Is it worth getting a prime lens if my telephoto covers the same range at the same speed?
Eg, I currently have the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, what, if any, would be the advantages of a 20mm f/2.8 prime?
Is it worth getting a prime lens if my telephoto covers the same range at the same speed?
Eg, I currently have the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, what, if any, would be the advantages of a 20mm f/2.8 prime?
Last edited by chaosboi; 17-09-2011 at 10:45pm.
www.chaosboi.com
X-Pro2 - X100F - 16 f1.4 - 23 f1.4 - 35 f1.4 - 56 f1.2 - 50-140 f2.8
IMO only if the 20mm prime gives you better image quality, you don't mind using your feet to zoom in/out, and you will use it often enough to justify the purchase. Do some research on the lens you are thinking of getting and see how it compares to your existing lens.
5D MkII Gripped | EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II | EF 24-70mm f/2.8L | EF 50mm f/1.4 USM | EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM | EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro | Extender 2x II | 580EX II & 430EX II Speedlites
Wanted: The list is long.......so very long........(sighs)
Oldies but still goodies: AE-1+Program | FD 28mm f/2.8 | FD 50mm f/1.4 | FD 70-210 f/4
Do you really think you are going to see some improvement with a prime over what some rate as the best non "L" zoom around? What is your purpose to consider the 20mm prime?
www.kjbphotography.com.au
1DxII, EOS R, 200-400 f4L Ext, 100-400 f4.5-5.6L II, 70-200 F4IS, 24-70 F2.8 II, 16-35 F4IS
Portability
Darren
Gear : Nikon Goodness
Website : http://www.peakactionimages.com
Please support Precious Hearts
Constructive Critique of my images always appreciated
might consider the 28mm f/1.8 and get the advantage of 1 and a bit stops of light
1DIII, 5DII, 15mm fish, 24mm ts-e, 35L,135L,200L,400L,mpe-65mm
Film: eos 300, pentax 6x7
Advantages - Size, weight, Image Quality (not by much vs the 17-55)
Disadvantages - No zoom, no IS, Extra $$ out of your pocket for something you already have. Carrying extra glass that you won't use unless you have a full frame (EF mount vs EF-S mount).
Now if you said the 24 1.4L. It's a different case altogether. The 17-55 is a 1/2 L lens in my opinion. All the goodness of a L lens without the weather sealing and build quality.
What Keefy said.
If you find you are often using the 17-55 at around the 28mm mark, and you are finding some problem with your current lens at that focal length, then it might be worthwhile, but I doubt that you will see any difference in quality between the 2 lenses at that focal length.
I have the 24-105L lens, and I also have the 28mm F2.8, but I generally only use the 28mm lens when I'm going out to a party etc., and just want a small, light, wide-angle lens on the camera.
It takes good pics, but they aren't better than the 24-105, it's just that the 28mm is convenient when you are doing inside shots and just want have a very small lens on your camera.
Personally, in your position, I'd be looking at a much wider angle lens to compliment your other lenses.
All my photos are taken with recycled pixels.
Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit.
Wisdom, is knowing not to serve it in a fruit salad.