Point me to some Fast prime lenses.

[RyanLilly]

Ok, I have no money now, but I am planning on purchasing a used canon 20D or maybe a 30D and at a minimum a 50mm 1.8, and maybe a fairly typical walk around lens.

My other consideration is that, I am a theatre student and am working to build my design portfolio, and almost any zoom lens is too slow to accurately capture my lighting designs during theatrical and dance performance(within my price range at least). The 50mm f1.8 with a higher ISO will probably do the trick in some cases like small venues, but I think that 50mm will end up being too short in many cases. I cant really walk around on stage during a show.

I have looked around online for some longer prime lenses, but I cant come up with much. I'm not sure exactly what length(s) I am looking for yet. But Id like to look at what options I have.

If anyone can point me to some sites I would appreciate it. I'm just trying to price everything now, so I know how much pocket change I need to collect.

 

[usayit]

What is your budget.....?

The fastest telephoto prime in Canon's line is the 135mm f2L. I have it and I like it.

 

[Buszaj]

Well, if you do have some extra money, you can look at the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L. Even though it is a zoom, it is a fast lens. And during performances, you can probably take great shots with it. Good luck on your choice!

 

[Digital Matt]

The 135 is not the fastest telephoto. The 85mm f/1.2 is. Canon also makes a 200 f/1.8. I don't think you'll want to be dropping that much money though. I use the 85 f/1.8 however, and it is fantastic. It has the build quality of the 50mm f/1.4. On an APS-C digital, the focal length will be approximately 135mm.

I second the recommendation for the 70-200 f/2.8 as well, and consider getting the IS version if you can.

 

[The_Traveler]

try a web search.
those work well.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showcat.php?cat=2

 

[usayit]

I hate double post snafu

 

[usayit]

The 135 is not the fastest telephoto. The 85mm f/1.2 is. Canon also makes a 200 f/1.8. I don't think you'll want to be dropping that much money though.

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/telephoto.html
85mm is not listed.

and

200 f1.8 has been discontinued for quite sometime so I don't count it. (which is really unfortunate.. Last time I sold one they were going for over well over $4k.. Adorama has one listed right now for almost $5k.. awsome lens but a very specialized one.)

and

I'm just guessing that the difference between the 85mm focal length and the 50mm he already has isn't enough.

and

The 135mm f2L is a wonderful glass well known for its image quality and contrast.

BUT

the 85mm f1.8 is also a wonderful lens. Either will serve you well and both find lots of quality time on my camera.

 

[Digital Matt]

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=152&modelid=12926

 

[usayit]

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=152&modelid=12926

"Medium Telephoto"... there's a difference. and.. I did say fastest "telephoto" in the Canon lineup (meaning currently sold).

 

[Buszaj]

Wow, that 200mm f/1.8 sure was/is a nice lens.

 

[Helen B]

When I shoot theatre I tend to use between 28 mm and 35 mm for the fairly wide shots and between 75 mm and 105 mm for closer shots (I use two cameras). These are for full frame 35 mm. Though I use fast lenses I rarely have them wide open because I prefer not to have too shallow a depth of field for theatre pictures. I think that it looks unnatural for theatre - more like cinema than theatre. I usually aim for a working aperture of f/4 or f/5.6 if I can. That is just the way I do it, of course.

Best,
Helen

 

[itoncool]

I'll second 85 f/1.2 as an excellent canon prime. I've tried it and I'd love to have it for myself but mine is different system. :mrgreen:

 

[RyanLilly]

When I shoot theatre I tend to use between 28 mm and 35 mm for the fairly wide shots and between 75 mm and 105 mm for closer shots (I use two cameras). These are for full frame 35 mm. Though I use fast lenses I rarely have them wide open because I prefer not to have too shallow a depth of field for theatre pictures. I think that it looks unnatural for theatre - more like cinema than theatre. I usually aim for a working aperture of f/4 or f/5.6 if I can. That is just the way I do it, of course.

Best,
Helen

I do agree with you about the DOF, but sometimes the long shutter speeds required to render the lighting accurately, is far too long if there is any movement on stage, depending on the scene lighting. I like a deeper DOF when possible the show the entire scene, but with with lighting for certain effects, or styleistic lighting, I need to sacrifice DOF to accurately capture the lighting on people, think that I want to have the ability to do both.

So, looks like most prime lenses available are Canon. I'll check into a few of those. As for my budget, I would rather spend mare and have something really useful, than be cheap and not get the results I want.

Thanks for all of the help.

 

[Digital Matt]

As for my budget, I would rather spend mare and have something really useful, than be cheap and not get the results I want.

Thanks for all of the help.

I think then the clear winner for you would be the 70-200 f/2.8L IS. The combination of the larger aperture and IS will help you get great shots, and you have a range of focal lengths to capture what you need. It's one of Canon's best lenses.

 

[RyanLilly]

Digital_Matt, I think you probably right, I'll just have to wait a bit before I can buy. When I was looking at prices considering $4-500, for a typical, but not that fast standard zoom, and another $900ish for a 135mm f2, Right there I'm not far from spending the $2K for the 70-200, which will give a greater range of usability.

I would like to thank everyone again for the help, and I realize that "what lens should I By" question bog people down a bit, But this discussion has put everything in perspective and I feel more comfortable making a purchasing decision.