# Input on building a prime lens kit



## gregorywood (Sep 8, 2014)

Greetings all,

Long time listener, first time caller...

I've been slowly evolving my equipment as well as my skills over the last few years. I find myself in a good place with camera bodies and zoom lenses having honed in on the smallest number of zoom lenses (4) that meet my needs, but I find myself wanting to have that same efficiency in prime lenses. 

My current kit consists of a 6D and a 7D body. I shoot a lot of action (soccer, dancing, events, exercise studio, motorsports, etc) as well as landscape, walk around, travel, portraits and product/real estate. My current lens kit consists of the EF 17-40mm L, EF 24-105mm L, EF 70-200 L, EF 70-300mm L, EF 100mm L macro, EF 35mm IS, EF 50mm 1.4.

To be specific, I'm curious to hear opinions from others on the most versatile 3 lens prime kit. I'm thinking either a 24mm/50mm/85mm or 35mm/85mm/135mm arrangement, though other combinations might warrant consideration. I want enough diversity in focal length yet still have a reasonably flexible kit. I'm not so concerned about the primes on the crop body as I am the full frame. I predominately use the zooms on the 7D and the primes on the 6D, though I do use the 17-40mm L for real estate shots and the 24-105mm as a walk around and travel setup on the 6D and occasionally will through the 35mm IS on the 7D. 

I want to sort of "force myself" into leaving the house with 2 or 3 primes and the 6D and making it work to see what happens.

Thanks in advance for the input!
Greg
Fort Worth, Texas


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 8, 2014)

Personally, I have the 35L/85L II/135L trinity, all are excellent for their intended uses. You mention action/moving subjects first, and I will say the 85L II isn't great for that on your bodies (it's ok on the 1-series which drives the AF motor faster...but just barely ok). I use the 85L as a portrait lens. The 135L is great for portraits and low light action (dance recitals, gymnasiums, etc.). 

You don't mention a budget, but you have the 35/2 IS and 50/1.4. In your place, I think I'd build from the 35/2 IS, and get the 85/1.8 (an excellent lens with the exception of bad longitudinal CA on specular highlights; focuses very fast), and the 135/2L.


----------



## gregorywood (Sep 8, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Personally, I have the 35L/85L II/135L trinity, all are excellent for their intended uses. You mention action/moving subjects first, and I will say the 85L II isn't great for that on your bodies (it's ok on the 1-series which drives the AF motor faster...but just barely ok). I use the 85L as a portrait lens. The 135L is great for portraits and low light action (dance recitals, gymnasiums, etc.).
> 
> You don't mention a budget, but you have the 35/2 IS and 50/1.4. In your place, I think I'd build from the 35/2 IS, and get the 85/1.8 (an excellent lens with the exception of bad longitudinal CA on specular highlights; focuses very fast), and the 135/2L.



I use the 7D for action and typically the zooms are the "go to" lenses for that job. I wouldn't necessarily grab the 7D for indoor, low-light action, so the use of a wide aperture prime on the 6D would certainly occur in some low-light, indoor action, but it wouldn't be the norm or frequent.

I didn't mention the budget part because I'm really focused on getting the focal length/aperture of the trio of primes right above all else. I'll admit that my goal is to build a more "modern" kit, made up of lenses that are within a few years on the market, inclusive of L glass (all my zooms are L and my macro) and other brands are certainly in the running. The question was more around the most usable focal lengths in a trio of primes on a full frame, primarily.

Having said all that, do you find yourself wanting for something between the 35mm and and the 85mm? Where do you use the 85 versus the 135? They strike me as being quite close in application and usage.

Thanks for the quick response and good info!
Greg


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 8, 2014)

I used a 24-50-135 combo for the majority of my shooting. Look at your catalog as see where your best shots are and stick to those focal lengths.


----------



## gregorywood (Sep 8, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> I used a 24-50-135 combo for the majority of my shooting. Look at your catalog as see where your best shots are and stick to those focal lengths.



I like pretty much everything I've seen shot with the 135L, and I was on the fence about buying that or the 100L Macro recently, the IS at that focal length seems necessary for some things and a nice to have. I'm sure within 3-5 years, all the non-L Canon primes will have IS, and perhaps some of the L's also. 

I fear that the 24 will be too wide, yet the 35 is closer to the 50 than any other separation. My gut tells me 35-85-135, but I can't help feeling like I'll miss that 50. The truth is that I use the 50mm f/1.4 more than any other prime lens currently. But I think if I didn't have it, I'd use the 35mm f/2 IS just the same (and maybe even grow to like it more). You're probably thinking "just use keep the 50 and dump the 35 then, that's easy"...and that certainly holds logic. For me, I don't think I've forced myself to explore enough with the primes and using my feet. I default to what I know and what I'm comfortable with. 

Thanks for the feedback!
Greg


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 8, 2014)

I don't really miss not having a prime between 35 and 85 mm (well, actually I have two of them...but the 40/2.8 is really close to 35mm, and the MP-E 65mm doesn't really count  ). 

I debated between the 24L II and 35L, and I found 24mm too wide for my taste. I set my zoom at the time (24-105L) to each FL for a while, definitely preferred 35mm. Looking over your library EXIF is useful, but be careful...most people have a tendency to use zooms mostly at the ends of the range, personally I found that quite a few of my 24mm shots from the 24-105 were cropped a bit in post, such that they ended up closer to the 35mm AoV.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 8, 2014)

I'm finding that I use prime lenses a lot less, and the "L" zooms almost exclusively. I finally up and sold my 35L, all three of my 50mm lenses, and my 85mm f/1.8.

I still have a 15,, fisheye, a 17mm f/3.5, my 100L, and 135mm L, but I really never use them. My 135mmL was my most used lens, followed by the 35, and then 85 before I bought the Zooms.

I find 24mm to be wide enough, and am usually at 70-135mm for events. I can setup back from the stage and zoom in on one, two, or the whole stage. with this combination. The 16-35 only gets used when the actors come out into the audience and they are 3 ft away.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Sep 8, 2014)

I'd suggest 24(or 35)/50/135 that will suit your needs. You have already the 35mm, 50mm and 100mm focal distances covered. I have both 35mm and 100mm and use them a lot but sometimes miss a wide perspective like 24mm in FF.


----------



## orrokinawa (Sep 8, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I'm finding that I use prime lenses a lot less, and the "L" zooms almost exclusively. I finally up and sold my 35L, all three of my 50mm lenses, and my 85mm f/1.8.
> 
> I still have a 15,, fisheye, a 17mm f/3.5, my 100L, and 135mm L, but I really never use them. My 135mmL was my most used lens, followed by the 35, and then 85 before I bought the Zooms.
> 
> I find 24mm to be wide enough, and am usually at 70-135mm for events. I can setup back from the stage and zoom in on one, two, or the whole stage. with this combination. The 16-35 only gets used when the actors come out into the audience and they are 3 ft away.


​ Looking to buy a 15MM Fisheye if ever need to get rid of it, seems to be a hard lens to find in good shape these days.


----------



## Zv (Sep 8, 2014)

For me a the main reason for buying a prime lens is that it allows you to do something that your zoom lens can't. For example - I shoot a lot at 24mm but I don't need a prime at that focal length because I have a 17-40L and 24-105L and I mainly shoot between f/5.6 - f/11. Instead I went for a 14mm f/2.8 because it has a unique perspective and it doubles up as an astro landscape lens (should I ever get into that!). There is a huge difference between 17mm f/4 and 14mm f/2.8 so the decision was an easy one! 

But anyway, looking at your primes 35/50/100 isn't a bad combo at all. They all have advantages over your zooms but is there anything you would like to be able to do that you can't using those three, like tilt shift ability? If I had to go out with just three primes I'd choose 14/35/135 but that's because of the way I shoot. I find 35mm to be more useful than 50mm (my EOS M / 22 is my 35) and I find the telephoto look appealing so I'd go with the 135L (also because it's a bargain!). 

How about this combo for OP - 17mm (or 24mm) TSE for landscape and interiors, keep the 35 f/2 IS for travel, low light and discreet street photography and also keep the 100mm macro for product and portraits. Either hold on to the 50 1.4 or sell it. Depends how much you use it.


----------



## e17paul (Sep 8, 2014)

I often carry with me my 50 and 24, between them they cover most of my needs whether I'm using my modern Canon kit (6D) or manual focus (OM-10) kit. That covers 80 to 90 percent of the photos I would like to stop and take.

With the OM-10 I sometimes carry the 135 too, giving the option of greater reach and thinner depth of field. With the 6D I would like to include a 100L, that's at the top of my wishlist for when I don't want to carry the big white zoom. 

So in summary 24/50/100 or 24/50/135 is what suits me as a basic kit, and is not cumbersome enough to require a backpack or car.


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 8, 2014)

35/85/135mm sounds solid.


----------



## Dick (Sep 8, 2014)

gregorywood said:


> My current lens kit consists of the EF 17-40mm L, EF 24-105mm L, EF 70-200 L, EF 70-300mm L, EF 100mm L macro, EF 35mm IS, EF 50mm 1.4.
> 
> I'm curious to hear opinions from others on the most versatile 3 lens prime kit.



I guess it all comes down to your definition of versatile. You mentioned that you have the 100L, which is a really versatily lens already, so I'd name that as one of the 3 lenses. Then to add a wide-angle lens, maybe the 14LII. The normal lens could then be a choice between a 35mm or a 50mm lens. That would definitely be a versatile trio.

The basic 24 + 50 + 135 or 35 + 85 + ? are really borin if you ask me and there is really no versatility. Those are combos that replace zooms with wider apertures. Boring.


----------



## alexturton (Sep 8, 2014)

With just 3 lenses id get 

24, 50, 135

24 1.4 is a fantastic prime. Will deliver images and dof you've never seen in such a wide angel
50 1.2 is a staple lens for me. Close enough to 35 and 85 to warrant not having all 3
135 2.0 just delivers beautiful images/boken


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 8, 2014)

gregorywood said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I used a 24-50-135 combo for the majority of my shooting. Look at your catalog as see where your best shots are and stick to those focal lengths.
> ...


Another reason I chose that combo is its advantageous to a FF+crop shooter. Your get the FF focal lengths but you also get those in between ones as well so, 24-50-135 & 35-85-200 on apsc.

You have to decide if you like 35mm or 50mm more and then you can chose the other two. In practical use, I can stand father back and crop to a 35mm frame but If I need width, I'm out of luck with the 35mm. My issues with the 24LII was the vignette and some distortion but are minor in terms of that extra width. Then again, if you have a UWA, just use that along with the 35mm but now your taking more.

I have a video on the 24LII on my youtube channel if your debating between 24mm and 35mm.


----------



## tayassu (Sep 8, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> gregorywood said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...


+1
You gain much more flexibility with 2 bodies... I'd suggest also 24/50/135 or 200... but 135 will be better for your requirements. You can use that on crop as 38/80/216. If you get very fast primes (think 24/1.4, 50/1.2, 135/2) then the 7D at low light will not be that much of a problem. For walkaround in the city or something like that, I'd have the 50mm on FF and the 135 on crop, just swap the 24mm in when needed. It's not going to be too wide, 35mm is going to be too narrow, I had the same situation


----------



## gregorywood (Sep 8, 2014)

Zv said:


> For me a the main reason for buying a prime lens is that it allows you to do something that your zoom lens can't. For example - I shoot a lot at 24mm but I don't need a prime at that focal length because I have a 17-40L and 24-105L and I mainly shoot between f/5.6 - f/11. Instead I went for a 14mm f/2.8 because it has a unique perspective and it doubles up as an astro landscape lens (should I ever get into that!). There is a huge difference between 17mm f/4 and 14mm f/2.8 so the decision was an easy one!
> 
> But anyway, looking at your primes 35/50/100 isn't a bad combo at all. They all have advantages over your zooms but is there anything you would like to be able to do that you can't using those three, like tilt shift ability? If I had to go out with just three primes I'd choose 14/35/135 but that's because of the way I shoot. I find 35mm to be more useful than 50mm (my EOS M / 22 is my 35) and I find the telephoto look appealing so I'd go with the 135L (also because it's a bargain!).
> 
> How about this combo for OP - 17mm (or 24mm) TSE for landscape and interiors, keep the 35 f/2 IS for travel, low light and discreet street photography and also keep the 100mm macro for product and portraits. Either hold on to the 50 1.4 or sell it. Depends how much you use it.



You've given me some points to consider that I hadn't thought about - most notably, a lens that does something none of my zooms do. Thanks for that. 

Also, the 35mm seems more versatile in concept and on paper, I just need to force myself to leave the 50mm at home for a while when I go and use the 35mm. 

Thanks for the input!
Greg


----------



## MamiyaSekor (Sep 8, 2014)

*A daring idea! Sort of. *


Try renting one focal length for a weekend. Roam around, get a real feel for what kind of shots it allows, what kind it prevents, and whether it is to your personal taste. After you've gone out with each one, I bet you'll know in a month which focal lengths you'd get the most out of. 

Lately I go out of the house with just 1 prime: sometimes a 24, sometimes a 35, sometimes a 50, sometimes an 85, etc. Doing this experiment offers 3 things:

Advantage 1: lightweight, fast shooting, no messing with multiple lenses trying to find just the right one.

Advantage 2: Having one lens forces a kind of aesthetic rigor. The shot works or it doesn't and you move on, making note to return with a different lens. If you find that with an 85mm you're never satisfied and constantly skipping subjects, it's probably not your focal length. 

With multiple primes you invariably go for the one that 'makes sense.' Working with one lens forces you to use a focal length for subjects you instinctively wouldn't which can stimulate new and different shots.

Advantage 3: Really get to know each focal length technically and creatively. Using one focal length on an outing for subjects both appropriate and inappropriate can leave a very strong impressions of what each lens type delivers with varied shooting situations or subjects. We all probably know intellectually what a lens will likely do in any given circumstance but it's nice to have real images burned into the mind for future guidance. 


As for actual multiple lens shooting I suggest a 24mm, a 35mm, and a 135mm for the following: 


The 24mm for architecture, interiors, a sense of place.


A 35mm for POV, documentary street stuff. 

As has been said, a 35 and a 50 are redundant. Even though it overlaps to a 24mm in technical terms, I'd still go with the 35mm because it is way more versatile than a 50mm and fills a specific niche: It best approximates the human field of view, (2 eyes) it's easier to hand hold, doesn't distort too much, can sort of get you wide shots, and can sort of get you close ups with a 50mm feel if you get up real close and open up. (On a good rectilinear lens like Zeiss, the distortion won't be too bad). 

Sometimes you don't have time to switch lenses and you need something that can grab a wide but move in to a closeup (for event documentary shooting). 


A 135mm for details, faraway subjects, portraits. Generally I'd say go as long as you can. If you're creatively going to go wide, go wide. If you're creatively going to go telephoto, go telephoto! An 85mm is a great portrait lens but doesn't have the reach for distant subjects. 135mm can do both. 


I think the least versatile 3 lens lineup would be 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm. There would be so much overlap that you might as well just go with a single 50mm. This group is neither here nor there.


----------



## gregorywood (Sep 8, 2014)

Dick said:


> I guess it all comes down to your definition of versatile. You mentioned that you have the 100L, which is a really versatily lens already, so I'd name that as one of the 3 lenses. Then to add a wide-angle lens, maybe the 14LII. The normal lens could then be a choice between a 35mm or a 50mm lens. That would definitely be a versatile trio.
> 
> The basic 24 + 50 + 135 or 35 + 85 + ? are really borin if you ask me and there is really no versatility. Those are combos that replace zooms with wider apertures. Boring.



Good points to consider. I hadn't really thought of anything off the wide end below 24mm, especially in the UW range, but you make a valid argument. I don't shoot a lot in that FL, but perhaps I would if I had it. I suppose to your point, something less than 17mm (the widest I have now, but on a zoom) either the 35 or the 50 I have now (I'd sell one to fund the new addition), plus my 100mmL meets the objective. I suppose part of my curiosity lands with not having any experience with these "epic" primes everyone raves about - the 85mm and the 135mm - and feeling like something is missing in my kit if I don't have at least one of them. I see the 100mmL that I have as more of a "specialist" lens, but I need to consider it in the 3 lens scheme.

Thanks for the input!
Greg


----------



## gregorywood (Sep 8, 2014)

alexturton said:


> With just 3 lenses id get
> 
> 24, 50, 135
> 
> ...



This is the combo that my gut tells me I should have, yet I am concerned about the usability of the 24mm in apertures that aren't already repeated in my zooms due to the challenges I've read about with focusing and DoF. Any words of wisdom there?

Thanks for the input.
Greg


----------



## gregorywood (Sep 8, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> Another reason I chose that combo is its advantageous to a FF+crop shooter. Your get the FF focal lengths but you also get those in between ones as well so, 24-50-135 & 35-85-200 on apsc.
> 
> You have to decide if you like 35mm or 50mm more and then you can chose the other two. In practical use, I can stand father back and crop to a 35mm frame but If I need width, I'm out of luck with the 35mm. My issues with the 24LII was the vignette and some distortion but are minor in terms of that extra width. Then again, if you have a UWA, just use that along with the 35mm but now your taking more.
> 
> I have a video on the 24LII on my youtube channel if your debating between 24mm and 35mm.



Thanks again for the useful advice. I'll check out your youtube channel. 

Thanks for taking the time to help!
Greg


----------



## Etienne (Sep 8, 2014)

On FF:

1. 35mm f/2 IS if just one body one lens. This lens is awesome for video and low light, and it's lightweight
2. 24mm and 50mm for two lens kit. I'm waiting for a new 50 with IS (have the 1.4 now)
3. 24, 35, 85 for three lens kit. I had the 24 1.4L but it didn't focus reliably on the 5D2 so I returned it. 
The shots with that lens are unique, so I may buy it again (I have heard that it focuses 
much better on the 5D3). 

Also good combination: 35mm and the 70-200 2.8. One prime, one zoom


----------



## gregorywood (Sep 8, 2014)

*Re: A daring idea! Sort of. *



MamiyaSekor said:


> Try renting one focal length for a weekend. Roam around, get a real feel for what kind of shots it allows, what kind it prevents, and whether it is to your personal taste. After you've gone out with each one, I bet you'll know in a month which focal lengths you'd get the most out of.
> 
> Lately I go out of the house with just 1 prime: sometimes a 24, sometimes a 35, sometimes a 50, sometimes an 85, etc. Doing this experiment offers 3 things:
> 
> ...



Your response has me really thinking about this. Those are some good ideas and I hadn't thought of approaching it in that way. I think I struggle most with the debate over 24 vs 35 and the 35 vs 50. The 85 vs 135 doesn't seem like much of an overlap, but from the photos I've seen the results in the style of the photo is similar and for that reason, I wouldn't necessarily want both.

I appreciate your lengthy response and great advice.
Greg


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Sep 8, 2014)

As a general rule, is it a good idea to skip alternate lenses in a line up when planning and building a prime kit?

For example

24 - skip 35 - 50 - skip 85 - 100

or

35 - skip 50 - 85 - skip 100 - 135

And then only if you find that you really need one of the skipped primes, go back and fill it in?

That's what I am doing now that I am re-building my prime kit. I *think* it is a good strategy.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 8, 2014)

Zv said:


> For me a the main reason for buying a prime lens is that it allows you to do something that your zoom lens can't.



That's a key point, the key point IMO. Used to be primes gave better IQ, that's no longer true (for all zooms). Reasons to go with primes are faster apertures (more subject isolation, more light) or that they're smaller/lighter. 

I bought primes to meet specific needs, not to 'build a prime kit'.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Sep 8, 2014)

It sounds like you're pretty close to your prime nirvana already. Add one lens based on the advice above (*RLPhoto*, *Neuro*) and you're golden!

I think everyone that is a serious photography freak eventually starts down the path of "I want a great prime kit" with their FF camera. It's kind of like buying a boat. So go ahead and buy the extra primes, shoot and enjoy them, build your skills and eventually you'll probably get it out of your system.

I don't mean this in an insulting or bad way, it is just an honest observation. I did the same thing. But once you get past it, you will either become a dedicated and life long prime shooter, or you'll decide that the new zooms that Canon has released in the past few years are so good that it's not worth the trouble keeping up with all the extra gear.

The middle ground is if you divide up your shooting between thoughtful art shooting and busy event shooting. Primes are wonderful for those times when it's "just you and your craft". But unless you have a solid method and workflow set up for certain events to carry and use the extra primes, or you shoot portraits/babies a lot, I think the primes will eventually gather dust.

Personally, I tend toward the wide end. I have the 24L-II, 28/1.8, 50/1.8, 50/1.4, 50 Macro. I used to have the 135/2 and the 35L. I have loved all these lenses but I honestly don't use them that often anymore. It's just easier to use the zooms and the pictures are still phenomenal. I still use the 28/1.8 for low light campfire shots, etc. And for some reason, I've never found a groove for the ever popular standard 50mm FL.

In general, the 16-35L, 24-70L and 24-105L stay on my cameras 90% of the time and work great for my needs. For swimming it's often the 70-200L or the 70-300L and maybe the 24-105L up close.

I'm looking forward to seeing what you decide!


----------



## NancyP (Sep 8, 2014)

Well, I would look at what focal lengths you tend to use on the zooms. I have a 60D and last year got a 6D. In my case, I spent a fair amount of time at the 15mm end of the 15-85mm, so I knew that I would like a good 20-24mm prime. I already had a 14mm f/2.8 Samyang for astro. and a 35mm f/1.4 Sigma Art for my "normal" prime for the 60D. A used Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 happened to be at the camera store when I went in to handle and buy the 6D, so I left with it on the 6D rather than the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8. I am filling in the 50-ish and 100-ish slots with two vintage manual Nikkor lenses (50mm f/1.2, 105mm f/2.5) inherited from my Dad, and actually these are quite good - maybe not as clinically sharp and perfect as the best modern lenses, but the color and contrast are very appealing. Eventually I may "upgrade" to modern AF lenses. 

Primes are good for 1. sharp corners 2. wider aperture, to be used for shallow depth of field. Nowadays the cameras can be boosted up to very high ISO (particularly the 6D, which is quite usable at ISO 6400), so wide aperture merely to stop action is no longer as important as it was in the film era. Primes also stimulate a different approach to shooting - the limitation tends to make one work harder to get the shot.

The wide primes I use for landscape and astrophotography, where sharp corners are important, at least some of the time. The 50 and 105mm lenses are used for subject isolation. I still don't have a zoom for the 6D, so when I want a versatile one-lens situation, I take the 60D and 15-85. My telephoto prime is the 180mm f/3.5L macro, which does a bang-up job of subject isolation at f/3.5, and doesn't scare off the snakes, lizards, insects - this is a lens that has lovely color and contrast, perfectly usable at non-macro ranges, though it weighs a ton.


----------



## gregorywood (Sep 8, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> It sounds like you're pretty close to your prime nirvana already. Add one lens based on the advice above (*RLPhoto*, *Neuro*) and you're golden!
> 
> I think everyone that is a serious photography freak eventually starts down the path of "I want a great prime kit" with their FF camera. It's kind of like buying a boat. So go ahead and buy the extra primes, shoot and enjoy them, build your skills and eventually you'll probably get it out of your system.
> 
> ...



No insult taken! This is all good advice and the beauty of having a forum of like-minded people with various levels of experience.

Thanks for the input, you (like many others) have given me things to consider.

Greg


----------



## sdsr (Sep 8, 2014)

gregorywood said:


> I want to sort of "force myself" into leaving the house with 2 or 3 primes and the 6D and making it work to see what happens.



There's a lot to be said for doing this, I think (I often take just one - restrictions can be liberating...), but why don't you start doing this with the lenses you have and see whether you feel limited at either end of the range? You may be perfectly happy with what you have, or you may want much wider (24mm or less) and/or longer (200mm, say); only you know what you find useful, after all. And, as I think neuro suggested, supplement this with an experiment take your zooms, but used them fixed at specific lengths - e.g. spend a day or two with your 24-105L at 24mm and see whether it's a focal length that works for you. 

Given that you have 35/50/100 I'm inclined to suggest that 85 doesn't make much sense unless you find the 100L too heavy cf 85mm 1.8 or need the extra speed/shallowness of focus at equivalent distances of a faster lens (bearing in mind that you can get much closer to your subject with your 100L than you can with any 85mm lens); and the same may be true of the 135L too - the differences between 85/100 and 100/135 could well prove too small to be worth the expense. At the other end, if you want wider, since you already have 35mm, you probably would want to skip 28mm in favor of 24mm (or wider).

Who knows, you may not need to buy anything at all....


----------



## ecka (Sep 8, 2014)

40/2.8STM is basically my do-it-all FF prime kit lens (aka body cap pancake  ), but sometimes my mood changes and I use my Sigma 150/2.8Macro for everything, specially outdoors (yes, I do mostly macro and people). So, I could live with these two. Stitching and cropping works well for me. Otherwise I would use Samyang 14/2.8UMC and 85/1.8USM. However, before buying any new lens, I would wait for Photokina. Some say Sigma will bring some new toys, like 24/1.4ART and maybe 85/1.4ART.
For 1 prime kit - a single 50/1.4 should do.
For 2 prime kit - your 35/2 IS USM and 100L Macro may work fine (I'm not a fan of this 35mm bokeh).
For 3 prime kit - I would add something wider 14, 20 or 24, your choice.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Sep 8, 2014)

sdsr said:


> ....And, as I think neuro suggested, supplement this with an experiment take your zooms, but used them fixed at specific lengths - e.g. spend a day or two with your 24-105L at 24mm and see whether it's a focal length that works for you.



Great advice. Just because you have a zoom, does not mean you have to zoom. That's a great way to test which FL's you prefer. 



> Who knows, you may not need to buy anything at all....



blasphemy! _*All*_ photography problems can only be solved by buying new gear. ;D


----------



## c.d.embrey (Sep 8, 2014)

*Get lenses that do something that your zooms won't do.* An ultra-wide 14mm, a T&S lens (90mm works for me, YMMV), maybe something long like a EF 300mm f/4L IS USM.


----------



## Halfrack (Sep 9, 2014)

How many shots with your 50/1.4 are wide open or within a stop?

I would recommend anyone rent a few lenses before purchasing a number of prime lenses. The 50L and 85L are both amazing, but have specific uses, and you feel horrible when they sit neglected (I did). With the crazy high ISO, the need to shoot wide open in low light is no longer the case - given your f4 zooms, I'd recommend looking at the latest in f2.8 24-70mm (Canon mk2 or Tamron with VC) zooms, or the new f4 16-35mm. Find out what holes are in your lineup, and then figure out if a prime is the best way to fill it.

I get the fun of having just 2 zoom options (and nothing that would be considered medium or long) on my other kit, and walking around changing lenses every few shots isn't what I call fun.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 9, 2014)

orrokinawa said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > I'm finding that I use prime lenses a lot less, and the "L" zooms almost exclusively. I finally up and sold my 35L, all three of my 50mm lenses, and my 85mm f/1.8.
> ...



I've had a couple of them, I paid either $200 or $250 for the current one. It was missing the cap and had a slight ding in the front threads. I have a lens thread repair tool and bought a new front cap. While I was straightening the front threads, I went ahead and stretched them a tin amount so that the new cap fits very snugly and will now not fall off. The glass was fine. Later I bought a Samyang 14mm rectilinear lens, it was trash by comparison and cost me more.


----------



## PureClassA (Sep 9, 2014)

gregorywood said:


> Greetings all,
> 
> Long time listener, first time caller...
> 
> ...



I haven't read the whole chain, but your shooting sounds a hellova lot like mine...right down to dance recitals. Sports action like that and some football games I do, You really need the zoom. My gear list I below. That aside, I shoot house interiors on my 7D with the 11-16 on a tripod so I can use low ISOs. You have the 17-40L on a 6D so you're golden. I'd hate to suggest giving up the zoom there. That's the only lens you really need for real estate. I'm looking at the new 16-35 f4 myself right now. I will also add that on the dance recitals, I rent a 1DX for the weekend for 350 and strap the 70-200 IS MkII to it and I'm done. 8000 frames over 4 recitals each with 50 dance routines. Primes are hard to pull off for those two types of shooting. 

Street? 50mm or 35mm. 35mm will get you wider range obviously and if you need to move in to tighten up, do so. I find it's easier for me to move in (or crop if nothing else) than back up most times. Sig 35 ART is insane. But I also have the 50.

For portraiture, I've actually gotten great results for chest-up headshots with the Sig 50 ART. Barrel distortion is zip and everything is very proportional. That said, 85mm is more ideal and some even shoot head with 135. Canon has fantastic stuff here and SIgma is about to release both in the next year from what it smells like. That cheap little 85mm canon I have will blow your socks off for what it is.

So here we go. Street and general. 35mm. Studio Portrait Headshots (single subject) 85mm. Want a #3 length, then go 50mm.

Keep your 17-40L for real estate and your 70-200 for sports and rent a 1DX for those indoor wacky lighting dance recitals. You can look at my website to see how those came out.


----------



## PureClassA (Sep 9, 2014)

Here's a 35 Sigma ART Full body studio framing.


----------



## PureClassA (Sep 9, 2014)

This shot was done same day same shoot, but with my 50mm Sig ART.


----------



## PureClassA (Sep 9, 2014)

Just as a matter of different perspective. Here's the same Sig 35 ART as the full body shot but up tight with me laying flat on the deck about a foot off the subject.


----------



## Hillsilly (Sep 9, 2014)

With a FF camera, I roll mostly with a 40 / 135 combo. The 135 stays on the camera most of the time and the 40mm is a pocket-able alternative providing a contrasting perspective. 

For wider angles, I use a 17-40mm. If I was going to replace it with a prime, I'm not sure what I'd get. Part of me says the 24mm tilt shift would be ideal (but at a high price). The new 24mm f/2.8 IS is more budget friendly and is getting great reviews. But really...24mm just isn't wide enough. 20mm? Pass. Perhaps the 14mm? But that also has a high price. In my case, I think my realistic choice might be the Samyang 14mm.

With my Fuji camera, I use a 14mm, 35mm and 60mm combo. (In FF equivalents, that's 21mm, 50mm and 90mm in real lens speak). These three focal lengths are fine for almost everything I want to photograph.


----------



## gregorywood (Sep 14, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I'm finding that I use prime lenses a lot less, and the "L" zooms almost exclusively. I finally up and sold my 35L, all three of my 50mm lenses, and my 85mm f/1.8.
> 
> I still have a 15,, fisheye, a 17mm f/3.5, my 100L, and 135mm L, but I really never use them. My 135mmL was my most used lens, followed by the 35, and then 85 before I bought the Zooms.
> 
> I find 24mm to be wide enough, and am usually at 70-135mm for events. I can setup back from the stage and zoom in on one, two, or the whole stage. with this combination. The 16-35 only gets used when the actors come out into the audience and they are 3 ft away.



I have been thinking about a fisheye lens for awhile. I had a day off and it was raining, so what better thing to do than go camera shop hunting. The only fisheye lens I could find were new copies of the 8-15mm L. Just when the day was over, I wandered into the last stop of the day and found a new-in-the-box Canon EF 15mm f/2.8. I've played around with it a bit and I like it. I need to learn how to exploit it to it's fullest, now.


----------



## gregorywood (Sep 14, 2014)

PureClassA said:


> gregorywood said:
> 
> 
> > Greetings all,
> ...



Thanks very much for the thoughtful input and for the samples below. I think my plan will be to keep the 35mm f/2 IS and sell off the 50mm 1.4 to force myself to use and become more comfortable with the 35mm. In place of the 50mm, I may get an 85mm (which one remains to be seen). I like the logic someone else pointed out that most of the focal lengths are already covered by zoom lenses, so I should make the prime lenses I do have unique in some fashion. I figure with a fisheye, a macro, and a bokeh monster (in a yet to be determined focal length), that makes good sense.


----------



## JonAustin (Sep 14, 2014)

The depth and variety of opinions offered up in this thread are the reasons why a forum like this is priceless.

I most relate to the viewpoints expressed by Mt Spokane and Rusty the Geek. I started into SLR photography about 12 years ago, thinking I had to cover the entire focal length range (up to at least 300mm) with L zooms, as well as a good variety of L or "just below L" primes.

I've purchased and sold a good number of lenses over these years, and of late, have been paring down my lens collection, getting rid of (freeing myself from) glass that just didn't get used.

My kit now comprises a 24-105, 70-200 II, 50CM and 100L. I sold my 1.4x II extender recently, and don't intend to replace it. Likewise, my 17-40, which saw a lot less action after I moved from APS-C to full frame. I'll only get the 16-35/4L IS _if_ a definite need arises. I only use the 100L for portraits (sold my 85/1.8 after I got it), and lately I've been thinking I could substitute the 70-200 II for those portrait sessions and lose nothing.

That little GAS voice inside me keeps whispering that I should pick up a 24- or 35mm IS prime, while I wait for Canon's mythical 50mm IS and 100-400 II lenses to appear. When that happens, I just look at how infrequently I use my current primes, and then I convince myself that my money's better left in my wallet.


----------



## DRR (Sep 15, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> As a general rule, is it a good idea to skip alternate lenses in a line up when planning and building a prime kit?
> 
> For example
> 
> ...



FWIW, this is my strategy. 14/35/85/135. Although I may go back in an get a 100mm for its macro ability.


----------



## bholliman (Sep 16, 2014)

DRR said:


> AcutancePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > As a general rule, is it a good idea to skip alternate lenses in a line up when planning and building a prime kit?
> ...



+1 I currently own 14/35/85/135 with a 100L Macro thrown in for good measure. The combination works well and provides good coverage. My 35mm f/2 IS is generally my walk around lens and I combine it with the 85 or 135 depending on how much reach I think I'll need.


----------

