It depends, my zoom lens is so versatile but low light no so good as its the 18-135mm, my sigma 16mm f1.4 is amazing lowlight but not always practical. I like shooting with it at twilight with a mist filter. That being said I have my eye on a 70-350mm telephoto
I bought the nifty fifty for my 80D because that's what you're supposed to do. I never used it. My kit lens was the 18-135mm and that's what lived on the camera until I got a Tamron 18-400mm, had be a great walk around lens with that range, right? . Once I started pixel peeping I noticed my portraits (the only thing I did with the 50mm) were sharper than my zoom, which started to irritate me. Now I'm realizing that lens was plenty sharp and I should have been working on my skills. I upgraded to the R5 before I had outgrown the 80D, and got a used 70-200 first gen and an adapter. Now the 50 started living on the camera. I got a 16mm, not the best third lens, then recently a 28mm pancake. The 50 is the sharpest... when you zoom in 100%. All of these lenses are sharp enough, and using primes almost exclusively made me realize I didn't know how to compose a picture with intention. I used to stand and zoom until the subject was in the frame, and the rule of thirds was mostly met and snapped away. Now, I know that 50mm has a different feel to it because, while you get to a distance that the subject is the size you want, the amount and style of background is different. Very long story short, I think starting on primes has merit and you get a better lens for the money. A nifty fifty is much better than a kit 18-55 with its better sharpness and f1.8 compared to a f3.5-5.6.
Between 24-80 I prefer prime lenses for image quality and ability in low light (since you can get below F2.8). From 14-24 or above 70mm I prefer zooms where F2.8 offers amazing image quality and appropriate depth of field. My 70-200 2.8 lens is optically almost as good as my 50mm 1.4 Art lens. Also my 14-24 2.8 Art is also just as optically good as 50 and the 70-200 and F2.8 at ultrawide is more than adequate since super wider lenses don't necessarily need super fast apertures. After shooting as a pro for 18 years and using most of Canon's best zoom and prime lenses, I settled on those three lenses :14-24/2.8 , 50/1.4, 70-200/2.8 and that's all I ever need for everything. Perfect for architecture, landscapes, portraits, low light, and most sports like hockey. PERHAPS I could make an argument for a macro lens, but using a set of close up filters solves that problem quite well.
Hello bro i have just started as a wedding photographer i have sony a7 m3 and i have 28-70 f3.5 - 5.6 and now i am a bit confused which lens to buy 35mm/85mm or should i buy tamron 70-180 f2.8 bro can you please suggest??
Hey Anthony, great video man! Quick question for you--do you have a certain type of stand for the tube light on the left side of your frame? Or does it just stand on its own? Thanks!
I absolutely love my 15-35 L. it is by far the best lens I have ever owned (and cost me enough too!) I'm a hobbyist so I like the versatility, but I am working on going out and shooting with just 1 focal length per session to see what comes of that. Good exercise to extend my photographic range.
Hello bro i have just started as a wedding photographer i have sony a7 m3 and i have 28-70 f3.5 - 5.6 and now i am a bit confused which lens to buy 35mm/85mm or should i buy tamron 70-180 f2.8 bro can you please suggest??
I am team prime all day except for 1 zoom I have my eye on. I use these prime lenses for weddings all the time and the pictures are amazing. One day I will eventually upgrade to the L lenses but only after I get this one zoom lens... The 28-70 f2. The f2 is what attracts me to it. Other than that primes are where it's at for me. When I get the 85 1.2, best believe it will stay at 1.2. great video and thank for all the videos you make. Keep it up
Ah. It was a great video. I was confused about this lens stuff but now it's much clearer. I also wanted to ask you if i need to buy any EF/EF-S lens mount for Canon R10
actually there was one zoom lens I'm aware of which was f/1.8. It was made by Sigma for APS-C with focal length 18-35. It was a great lens and it wasn't that huge...
Ah yes! So APSC cameras would be a caveat in this case. My understanding is that because of the 1.5x crop factor something like f/1.8 on APSC would look more like what f/2.8 does on full-frame; but I'm not a lens scientist, so someone should probably confirm!
@@AnthonyGugliotta I've actually spent the past couple of days looking for a video addressing this exact topic and haven't found anyone doing a proper comparison. It would be a great video idea, looking forward to it! But please, if you do, consider shooting the exact same scene/object with both, so that nothing chances except the lenses.
I LOVE my Fuji 16-55 f2.8 zoom for street stuff. But it's on a crop sensor, so isn't great in low light. And its f2.8 doesn't get far with bokeh/separation either. So I simply need primes too. If my 16-55 was f1.4 instead of f2.8, I'd probably sell all my other lenses even though it's autofocusing etc isn't the very best XD. It's plenty sharp enough and has decent character. I can handle its weight. The only thing I really don't like is its physical length/size, which makes it feel exposed to being bashed when I'm walking in crowds etc.
My most used lens is a prime but some how I ended up with three zoom lens. The one thing I hate zooms that increase in size. I always think they are pumping in air and dusk into the lens then camera. Maybe that’s an urban legend.
So... Yes they can; however L-series lenses have great sealing against this... Don't ask me how it works... But my oldest RF lens is the 24-105, I've had it for 4 years or so, and no dust internally at all.
That Canon RF 70-200 f2.8 is useless as it cant even take a Convertor Now pass me my Nikon Z 70-200 S that takes the 2 convertors >> Nikon Zooms are NO different IQ wise with the Z mount advantage
I feel that... However it has a huge advantage in how compact it is. The old EF 70-200 accepted teleconverters but was much longer and difficult to pack.
