Which Canon primes for Birger mount?

[Jaime Vallés]

Hello, all! Like most everyone here, I'm very excited about the Canon lens mount from Birger. I don't own any still lenses yet, so I'm looking for info on Canon prime lenses. Needless to say, the less expensive, the better. A lot of folks have been discussing zoom lenses, but they only open to f2.8 or so. If I want low light ability and sharpness, I assume I'm better off with prime lenses for those purposes. So I ask you: which ones to get? Assume I want to spend $1500 total on the lenses. Is this cool? Am I crazy? Thoughts?

Thanks for your time.

PS- I don't want this to be a discussion about whether I should get Nikon vs Canon. Lets focus this on Canon lenses exclusively, for use with the Birger Canon Mount.

[Jaime Vallés]

I found this one, which seems great for the price:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...7&cat=2&page=2

Anyone know how well this might work on the birger?

[Kevin Halverson]

There are much faster Canon primes than your example. The FD asphericals are considerably faster, but they use the FD mount, not the EF mount.

Here is a link that might be of interest:

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...nses/index.htm

[Graeme Nattress]

I prefer the 50mm f1.4 myself - it's really hard to take bad picture with that lens. http://www.mbpgalleries.com/displayi...lbum=143&pos=1

Graeme

[Mike Prevette]

Your not going to get much in the way of fast canon primes for $1,500. that being said the 35 1.4 seems like a winner, the 20mm not so much. 50 1.4 and 85 1.2 are also great.

[Kevin Halverson]

Your not going to get much in the way of fast canon primes for $1,500. that being said the 35 1.4 seems like a winner, the 20mm not so much. 50 1.4 and 85 1.2 are also great.

Actually, I purchased nearly a complete set for not much more than that. It was some work to locate a few of them, but I ended up with a great set of glass.

[Evin Grant]

These are the lenses you want to get...

More than $1500 for sure but still cheaper than the Red CF zoom. And f1.4.

[Steve Murray]

Assume I want to spend $1500 total on the lenses. Am I crazy?

Crazy...no. Unrealistic... yes.

For that money I would forget the Birger and get a FD mount from Kmuse and go with fast Canon FD primes. You can get 6 lenses all F/1.4 to F/2.8 for about that amount of money -- 20mm, 28, 50, 100 and 200mm and only spend $1200.00. And pickup a 300mm F/2.8 for another $750.00.

Otherwise you need to triple your budget for fast EF primes. However, I think you will find that the new zooms compare very well with the primes - just be sure to test them as they are all over the map. I just got a new Canon EF 16-35mm II and I had to try 6 lenses to find a really good one -- but that one very sharp at F/2.8.

Considering the speed of the RED... And if you are set on EF lenses and a Birger I would get a two F/2.8 zooms: A 16-35mm F/2.8, a 70-200 F/2.8 and a 50mm F/1.4 for $2800.00--- plus the $$ for the Birger of course.

Good luck!

[Paris Remillard]

the 85mm f/1.8 is great and only around $300. The extra cash for the f/1.2 is hard for me to justify, but everyone has their own preferences. Here's a comparison of the 2 that I found a while back:

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85mm/bokeh.htm

50mm f/1.4, is great. 100mm f/2.8 macro is incredibly sharp and around $400. 135mm f/2L is beautiful and about $900. It's the fast wide angles that'll getcha on price.

[albert rudnicki]

I prefer the 50mm f1.4 myself - it's really hard to take bad picture with that lens. http://www.mbpgalleries.com/displayi...lbum=143&pos=1

Graeme

Yap, agree with you, it was my favorite glass.
I was not to happy about it's build quality thought...

Here is some example of the Canon 50mm f1.4
The one with the leafs is shot at f1.4 (ISO100), the other portrait is at 1.4 (?) (ISO 800), very sharp lens.