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??
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
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.
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!
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!
@@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.
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
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??
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.
Are you team prime or team zoom?
until I get more confident with my shots - I will stick to the zooms (for the versatility)
Team 85mm prime 😍
Generally prime, but depends on the style of shooting needed for the project :)
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
35 mm prime lover 😊
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??
Why do you compare the cheapest STM lenses to the best L series zooms?
why not
@@Oscareb51s sure it's their choice, but it would be more fair to compare lenses from the same class...
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
Can confirm it is incredible to use, just very beefy
Dream lens, but also BEEFY! :)
I eat my Wheaties every time before I use it
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.
it's a great lens for sure! 😍
Get the 28-70 F2 on board for the comparison
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...
The sigma 18-35 f1.8 is the best lens for apsc imo. Legendary
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!
Nice, clear video. Greetings from Poland :)
Great information. I needed that. Clears up a lot of information gaps I had!!!! 😎👍
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!
How does the image quality compare between the stm primes and L zooms? Thank you for the video! I enjoy your style.
I'm actually interested in this as well. I'll need to test this further.
@@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.
That would be great! I have been looking for a long time! Thank you
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.
Do you have the RF 85mm F2 lens? And whats your opinion?
Well explained 👏 , thank you mate ☺️
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
The Canon R10 accepts all RF and RF-s lenses. OR you will need an adapter to accept EF lenses.
@@AnthonyGugliotta ohh thanks for the information
I can recommend the Meike Lens Mount, just bought it for my new R10 and it’s great
@@ducaveli, thx for the recommendation
I think zoom is better it’s just that is more flexible
that's a nice watch ya got there
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??
Thank you for the video. How important is it to be stead with those 1.8 lenses without IBS. Also how much do bodies with IBS help?
In this case it's the 50mm 1.8 that doesn't have IS. I find the IBIS inside my R6ii and R5 helps enough that I don't have to worry too much about it.
those canon lenses are huge.
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.
I need a prime lens 😭
why are you comparing expensive zooms with cheap primes ? it doesn't make sense ! compare those in the same price range
samples
Thank God I found this channel
primmmm>>>>>
55 250🙌
hello !!
can u gift me a lens
👋👋
Dang.. Canon really likes to throw around the "macro" feature on their lenses lmao
Hey... I'll take it.
@@AnthonyGugliotta but.. Is it like real 1:1 macro??
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.
Can you ditch the Canon and go Sony... cause we all know Sony is KING!