View Poll Results: If you can only bring one prime lens, which would it be?

Voters
1610. You may not vote on this poll
  • < 19mm

    69 4.29%
  • 20mm

    63 3.91%
  • 24mm

    93 5.78%
  • 28mm

    99 6.15%
  • 35mm

    256 15.90%
  • 50mm

    739 45.90%
  • 85mm

    171 10.62%
  • 105mm

    44 2.73%
  • 135mm

    23 1.43%
  • 200mm

    15 0.93%
  • >200mm

    38 2.36%
Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 1234712 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 263

Thread: If you can only bring one PRIME lens...

  1. #21

    Default

    For me its got to be my AF 105mm f/2.8D Micro-Nikkor... IMHO a truly multi-purpose lens!



  2. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Ang Mo Kio outskirts
    Posts
    754

    Default

    No doubts abt it. The 50mm 1.4 AFD.

  3. #23

    Default

    Hmmm...I'm quite plesantly surprised there are a few individuals who actually opt for 28mm as their prime lens of choice.

  4. #24

    Default

    either 28mm, 50mm or 300mm or 400mm( tough pick) or (if i have more money) 500mm.

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Originally posted by BraveHart
    Hmmm...I'm quite plesantly surprised there are a few individuals who actually opt for 28mm as their prime lens of choice.
    Probably because 50 is the cheapest, and 28 is not as cheap. I'd prefer a 28/35 over a 50 tho.

    Regards
    CK

  6. #26
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    293

    Default

    Originally posted by ckiang


    Probably because 50 is the cheapest, and 28 is not as cheap. I'd prefer a 28/35 over a 50 tho.

    Regards
    CK
    actually if i had to get only ONE prime lens, i'd spend a bomb on it. however ultimately i'd get a lens that fits my needs and not just coz it's expensive.

    i'll say again...20mm f/2.8 AIS rocks!!

    andrew

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    singapore
    Posts
    5,499

    Default

    as expected, the 50mm normal lens rules the lot...

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Hm.... look at the distribution. It's getting interesting. We have the bell shaped 'normal distribution' (?) now.

    Regards
    CK

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Behind a lens
    Posts
    2,312

    Default

    Originally posted by Larry
    as expected, the 50mm normal lens rules the lot...
    I think it will be popular becos of it's low cost.
    However, on Film SLR its is 50mm. On DSLR, it will be 75mm. Not sure if's anyone give that a thought?
    Does anyone vote with cost in mnd?

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    singapore
    Posts
    5,499

    Default

    Originally posted by binbeto
    I think it will be popular becos of it's low cost.
    However, on Film SLR its is 50mm. On DSLR, it will be 75mm. Not sure if's anyone give that a thought?
    Does anyone vote with cost in mnd?
    well 35mm lens aren't that expensive either, just not that common. personally i find 75mm a bit hard to take photos, cos it's a bit "neither here nor there". that's my personal opinion. i'm sure the portrait shooters would love the 50mm on a DSLR

  11. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    2,464

    Default

    Hi

    actually all the prime lenses are pretty cheap, fast, light and gives image quality better than zoom lenses, and on par (or maybe slightly better) with the expensive professional fast zooms.

    Canon's 24 f2.8, 28 f2.8, 35 f2, 50 f1.8 are all very cheap and excellent lenses. The 28 f1.8, 50 1.4, 85 f1.8 are also around the same price range below $800.

    I've owned the 28-70 f2.8L for a short while, and while convenient, i find the combination of a few good primes more functional and much more cost effective. The primes are easily faster, gives less distortion and often can focus much closer than the zoom. (35 f2 goes down to 0.25m). Image quality, the primes are just that wee bit sharper.

    And it's actually fun to challenge yourself with prime lenses.

    maybe we should have a poll to find out how many pple use prime lenses >80% of the time in their photography
    David Teo
    View my work and blog at http://www.5stonesphoto.com/blog

  12. #32
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    293

    Default

    Originally posted by Red Dawn


    maybe we should have a poll to find out how many pple use prime lenses >80% of the time in their photography
    hear! hear!

  13. #33
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Down-Below, Babylon 5
    Posts
    90

    Default

    i recently had the chance to try the EOS 85mm f1.2 prime. boy was it a doozer - just looking into its large optics made me go dizzy :P

    the bugger's huge and heavy! The heaviest prime in the sub-200mm category, did i mention huge optics?

    but apparently reviews of it haven't been that glorifying. for some reason ppl think its 'slow' - compared to even its f1.8 cousin. i didn't get to use it much but it sure left an impression on me.

    I would think it would be excellent for low-light conditions and probably an over-kill as a portrait lens. some reviewers mentioned that they even use this lens for indoor sports events. however its weight alone is a major turn-off. i do wonder about the other EOS 85mm f1.4 that apparently got discontinued or is no longer produced. i would like to see how well it performs under low-light conditions.

  14. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Originally posted by pyre
    i recently had the chance to try the EOS 85mm f1.2 prime. boy was it a doozer - just looking into its large optics made me go dizzy :P

    the bugger's huge and heavy! The heaviest prime in the sub-200mm category, did i mention huge optics?

    but apparently reviews of it haven't been that glorifying. for some reason ppl think its 'slow' - compared to even its f1.8 cousin. i didn't get to use it much but it sure left an impression on me.

    I would think it would be excellent for low-light conditions and probably an over-kill as a portrait lens. some reviewers mentioned that they even use this lens for indoor sports events. however its weight alone is a major turn-off. i do wonder about the other EOS 85mm f1.4 that apparently got discontinued or is no longer produced. i would like to see how well it performs under low-light conditions.
    f/1.2 and f/1.4 isn't gonna make a hell lot of difference in low light conditions. It's only 1/3 stop. I'd guess the 1.4 and 1.2 will have a better bokeh than the 1.8 version.

    Wedding Photographer Bambi Cantrell uses the Canon 85/1.2 a lot in her shots.

    Regards
    CK

  15. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    2,464

    Default

    Originally posted by pyre

    but apparently reviews of it haven't been that glorifying. for some reason ppl think its 'slow' - compared to even its f1.8 cousin. i didn't get to use it much but it sure left an impression on me.
    huh? other than the slower AF (though it has USM), reviews of it are mostly very positive where optics and sharpness are concerned. The bokeh and sharpness is why this lens is often quoted when compared to Leica's fast 90mm lens offerings....


    I would think it would be excellent for low-light conditions and probably an over-kill as a portrait lens.
    not really. the bokeh - you can only get similar from medium format systems.....................


    some reviewers mentioned that they even use this lens for indoor sports events. however its weight alone is a major turn-off. i do wonder about the other EOS 85mm f1.4 that apparently got discontinued or is no longer produced. i would like to see how well it performs under low-light conditions.
    the weight is probably nothing compared to using a bulky 70-200 f2.8L and then still having to fight for increased shutter speeds due to the slower f2.8 aperture. f1.2 is more than 2 stops faster than f2.8, which means from a measly 1/60 you can go up to 1/250 or less, making it possible to freeze those basketball players / gynmasts in mid air
    David Teo
    View my work and blog at http://www.5stonesphoto.com/blog

  16. #36
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Down-Below, Babylon 5
    Posts
    90

    Default

    thx for the comments guys. yes - i left out the 'sharp and fast' part

    what RD wrote is very true. its one fast lens! very very speedy in lowlight conditions - to the point where u can handhold without worrying about cam shakes. im pretty sure u can develope muscles with that lens.

    RD - one thing though. reviewers have mentioned that the rear optics for that lens is abit exposed - so abit more care has to be given when mounting it.

    oh well - personally i think the 85mm f1.2 is a dreamy lens right now besides the weight (ok ok... so im a whimp ) the cost is a major issue as well.

  17. #37
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Singapore/Australia
    Posts
    258

    Default

    Originally posted by Red Dawn
    Hi

    actually all the prime lenses are pretty cheap, fast, light and gives image quality better than zoom lenses, and on par (or maybe slightly better) with the expensive professional fast zooms.

    Canon's 24 f2.8, 28 f2.8, 35 f2, 50 f1.8 are all very cheap and excellent lenses. The 28 f1.8, 50 1.4, 85 f1.8 are also around the same price range below $800.

    I've owned the 28-70 f2.8L for a short while, and while convenient, i find the combination of a few good primes more functional and much more cost effective. The primes are easily faster, gives less distortion and often can focus much closer than the zoom. (35 f2 goes down to 0.25m). Image quality, the primes are just that wee bit sharper.

    And it's actually fun to challenge yourself with prime lenses.

    maybe we should have a poll to find out how many pple use prime lenses >80% of the time in their photography

    i am currently looking for a 28-70mm lens for my D60... the thought of one lens kills all range and also the hassle of changing lens motivates me to get one of that range... but after hearing your message... i am now torn between a 28mm or a 35mm... hmmm... besides the reasons that I have given for a 28-70 length.. are there any other views I should take into consideration guys?

    thanks

  18. #38

    Default

    28-70 on your D60 becomes 40+ - 110+? I think it'll be far from being a "one lens kills all range" lens.

  19. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    2,464

    Default

    Originally posted by championboxer



    i am currently looking for a 28-70mm lens for my D60... the thought of one lens kills all range and also the hassle of changing lens motivates me to get one of that range... but after hearing your message... i am now torn between a 28mm or a 35mm... hmmm... besides the reasons that I have given for a 28-70 length.. are there any other views I should take into consideration guys?

    thanks
    if u REALLY want a one lens fits all solution, i guess your choices for a D60 would be:

    - some kind of 24-70 zoom. This should give you around 38mm to 98mm

    - some kind of 17-35 / 16-35 zoom. This is actually better in my opinion. this gives you around 27-56mm. It also focuses closer than the standard zooms.

    it really depends on wat u shoot. I prefer wider angles, so i would have picked a 17-35 / 16-35 class lens to pair up with the D60 as a standard do all lens. You can always add a cheap 50mm to round up your collection - in that way u have focal lengths from 27mm to 80mm - a very standard and usable range. Besides, the 50mm can be used in low light situations, since it goes to f1.8. (f1.4 if u have the dough and need)

    Personally, when i had the D30, i used all primes for the wider angles. I had a 20mm as my major use lens (about 32mm equivalent), plus a 35 f2 (56mm eqivalent) and a 50 f1.4 (80mm equivalent). I get about the same coverage as the above combo i mentioned, and yet faster lenses to shoot in available light without flash. There isn't a need to change lenses all the time - i shot a lot with the 20 by moving myself physically. the 35 is good for medium distances and those times when u dun want to get too close to the subjects. 50 is great for the occasional portraits and longer lens work. the 20 and the 35 has the added advantage of being able to focus VERY close, making them great for close up work (NOT macro, closeup)

    For a DSLR, i would think the 35 f2 would be more appropriate than the 28mm. it's not that much more money (the same i think) for a one stop increase in speed. For film bodies, however, there's a noticeable difference between the 28 and the 35 - the 28 being more dramatic than a 35 in terms of perspective and field of view.
    David Teo
    View my work and blog at http://www.5stonesphoto.com/blog

  20. #40
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    South
    Posts
    490

    Default

    sure will be my 50mm F1.4 cause fast mah..........

Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 1234712 ... LastLast

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
  •