# Zoom vs Primes?



## rafaelsynths (Dec 11, 2012)

I don't want to invest in a lot of money in glass until I hear from other photographers. I do a lot of photography in the streets with my canon 5D mark ii ( got from eBay at a amazing price!) . I don't have any lens at the moment. I'm thinking about the 24-70 mark 2 or should I just go for some primes for my work? What do you recommend me?


----------



## jondave (Dec 11, 2012)

Depends really what kind of photography you do on the street. 

If you take a lot of candid, off-the-hip shots, a wide prime may be best as it gives you to get up close with larger framing. The wide framing also gives you room to crop if your framing isn't spot on.

The zoom gives you a lot of framing options and allows you to shoot from afar if you can't get close enough to your subject.


----------



## TexPhoto (Dec 11, 2012)

As jon says, hard to say without knowing what you are doing. 

Also, the choice of zoom or prime(s) is largely one of personal preference, for almost any type of photography.

The 24-70 II is an awesome lens, but hardly a budget match to your 5dII (not that there is anything wrong with that.)


----------



## Artifex (Dec 11, 2012)

As it was already said, it is hard to tell without knowing more, however, I am going to try to answer keeping a general view, and understanding from your post that you shoot street photography, as you say you do a lot of photography in the street. 

I know lots of people are going to disagree with me, but I greatly prefer prime over zoom lens. 
I am a big fan of Henri Cartier-Bresson (who can be consider as one of the most (if not the most) influential and talented street photographer); whenever he was shooting for himself, he would use a 50mm, so his camera can really become an "extension of his eye". I personally think that he was right in doing so. 

Prime can have much bigger maximal aperture than zoom; I personally don't know a zoom lens that is faster than f/2.8, but know a lot of f/1.4 prime. Bigger aperture can not only be useful in low light situation, but gives you more option in term of depth of field control. Everybody love bokeh  Also, they tend to be sharper or/and cheaper, however, this is not always the case. 

Of course, having access to multiple focal length is extremely useful; zoom lens are far more practical that prime in that regard. However, I tend to think that limiting yourself to only a few focal length gives you the opportunity to master them. I personally view photography much more as an art form than a business form (this is really just my opinion), so the usefulness isn't all that important compare to the possibility of growing as an artist. 

Ultimately, the most important thing to keep in mind is that what really matters is which lens you prefer, even though I am sure that you will get some awesome advices from this forum. In street photography, I think the best focal are 50mm, 35mm, 85mm and 135mm. However, everybody as their own view and their own preference, depending on their style and their view of what is photography in itself. This is, for me, an awesome thing; people having different view and preference is one of the reason why, after nearly 200 years, there is still lots of great and unique photos taken nowadays. 

In summary (sorry for the long text, I hope it was not too boring!), if I was you, it would use that money on a few fast prime. The 24-70 II is about 2300$, so that leaves enough money for some good lens! If you are into manual lens, Zeiss are close to top (a poor man choice would be Samyang, which are extremely good for the price!). If you prefer lens build in a more modern view, I heard great things about Sigma 35mm and saw great things about Sigma 50mm f/1.4. Also, the Canon 85mm f/1.8 is one of the best values IMO in Canon's lens.


----------



## roadrunner (Dec 11, 2012)

Like others have said, it's hard to say without knowing more.

That said, I think I would jump on the 24-70 if money is not an issue. Because you are doing street photography, and you don't have any lenses yet, the 24-70 will cover a very wide range of subject matters and give you amazing image quality. I don't think you could go wrong this lense, but if you only get a single prime, you may find you feel very limited. Take the time with the 24-70, figure out what focal lengths you actually need, and if you determine F2.8 just isn't fast enough for you, then invest in the prime.

Honestly though, the route Artifex suggested is good too. It just depends on what you want and your budget.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 11, 2012)

In term of super bokeh, it's hard for zoom lens to out perform prime - f.1ish vs f2.8

However, to have a zoom lens that can produce same sharpness(even better in some copies) as primes at f2.8, the new 24-70 f2.8 II is your *LENS*. It's sharp end to end at f2.8 with decent bokeh.

I have no regret on my purchases: 24-70 f2.8 II + 70-200 f2.8 IS II


----------



## rafaelsynths (Dec 11, 2012)

Artifex said:


> As it was already said, it is hard to tell without knowing more, however, I am going to try to answer keeping a general view, and understanding from your post that you shoot street photography, as you say you do a lot of photography in the street.
> 
> I know lots of people are going to disagree with me, but I greatly prefer prime over zoom lens.
> I am a big fan of Henri Cartier-Bresson (who can be consider as one of the most (if not the most) influential and talented street photographer); whenever he was shooting for himself, he would use a 50mm, so his camera can really become an "extension of his eye". I personally think that he was right in doing so.
> ...



Thank you, it wasn't boring at all 
Very informative indeed +1
This weekend i'm taking a trip to Santa Cruz with my girlfriend. Mostly not going to shoot Street Photography but mostly just shots of the gal and me. Mostly shots of her.
I'm also going to order tomorrow some lenses and do 2 day shipping on them so they can arrive early.
Now i've never tried the mark 2 zoom but for $2,000 do you think it's better then most of the primes out there?
I found the 35mm L lens for about a Grand and might be able to buy an 85mm.
Just don't know, I want bokeh shots but then again a zoom might be more useful.


----------



## bycostello (Dec 11, 2012)

zoom... gives u flexibility....


----------



## rafaelsynths (Dec 11, 2012)

lol5d3 said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > In term of super bokeh, it's hard for zoom lens to out perform prime - f.1ish vs f2.8
> ...



Come on, no more trolls on this forum pleaseeee.


----------



## rafaelsynths (Dec 11, 2012)

bycostello said:


> zoom... gives u flexibility....


I won't be having a tripod with me. I think I might just go with the canon 24-105 since it has IS.
And get 2 primes.
Which other primes do you guys recommend?
35mm sounds yummy bokehlious to me, maybe a 135 also?


----------



## eml58 (Dec 11, 2012)

If this is a little new for you, and sounds as though it might be, new purchase of the 5DMK2 etc, you may want to feel your way slowly into the bottomless pit of shinny new lenses, I know what I'm on about in this department because I'm a self confessed Lensaholhic, and enjoy every moment of my addiction.

You wont go wrong with starting with the 24-70 f/2.8 L II, look next at the 135 f/2 L, then when you decide where to go next you can start to look at specialised lenses, 24 f/2.8, 50f/1.2, 85 f/1.2, 70-200 f/2.8 L II etc etc.

Work your way into it as your experience develops and your Photographic needs begin to determine what Lenses you are going to use most going forward.


----------



## nicku (Dec 11, 2012)

rafaelsynths said:


> I don't want to invest in a lot of money in glass until I hear from other photographers. I do a lot of photography in the streets with my canon 5D mark ii ( got from eBay at a amazing price!) . I don't have any lens at the moment. I'm thinking about the 24-70 mark 2 or should I just go for some primes for my work? What do you recommend me?



+1 for primes

I use the camera professional work. I always use primes.... very rare zooms for landscapes ( under 2% of my pictures)


----------



## AudioGlenn (Dec 11, 2012)

as a newer shooter, I'd recommend going for a good zoom like the 24-70 II. I had the 24-105 to begin with but was never wowed by it. I personally feel primes are for more experienced shooters who know that they want to work with a particular focal length.


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 11, 2012)

Lets have a reality check: we're not talking about the '70 and '80 anymore. 

if we are talking about expensive zooms, then we can say they are very good, with some caveats.

If you are shooting anywhere from f5.6 to f11 don't expect to see much difference apart from the extreme corners. If you want pictures created around thin DoF, shooting from anywhere f1.2 to f4 then primes can produce a much better result.

Then there is the cost issue: fast primes can be much much cheaper than the equivalent quality zoom. 

The weight issue - primes are smaller / lighter.

And another point that I haven't heard discussed - the zooms are more modern and better corrected for digital in terms of contrast when compared with prime lenses from the film era.

At Building Panoramics we try and use primes, mainly because we stitch and edge quality is very important, but to be quite honest you cannot tell the difference in the finished product.


----------



## sandymandy (Dec 11, 2012)

If u prefer to be active and run around a lot then get primes, if not get zoom  Its just about what kind of workstyle u prefer, quality is not a factor anymore really, except u need really wide open aperture which only primes deliver.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 11, 2012)

nicku said:


> I use the camera professional work. I always use primes.... very rare zooms for landscapes ( under 2% of my pictures)



Meaning you're using primes for weddings/events, too? In this case I guess you're shooting with multiple camera bodies? And as for street photography, I guess it depends on the personal style how much time is spent for framing and "zooming with your feet" with a prime, or if a smaller zoom is a plus simply for the size (like 6d+40 pankake).



Sporgon said:


> Lets have a reality check: we're not talking about the '70 and '80 anymore.



But still a shooting style - and most likely results - are different with a prime or zoom, at least for me, ymmv.



Sporgon said:


> And another point that I haven't heard discussed - the zooms are more modern and better corrected for digital in terms of contrast when compared with prime lenses from the film era.



I guess that's because except for some long-living L primes most lenses are from the digital era, and even these are being in the process of being replaced, amended (like the IS primes) or at least Sigma has new ones.



Sporgon said:


> At Building Panoramics we try and use primes, mainly because we stitch and edge quality is very important, but to be quite honest you cannot tell the difference in the finished product.



I am really wondering about that - with modern software like autopano, isn't the software smart enough to throw away soft edge areas when there is a sharp overlap from the center? That's why I usually do more shots with larger overlap with my rather crappy wide angle zoom, seems to work so far.


----------



## The Bad Duck (Dec 11, 2012)

Primes, no doubt.

The cancake 40, the new 35 or a 100 /2.
Why? They are stealthier. Unless you want to develop a style of "people looking at your camera"-photography... L-zooms are too "loud".

Primes also makes you a better photographer since you have to try harder. It also make you better since you can skip all the images you can not capture and fokus on the ones you can capture - no need to think about what focal length you would want to use when you only have one! Yes, you will miss shots but you will find other shots that you would not have even seen with a zoom. Or at least that is how it is to me.

Also, the satisfaction in capturing a striking photo using the most boring of focal lengths is something else. When photographing at 50mm or 35mm you know its YOU that made the picture work, not the unusual focal lenght or other effect.

zooms are equal in most technical aspects but not in DoF - but in the streets it can be hard to get proper focus in a f/1.4 shot, so you may want to be at f/4 - f/8 anyway? But zooms are also larger, and that is why i think they should be avoided. Same goes for the large primes like 85 /1.2. Skip that and go for the above lenses.

Or a G1-X?

Anyway, good luck and have fun!


----------



## Danielle (Dec 11, 2012)

Any given focal length is only limited by ones talent and imagination.

I can think of one prime which is the approximate cost of the new and in my opinion overpriced 24-70! Modern too. And in the right hands I know would be amazing. Not trying to dis-credit really good zooms out there, but there's not a lot you can't do with a decent prime if you frame it right. 

Try some of the really good ones, you may not look back. Nobody can twist your arm, you have to do that yourself. Just like someone else in-particular whom you've never met (like myself) can truly advise on focal length, or lengths.


----------



## TexPhoto (Dec 11, 2012)

rafaelsynths said:


> bycostello said:
> 
> 
> > zoom... gives u flexibility....
> ...



The 24-105mm f4 IS is a wonderful lens, and I highly recommend it. You can often buy them new on eBay for a little < $800 as people buy the Canon kits and sell off the lens.

The 35mm f1.4 prime is a great lens, as is the 135mm. Why not pick one, buy it with the zoom, and start to feel if you are a prime or zoom person. (Or a lenshog / lensaholic) like me....


----------



## Artifex (Dec 11, 2012)

rafaelsynths said:


> Artifex said:
> 
> 
> > As it was already said, it is hard to tell without knowing more, however, I am going to try to answer keeping a general view, and understanding from your post that you shoot street photography, as you say you do a lot of photography in the street.
> ...



Happy you liked it! 

I have no personal experience with the 24-70mm II; I heard it was a fantastic lens in term of sharpness, AF, etc. This zoom range covers what is normally all the most "all around' focal length, so it is far from being useless. However, from what I understand, it seems that you are starting in photography; although I'm a bit of a "sharpness junkie" myself, investing that kind of money in a single lens might not be your best bet. If you are not an already experience photograph, I doubt you are going to take better picture with a 24-70 II than with a 24-70 I or a 24-105. Since they cost 2-3 x less (depending if you buy used or not) than the 24-70 II, it could leave you with enough money to find yourself lens to complete your needs. For instance, you could go with a 24-70 I or 24-105 for a walk around lens and a 85mm f/1.8 for some awesome bokehlicious portrait of your girlfriend!  Even then, you would still have save about 800$; it is close to the price of a Sigma 35mm f/1.4! 

I think you should not buy to much lens right at the beginning though, 2 or 3 maximum. It is important to know what you are going to be shooting and where what you already have is laking before spending money on lens you might not need all that much. 



rafaelsynths said:


> bycostello said:
> 
> 
> > zoom... gives u flexibility....
> ...



I know I just recommended the 24-105, however, I feel I should tell you that IS, as much as it can be useful in some situation, is not always necessary. It is going to be useful on long focal length and in low light situation. If you plan to do night photography, you are probably going to need a tripod anyway; no IS can help you having clean 5s shoot! During daylight, you won't need it that much neither. However, it can be really nice to have for low light and interior shoots, considering also that the 24-105 as a maximum aperture of f/4. 

I feel this lens could be a great choice for a standard zoom, especially if bought used (great idea TexPhoto)!


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 11, 2012)

It just depends on what you're shooting. I'd have missed hundreds of sports shots without the 70-200 f/2.8L II IS zoom lens. Likewise I'd have missed hundreds of football and soccer shots without my 400 and 300 primes. Again, just depends. Some modern zooms are way better in IQ than primes in that range.


----------



## verysimplejason (Dec 11, 2012)

I survived on 28mm, 50mm, 100mm, and a 55-250 in an APS-C for those rare times that I need longer focal length. I find my 28mm 80% of the time in my camera body. The 50mm, I use exclusively for portraits. Once, I covered a whole wedding with just the 28mm and the 55-250. You just need to be more agile and aware when using a prime lens. Yes, you get the good IQ with primes but you need to work for it. As for the zoom, I think this is more for event type usage. I'd carry both depending on the situation. For me, IQ is nothing if you can't get the shot you want. That said, I'm fit and athletic enough to compensate for my lack of zoom lens like a 24-70 or 24-105 but sometimes, being able to zoom with your feet isn't enough.


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 11, 2012)

Primes have been my choice for years, but I've warmed up to zooms a little more lately. I could purchase a set of good primes for the cost of one Pro-zoom. IE: 24mm 1.8, 50mm 1.4, & 100 F/2.

For street work, Primes have always been the choice for that field. Small, Fast, & Discreet. 

I've been considering a 24-70 + 70-200 2.8 Set of zooms for awhile now but its the weight that continues to put me off on those purchases.


----------



## ChilledXpress (Dec 11, 2012)

I live in Santa Cruz... I will be out shooting with a few friends sunday afternoon testing my new 1DX and 300 f/2.8. I will be with about 5 good friends to keep the gear secure, you gotta protect yourself ;o). I shoot street and studio. I have loads of L and if you'd like, we could meet up and you could test drive some glass. Hit me up if you're interested.

Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L USM II
Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM 
Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Pancake
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM
Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM
Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM
Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS II USM
Canon EF 16-35 f/2.8L USM
Canon EF 17-40 f/4L USM
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM 
Canon EF 1.4x II Extender
Sigma 15mm f/2.8 EX DG Fisheye
Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM

Family photo with some faves....


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 11, 2012)

I see you also skipped the 85L II, Is that because the 135L is so good?


----------



## ChilledXpress (Dec 11, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> I see you also skipped the 85L II, Is that because the 135L is so good?



I owned the 85 but a little too slow for my tastes and I do think the 135 is devine... Stealthy perfect for the street work that I do.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 11, 2012)

ChilledXpress said:


> I live in Santa Cruz... I will be out shooting with a few friends sunday afternoon testing my a 1DX and 300 f/2.8. I shoot street and studio. I have loads of L and if you'd like, we could meet up and you could test drive some glass. Hit me up if you're interested.
> 
> Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L USM II
> Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM
> ...



That 50L looks so sexy on the 5D III   ....I might have to pull trigger soon.


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 11, 2012)

ChilledXpress said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I see you also skipped the 85L II, Is that because the 135L is so good?
> ...



It indeed is a slow mammoth. ;D


----------



## ChilledXpress (Dec 11, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> ChilledXpress said:
> 
> 
> > I live in Santa Cruz... I will be out shooting with a few friends sunday afternoon testing my a 1DX and 300 f/2.8. I shoot street and studio. I have loads of L and if you'd like, we could meet up and you could test drive some glass. Hit me up if you're interested.
> ...



It performs on the 5D3 superbly and is now my fave goto combo on that body and the 1DX. Get it!!! DO IT !!!


----------



## Zv (Dec 11, 2012)

Couple of primes I reckon are the way to go. One on the camera and one in the pocket, maybe a 35 and a small 85/100 ought to do it! Zooms have their place too, so it's good to have a mix. Get 24-somethin and a 70-200 then a bunch of primes.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 11, 2012)

Sometimes lighting is a big factor for some gyms that I know of. For instance, tonight I'm not even bothering bringing my 70-200 because the gym is so dimly lit that I need to be able to shoot at f/2. So in that case, I just bring my 135L and/or 200L and hop around the stands .


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Dec 11, 2012)

I'm waiting for a second copy of the 40mm pancake to arrive in two days. (The first copy did not focus consistently on my 5D3)

I think the 40 will be a good, discrete lens for street photography, but I haven't tried it yet. Will let you all know how it works. I will try it on my T2i and my 5D3.


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 11, 2012)

@Marsu42; 

don't disagree with what you've said: the latest stitch software is very good. You cannot tell which of our pictures have been taken on zooms. 

I think that primes to day are more specialist lenses whereas 20 years ago they were your "normal" lens. But everyone should get the latest Canon gift: the 40mm pancake !


----------



## ecka (Dec 11, 2012)

Zooms for work.
Primes for pleasure.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 11, 2012)

ChilledXpress said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > ChilledXpress said:
> ...



I just did, through Crutchfield with my all time fav B&W Clear filter. All items will be here this friday


----------



## robbymack (Dec 11, 2012)

Get a zoom way more versatile than a prime unless you know exactly what fl you like. No reason to spend a bunch of scratch on a 24-70ii. The older version of that lens or the 24-105, or new tamron 24-70 will fit the bill then buy a 85 1.8 and your still saving a boat load over the 24-70ii


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 11, 2012)

That 50L is a love-hate lens. 

I ♥ my 50L.

http://ramonlperez.tumblr.com/post/34906285033/fast-prime-shoot-out-pt-2-50mm-1-2l-review


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Dec 11, 2012)

I am bit torn on this subject. I have a mix of primes and zooms. I prefer shooting with the primes when I have an opportunity to be a little more deliberate. I feel they really lend themselves to more creative options. I do most of my portraiture work with primes.

But events are another matter. I just shot a wedding this weekend using the new Tamron 24-70mm VC over the focal range where I would normally use a 35mm and 85mm prime. I found it a much better tool for adjusting on the spot and enable me to better frame key moments without worrying about not having enough room in my framing. I shot it about 65-70% of the day, complimenting it with a 135L, 100L Macro, and 85mm f/1.8 for key shots where I could be more deliberate. I was really pleased with my results, and, from what I understand, the MKII of the Canon 24-70mm is even better (although that VC is very, very nice!) 

The same is true to a much lesser extent of a longer lens (like a 70-200). I find longer shots easier, because you can always crop a quality image to get closer, but you can't add width to a shot in post. I love both my 100L and 135L for event work for different reason. I also add a 1.4x teleconverter to the 135L to make a 189mm f/2.8L (which is about as long in actuality as the 70-200mm zooms) on occasion.

I love having both options, but I think choosing one depends very strongly on one's shooting style.


----------



## ChilledXpress (Dec 11, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> That 50L looks so sexy on the 5D III   ....I might have to pull trigger soon.
> 
> It performs on the 5D3 superbly and is now my fave goto combo on that body and the 1DX. Get it!!! DO IT !!!
> 
> I just did, through Crutchfield with my all time fav B&W Clear filter. All items will be here this friday




Sweeeet !!! I love that combo.... looking forward to hearing how you do with it.



Sporgon said:


> @Marsu42;
> 
> don't disagree with what you've said: the latest stitch software is very good. You cannot tell which of our pictures have been taken on zooms.
> 
> I think that primes to day are more specialist lenses whereas 20 years ago they were your "normal" lens. But everyone should get the latest Canon gift: the 40mm pancake !



I respectfully disagree with primes being specialty lenses... the are special though 



TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> I am bit torn on this subject. I have a mix of primes and zooms. I prefer shooting with the primes when I have an opportunity to be a little more deliberate. I feel they really lend themselves to more creative options. I do most of my portraiture work with primes.
> 
> But events are another matter. I just shot a wedding this weekend using the new Tamron 24-70mm VC over the focal range where I would normally use a 35mm and 85mm prime. I found it a much better tool for adjusting on the spot and enable me to better frame key moments without worrying about not having enough room in my framing. I shot it about 65-70% of the day, complimenting it with a 135L, 100L Macro, and 85mm f/1.8 for key shots where I could be more deliberate. I was really pleased with my results, and, from what I understand, the MKII of the Canon 24-70mm is even better (although that VC is very, very nice!)
> 
> ...



+1000 on that. I shoot weddings and events for a living. I use primes for all portraiture and sometimes my 70-200. I've been using the 300 f/2.8 lately and love it.

For event work though... I'm constantly using the 24-70 and the 70-200 on 2x 5D3's. I'll tuck the 50L and a 135L or 100L (depending on the shoot) into my field harness to cover any situ's when the zooms struggle.



rafaelsynths said:


> I don't want to invest in a lot of money in glass until I hear from other photographers. I do a lot of photography in the streets with my canon 5D mark ii ( got from eBay at a amazing price!) . I don't have any lens at the moment. I'm thinking about the 24-70 mark 2 or should I just go for some primes for my work? What do you recommend me?



Always good to have options, neither zooms or primes are better than the other these days (for the most part). They are all just tools that fit certain jobs better than others. Knowing what you need is the first step... rent, borrow or come out and play with me, then you might be able to make a better decision with your hard earned money. If you purchased a 5D2 then I'll assume you already have some ideas about what you need. Don't go out and buy a cheap zoom just to figure out what you need, it's a complete waste of money unless you think you need a cheap zoom too. I would suggest buying the best zoom you could afford first if your plan is to have a good AP zoom and primes. If that is the case... I'd go with the 24-70 (vI or vII). If money were no object though, and a zoom was a first choice... I would not hesitate to go 70-200 vII either. It is quite possibly one of the finest zooms available. I plan on being buried with mine 

BTW... the offer still stands, Sunday I should be out at Steamer Lane round 2pm and afterwards heading to Pacific Ave for some street work.


----------



## duffymcpatzer (Dec 11, 2012)

rafaelsynths said:


> I don't want to invest in a lot of money in glass until I hear from other photographers. I do a lot of photography in the streets with my canon 5D mark ii ( got from eBay at a amazing price!) . I don't have any lens at the moment. I'm thinking about the 24-70 mark 2 or should I just go for some primes for my work? What do you recommend me?



Back to the OP for sec. I think a lot of people are missing the point here. The OP doesn't even have a lens and he's thinking 24-70 Mark 2 already. I'd say whoa nelly take a step back for a second. Buy a cheap zoom lens with a lot of focal distance 24-105 or even better EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Image Stabilizer USM Autofocus Lens. WHY you say? because my friend you just don't know what focal distance YOU'LL like. Everybody is particular here. I've shoot street and I HATE HATE shooting 35MM -- just not my bag. Too close to the subject or something. I shoot up around 85-135 -- I like the length. I like my 100mm Macro II a ton, great bokeh, yada yada whatever, but YOU the OP don't know what you want yet. Primes are great; Zooms are great-- I'm pretty sure we all have both in the bag. Go use the Zoom enjoy the flexibility and find out how and at what focal distance you like to shoot THEN start talking prime lenses and get the peanut gallery to chirp in on what they think is good.

Just my $0.02


----------



## Marek Truchlik (Dec 11, 2012)

Waw, new 24-70 is a lot of money. 
I have mix of L zooms and primes. 
All zooms I have are f4, light, compact for traveling round the world.
Primes I use for more serious work (well I´m big amateur, but when I like to express myself i try to use best available).

Once you do not have any lens I would recommend you buy a zoom first, 24-70/2.8 I, 24-70/4 IS or 24-105/4 supplied with 100/2.8 macro L (can be uses for portraits as well) or 85/1.8 or 200/2.8 L II if you require to have a telephoto in your bag.


----------



## Danielle (Dec 11, 2012)

Just a thought, fir the high price of the 24-70 ii, you could buy a zoom and a prime. And a decent one too.

Thought I'd mention that my zeiss 2/35 makes my only current zoom 10-22 (I'm shooting a 7d) look like a kit lens. Not saying everyone should choose a completely manual focus lens, but wise shopping at the price of what I mentioned could buy you one of those AND quite possibly a 24-105 f4 is. I managed to buy my zeiss at just shy of $1100 aus - a good price and its not a grey. However please go and test one at least a shop first so you know if your interested. Don't blindly buy one unless you really know its what you desire.


----------



## Caps18 (Dec 11, 2012)

It is a complicated question for sure. You just have to make your decision work. There will be trade-offs in time or shutter speed. It is faster to use a zoom to zoom in, but your aperture won't be able to go down to f/1.2, f/1.4, or f/1.8

But carrying around two or three lenses aren't always fun either.

I personally like the 16-35mm zoom and a 50mm or 85mm prime combination. You get the variety with the zoom and the ultra-wide photos that the 5Dm2 can do, but the prime when it counts with good bokah.


----------



## trygved (Dec 12, 2012)

I say the 24-70 (either or, personally. People loved the original lens, it's funny that people no longer consider it an option now that it has been replaced) or 24-105.
I would think the 24-70, though a bit shorter at its longest, will be more useful as you can use slightly higher shutter speeds.
IS won't help you with moving subjects, and the street is rarely still.
That, and the obvious flexibility with framing the subject quickly gives tremendous advantages.
By time you step closer or farther away, you may have lost the golden prize of a shot.

Then you evaluate the advantages of a fast prime.
While I <3 bokeh as much as the next photog, I feel that street photography benefits from putting the subject in context.
If everything is a 1.2f - 1.8f blur of creamy goodness, what's the point of shooting on the street?
What I really look for in great street photography are the details that support the subject of an image.
Maybe a ratty old building, a person off to the side doing something irregular, or a cat that you notice after looking at the image for 10 seconds or so.

It's all subjective however.
You may enjoy obliterating the background every now and again, so it comes down to your taste.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 12, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> That 50L is a love-hate lens.
> 
> I ♥ my 50L.
> 
> http://ramonlperez.tumblr.com/post/34906285033/fast-prime-shoot-out-pt-2-50mm-1-2l-review



Thanks RLPhoto for the headup.

I'll more likely using this lens @ f1.2 to f1.4....otherwise, I'll just go with my fav 24-70 f2.8 II


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 13, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Primes have been my choice for years, but I've warmed up to zooms a little more lately. I could purchase a set of good primes for the cost of one Pro-zoom. IE: 24mm 1.8, 50mm 1.4, & 100 F/2.
> 
> For street work, Primes have always been the choice for that field. Small, Fast, & Discreet.
> 
> I've been considering a 24-70 + 70-200 2.8 Set of zooms for awhile now but its the weight that continues to put me off on those purchases.



I doubt the weight of these lenses are putting you off from purchases....more like BigValueInc hasn't offer these lenses at super value yet ;D


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 13, 2012)

A Good Price might sway me, BigValueInc happened to be one who did. 8)

Seriously though, A 24-70 + 70-200 + 50L + 2x5D3's + 2x580 EX II's is a crap load of weight for weddings or events. The 70-200 is 4 pounds and the 135L is a third of that weight.

I prefer just three small, fast primes with two bodies and the occasional flash.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Dec 13, 2012)

rafaelsynths said:


> I don't want to invest in a lot of money in glass until I hear from other photographers. I do a lot of photography in the streets with my canon 5D mark ii ( got from eBay at a amazing price!) . I don't have any lens at the moment. I'm thinking about the 24-70 mark 2 or should I just go for some primes for my work? What do you recommend me?



I am quite intrigued by your posts on the forum. On Dec 6th you had two separate threads where you posted "I have 8k budget for lenses and cameras and looking to buy either 6D or 5DII" and "I don't have money for a dSLR, so I am renting". On Dec 12th, you are already taking _lots_ of photos with your 5DII that you bought on Ebay. Except you don't have any lens at the moment ???.
You're not trolling, buddy, are you now?


----------



## ChilledXpress (Dec 13, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> A Good Price might sway me, BigValueInc happened to be one who did. 8)
> 
> Seriously though, A 24-70 + 70-200 + 50L + 2x5D3's + 2x580 EX II's is a crap load of weight for weddings or events. The 70-200 is 4 pounds and the 135L is a third of that weight.
> 
> I prefer just three small, fast primes with two bodies and the occasional flash.



That is actually a pretty lite load considering the rest of the gear waiting in cases nearby. And let's not forget a few Elinchrom Rangers set-up for formal shots. Client work is a real "job" so you really can't complain about having to use all the tools at your disposal. When out for the day with the family though... 5D3 and a 50L covers most situs. That is one sweet combo!

I wonder about the OP though. A 5D2 and no lens... hummm! He's never responded to the offer to come out and play with some glass, most photographers I know jump at the chance test drive without a cash layout. Somethings a bit hinky.


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 13, 2012)

ChilledXpress said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > A Good Price might sway me, BigValueInc happened to be one who did. 8)
> ...



I don't have to carry mono-light's on my back, so a nice roller case for them is fine. :


----------



## ChilledXpress (Dec 13, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> I don't have to carry mono-light's on my back, so a nice roller case for them is fine. :



Dunno about that, been doing event work for about 5 years... you'd be suprised how many times I'm lugging around all kinds of stuff on my back while one-handing a camera


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 14, 2012)

ChilledXpress said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > That 50L looks so sexy on the 5D III   ....I might have to pull trigger soon.
> ...



Lens arrived today. This copy seems to have back focus issue. I haven't run through FoCal yet, but at f1.2 the lens seems to be very sharp when adjust to -8 AFMA


----------



## risc32 (Dec 14, 2012)

yeah, rlphoto, i haul more a good bit more stuff than that to wedding shoots. My brother works video at weddings all the time, and he says i use WAY more than anyone he's ever seen at a ceremony/formals, then i use way less the rest of the night. probably cause i'm tired! Although i've sworn i'm done carrying my speedotron 2403 and 3 head around. done, totally, never again, i don't care how nice it would be to have that much power, i'm not doing it......... 

(yeah, i'll probably do it the next time i think i'll need it. )


----------



## pj1974 (Dec 14, 2012)

I use a combination of zooms and primes.

1) Generally I find zooms great for
a) travel - when I want to cover various focal length, but keep one lens on the camera most of the time
b) events - where they provide more flexibility in composition (I mainly do children camps, some non-professional sports, and church events).

My favourite zooms include Canon general purpose 15-85mm, Sigma UWA 10-20mm, and Canon telezoom 70-300mm L.

2) Conversely, I have some primes - which are good for more 'specialised' photography, eg macro and portrait.

I love the Canon 100mm USM macro (non L) - which is sharp and has great working distance.
I'm looking forward to a fast (eg f/1.4- f/2) Canon 50mm USM prime (possibly with IS!).

My 2 cents.

Paul


----------



## roadrunner (Dec 14, 2012)

risc32 said:


> yeah, rlphoto, i haul more a good bit more stuff than that to wedding shoots. My brother works video at weddings all the time, and he says i use WAY more than anyone he's ever seen at a ceremony/formals, then i use way less the rest of the night. probably cause i'm tired! Although i've sworn i'm done carrying my speedotron 2403 and 3 head around. done, totally, never again, i don't care how nice it would be to have that much power, i'm not doing it.........
> 
> (yeah, i'll probably do it the next time i think i'll need it. )



This is basically my line of thinking on the wedding day. I have a ThinkTank Airport Security bag stuffed full of lenses, 3 bodies, and 4 flashes, pocket wizards, batteries, filters, etc... Then I carry another bag with 2 light stands, tripod, and umbrellas. I'd rather put up with the slight hassle and have everything I could possibly need than leave something at home because I think it would weigh me down.


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 14, 2012)

roadrunner said:


> risc32 said:
> 
> 
> > yeah, rlphoto, i haul more a good bit more stuff than that to wedding shoots. My brother works video at weddings all the time, and he says i use WAY more than anyone he's ever seen at a ceremony/formals, then i use way less the rest of the night. probably cause i'm tired! Although i've sworn i'm done carrying my speedotron 2403 and 3 head around. done, totally, never again, i don't care how nice it would be to have that much power, i'm not doing it.........
> ...



I love quotes taken out of context. :|


----------



## roadrunner (Dec 14, 2012)

RLPhoto, sorry if it was taken out of context. My response was to risc32 though, not you, so I didn't mean to imply that however you are doing things is wrong. Just that I personally prefer to be overpacked rather than underpacked and agree with his post.


----------



## ChilledXpress (Dec 14, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> ChilledXpress said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



So far... the 50L has been one of the few lenses that always needs a AFMA. On my 7D (-6) , #1 5D3 (-2) , #2 5D3 (-3). I usually dial it in for f/1.4 at about 6-8 feet, once there... it's dead nutz OHN!!!

Hope your enjoying you new baby


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 15, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> I am really wondering about that - with modern software like autopano, isn't the software smart enough to throw away soft edge areas when there is a sharp overlap from the center? That's why I usually do more shots with larger overlap with my rather crappy wide angle zoom, seems to work so far.



I have played a lot with Autopano Giga..... you have an insane level of control over the stitching process and you can even blend in pictures taken at different exposures and different focal lengths. I find it works so well that I have given up on ultrawide lenses and just rely on stitching.... except when for artistic reasons I want that distorted view... 

After all, this is digital photography, not film photography... use digital to it's strengths.... you no longer need wide angle lenses to capture static wide angle scenes, and when things are moving you can have fun.


----------



## Random Orbits (Dec 15, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Primes have been my choice for years, but I've warmed up to zooms a little more lately. I could purchase a set of good primes for the cost of one Pro-zoom. IE: 24mm 1.8, 50mm 1.4, & 100 F/2.
> ...



Now if BigValueInc. would offer the 24-70 II at the same sale price ratio....


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 15, 2012)

roadrunner said:


> RLPhoto, sorry if it was taken out of context. My response was to risc32 though, not you, so I didn't mean to imply that however you are doing things is wrong. Just that I personally prefer to be overpacked rather than underpacked and agree with his post.



I agree, I'll have a set of strobes in a roller case and extra accessories. My OP was that I wouldn't want all that extra weight of 2.8 zooms in my camera bag all day during a wedding when I'll still have to carry my primes anyway.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Dec 15, 2012)

Here's what I prefer after years of shooting:

Scenario A - Nature Travel: Zoom all the way. Good luck driving ten miles in a blizzard to get closer to that mountain range. Or that rainbow, or backing up to get those stormy skies and that river. The 24-105 L is IMHO, on both crop and FF, the greatest nature travel lens you can buy.

Scenario B - Urban shooting: Prime. Faster when the buildings block the sun. Light, portable, inconspicuous.

Scenario C - Indoors: Prime. There's no substitute for 1.4 -2.0.

Scenario D - Wildlife: Prime. If Canon's 200-400 is as sharp as the 500 or 300, I'll change my mind. For whatever reason, wildlife photos just look richer with a good prime lens. Also, I'd much rather shoot at F4 than 5.6 when you get into those dark shrub/forest backgrounds.

Scenario E: Wide angle landscape: Zoom. I know the primes give better detail, but shooting this way is a pain. Nikon showed you can have amazing wide angle sharpness, hopefully Canon can match. I love prime lenses, but I really dislike shooting landscape with ultra wide primes. Lots of tripod maneuvering, adjusting, cropping, cloning, etc.

Best of luck with your decision. You may want to consider renting a couple primes and zooms to help make your decision.


---------------

http://michaelhodgesfiction.com/


----------



## MichaelHodges (Dec 15, 2012)

Actually, you can be outside the mountains, and have a clear view of the peaks and your immediate surroundings, then drive ten minutes into the mountains and be in blizzard conditions. Happened to me several times this fall/winter in Glacier National Park. Weird, but true.

This was my first year with the 24-105 L, and I can't praise that lens enough. Wonderful travel lens, but I do prefer it more on crop than FF. It just sings on crop. Really takes abuse, too. I know Canon is releasing a new 24-70 IS, but I don't see why I'd switch.

------------

http://michaelhodgesfiction.com/


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Dec 15, 2012)

The 24-105L is a great travel lens. It is really hard to top it's versatility. If I were shooting crop only, though, I would go with the 15-85mm. It gives up very little to the 24-105L in IQ (if any), and is pretty much a perfect focal length on crop with a more compact size for travel. It's IS is better.

The only thing it gives up is weathersealing. It was tough for me to let it go when I switched to FF. That extra 31mm of reach is pretty huge at times for travel.

On FF, though, the 24-105L is a fantastic, versatile tool. It's not a sexy choice, but it does most things pretty well. I have been debating back and forth between taking it or my new 24-70mm Tamron, but the deciding factor in favor of the 24-105L has been my extensive filter collection in 77mm. I only have a UV and a mediocre CPL in 82mm so far, and I find my square filters (Cokin P) vignette TERRIBLY on 82mm.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 15, 2012)

ChilledXpress said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > ChilledXpress said:
> ...



Ran through FoCal, setup at 2500mm(8.2ft).....at f1.2 FoCal showed the lens is best at -7 AFMA. My eyes were off by one(-8), not bad for an old man. This will be used for super bokeh shots and extreme low light.

I still think 24-70 f2.8 II is a *better* lens over all and it will remain on my 5D III as a main lens


----------



## ChilledXpress (Dec 15, 2012)

Great lens... I'm so torn these days... love the 50, love the 70-200 II, and now 24-70 II... and then , and then... Love to see some images with the new rig when you get the time.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 16, 2012)

ChilledXpress said:


> Great lens... I'm so torn these days... love the 50, love the 70-200 II, and now 24-70 II... and then , and then... Love to see some images with the new rig when you get the time.



Here are couple shots of 24-70 f2.8 II under normal and low light - no flash of course. Nothing special, just family photos. 

2nd photo got cropped almost 70%, one of the reasons I shoot raw


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 16, 2012)

ChilledXpress said:


> Great lens... I'm so torn these days... love the 50, love the 70-200 II, and now 24-70 II... and then , and then... Love to see some images with the new rig when you get the time.



And here is my new lens 50L before AFMA. I took thic pic inside the church last night. The lighting was quite bad. Here is shooting info f1.2 1/80 ISO2000, you can guess the lighting now.


----------



## ChilledXpress (Dec 17, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> ChilledXpress said:
> 
> 
> > Great lens... I'm so torn these days... love the 50, love the 70-200 II, and now 24-70 II... and then , and then... Love to see some images with the new rig when you get the time.
> ...



Honestly... no finer use of a camera than shooting for the family. The 24-70 ooks great, and beautiful family!


----------



## 7enderbender (Dec 17, 2012)

rafaelsynths said:


> I don't want to invest in a lot of money in glass until I hear from other photographers. I do a lot of photography in the streets with my canon 5D mark ii ( got from eBay at a amazing price!) . I don't have any lens at the moment. I'm thinking about the 24-70 mark 2 or should I just go for some primes for my work? What do you recommend me?



50 1.4 with the lens hood permanently attached. It's going for a good price at the moment and if you don't like it you can always get rid of it again without much of a loss.


----------

