[genewch]

I have only one zoom lens, the Canon 17-40mm f4L. I always bring it when I travel. But if you have prime lenses, what prime lenses would you recommend for travelling? Prime lenses lose the convenience of zooms, but they are light and small and have wider apertures.

[老叟]

28mm is the best !!

[embu31]

35L

[nlsho]

Keep using the 17~40 la. Suppose you're now using 1.6X DSLR, the 20mm is good in terms of view, size, aperture, and weight, but no so good in terms of optical quality.

[pyso]

EFS 10-22 is good, if you like to take landscape pic..

also, it is very useful in urban, consider you don't need to stand away from your subject but still get a very wide angle of view, to capture the subject + background.

[honyeong]

新仔想搭單問，去旅行：
1 – 350D+kit+50mm f1.8 夠用嗎？
2 – 自己又成日心思思想買 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM??去旅行，諗住佢方便，影相又靚。其實佢係唔係真係好適合旅行用呀？比kit+50mm f1.8 好好多？
3 – 咁17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM 光圈唔怕細咩？
4 – 值得用$4xxx買嗎？
Thankyou

[embu31]

去旅行17-85有IS大可收小小光圈成像靚哂乜都夠用，再補支50/1.8室內映現場光+夜間搞掂！

[genewch]

Thank you for suggestions. But I'm talking about fixed focal length lenses. ^.^

I love my 17-40mm. Still I trust the optical quality and compactness of prime lenses. So what prime lenses do you suggest? The 35mm f1.4 is so expensive though excellent. I'm planning for a 50mm f1.4 or a 135mm f2. A 1.4x extender is fine for longer reach. But I still suffer from the problem of too close focal ranges. I own a 100mm macro. Is the 50mm and 135mm have too similar functions as my current lenses?

[genewch]

Hi, is a 50mm f1.4 a good enough supplement to my 17-40mm? How about the tele lenses?

[rickywck]

35L, no better choice ... in fact, it is the lens I would keep if I can only have one Canon lens.

[bean290]

Hi genewch,
I have both 50 1.4 and 17~40, I think they are different. 17~40 for landscape is great and 50mm 1.4 for portrait is fantastic.
It seem that you prefer longer focal length, 50mm should fit between your 17~40 and 100 marco.
135mm f2 + 1.4x ~$9000, almost the price for 35 f1.4 wor ($9580)

[embu31]

There is no free lunch. Try not to keep to many lenses or most of them will end up in your de-humid cupboard.

I also had a 100 macro before. It is razor-sharp but the colour is a little to wash-out for me and the focusing speed is not as fast as people believe - common and acceptable for a macro lens. However I take people picture most of the time and so when a 135L showed up, I sold my 100 macro and add money to get 135L. I have no regret over this switch at all. 135L is perfect for taking people shots. Its colour is great, AF is very fast and with f/2, I can shoot a very low light. coupled with my 1.4x, I can get away 80% of the time without my 70-200IS and the drop in picture quality is minimal!

BTW, a new 135L is $6200 and 1.4x is $2750. But if you are not in a hurry, wait for 2nd hand. I got my combination at around $7000!

So for convenience, 17-40L + 50mm is good for travelling light. However for fun, 35L + 135L is the best Canon can give at the moment.

[genewch]

Ho ho, I love my 100mm macro too, and I'll keep it for portrait and closeups of small creatures.

Thank you all folks. It becomes clearer that the 135mm f2L is my priority choice. I'd like to get a 1.4x extender at a later stage, water goods is just fine and costs around $2000, cheaper, or wait for a 2nd goods. This focal length is more versatile distance too. Adding an extender is fine and still keeps very high image quality. If fast zooming is not a consideration and walking to and fro is permitted, I think this combination can replace the big expensive 70-200mm f2.8.

[rickywck]

135L is good, but I think the focal length is a bit too long for portrait with 20D (or 3xxD). For example, if you want to take half body shots (or full body shots), you need to stand far away from your model and it is difficult to communicate with him/her in such a long distance. As I mainly shot kids, I've 135L but I rarely used it.

While 35L is a wide angle. It can still take great portraits shots with blur background. In fact, I ususally use 35L for portraits with 20D.

[genewch]

Thank you all guys. I plan to buy a prime lens for half-body/head-and-shoulders portrait and stage photography, eg shots for music recitals or rehearsals at concert halls. I also want this lens to be applicable in tele pics in travelling. To get outstanding image quality and compactness to carry, I think a good prime lens is a choice. Of course I consider a zoom like 70-200mm f2.8. It's so convenient but expensive and heavy to carry. To get longer reach, then I think of an extender to reach ~200mm.

How about Canon 200mm f2.8L? Does it beat the Little White at 200mm? But now the prime doesn't gain any advantage in speed. If I get this, I'll still use my 100mm macro to substitute the 135mm f2. For further reach I'll consider 300mm f4L IS, but it's another story that I'll not consider at this moment.