anyway, it doesn't matter now, I guess the message had gone through to TS and he/she should already have a clear idea and direction of what to get and what to ignore.

    All I could say is... there are advantage of the 20mm... such as... it was smaller and lighter as compared to the 17-55mm, and it do produce excellent IQ. The 17-55mm is much more flexible and IQ is good (from the website I provide before) from my naked eyes, I would say the IQ was even better than the 20mm, of course I never truely believe everything a review site mentioned.

    Did I mentioned that the 20mm is cheaper but this criteria is not of any importance here, because TS already have the 17-55mm.
    Last edited by rhino123; 16th June 2014 at 01:21 PM.
    I am not a photographer, just someone who happened to have a couple of cameras.
    My lousy shots

  11. #31

    Default Re: Basic Prime VS Better Zoom

    Quote Originally Posted by kandinsky View Post
    Have you seen SLR Lounge's Canon Lens Wars series? Sounds exactly like what you're looking for.



    Happened to read this (http://fstoppers.com/how-many-lenses-do-we-really-need) today, reminded me of your thread too.
    Thanks for bringing up the Lens Wars series. Yeah I've seen a few of them, and it's a fantastic series but I couldn't find anything on crop sensor lenses like the 17-55 in the series. It does however address my question on basic prime vs L zoom though.

    That article was really interesting. Surprised to find so many of them shooting primarily with the 24-105.
    But I understand the main point the article was making, which is that there are levels of sharpness that just don't matter as much past a certain standard.

    I'll go with that mentality, and stick to the 17-55 without getting the 20. Thanks everyone! I think I might post a few of my photos for some C&C soon.

  12. #32

    Default Re: Basic Prime VS Better Zoom

    I second the 85/1.8 to add to the 17-55. It's great for portraits!

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •