Next lens, need your thoughts

[dmckinny]

I am a fairly new DSLR owner (just over a year) and I am looking to start working on composition. I've spent the last year getting to know my gear and I am pretty comfortable with it now. I have a 30D, 18-55 kit, 50 1.8, and a 70-200 f4 L non-IS. My main subject remains, shooting my daughter's soccer team hence the 70-200.


However, way back in the day, I had an AE-1 with a standard 50mm lens on it. I have read a number of comments that working with primes helps with composition and finding your view/voice/style. I personally think I would be helped a lot if I could simplify things and concentrate on the composition aspects. So I am leaning towards a prime, something between wide and normal (considering FOVCF). I think this means something between 24mm and 35mm. My biggest issue is going to be money, I have to get my wife to agree so let's assume my budget is $500 or less.


Given the above, what would you recommend to me and why?


Thanks,


David

[wickerprints]

Well, you could theoretically get the same kind of benefit by shooting with the 18-55 set to a fixed focal length. That's sort of the thing about a zoom; you have the option of turning the ring but it is not by any means a requirement. If you buy a 24 or 35mm prime, there isn't any inherent compositional advantage, other than the fact that it forces you to previsualize a fixed perspective and field of view. In terms of image quality, however, a good prime will always beat even the best zooms in terms of contrast and sharpness. But that is not your stated intent.


Personally, I think you would not achieve your intended goals with a wide prime, given your choice of subject and existing equipment. Composition is best learned by simply slowing down, paying attention, and previsualizing. The near-instant feedback of digital photography has made it easier to analyze the relationship between what you thought you would capture, and what you actually did capture. This kind of post-exposure analysis is critically important to developing one's photographic skills.


If you want to really convince your wife to let you buy a sub-$500 lens, do some close-up/non-formal/environmental portrait photography of your family with an 85/1.8 or better yet, a 100/2.8 macro, shot wide open. That's really what's missing in your range--a nice, sharp, fast portrait lens. The 50/1.8 isn't really a portrait lens, even on a APS-C sensor. Non-photographers tend to respond very positively to well-executed portraits (more so than landscapes/still life).

[Keith B]

I agree with wicker.


Composition is composition, zoom or prime. You'll just gain some image quality and lower light capabilities.


I have a prime 24 1.4 that I use to love but hardly use now. depth of field at 1.4 is ridiculously low so I hardly shoot below f-2 with and prefer 2.8. So I rather use my 16-35 2.8 II just because of the versatility.


I think just shooting with wide-angle lenses will force you to be more mindful of composition. So just shoot at the low end of the 18-55 and don't allow yourself to go into the normal range of it.