# Transitioning to Primes



## bleephotography (Sep 14, 2013)

So I've had the 24-70 II and 70-200 II for some time now and they are wonderful pieces of kit, but I simply can't get over this incessant longing to replace them with primes; they just feel more natural to me, and the weight/size/faster aperture are major factors in my decision.

Therefore, I've decided to replace these two zooms with the following lenses and I am hoping those of you with some experience can give me your honest feedback:

Option 1
Canon 24 f/1.4L II
Canon 40 f/2.8 STM
Canon 85 f/1.2L II
Canon 135 f/2L or Canon 200 f/2.8L II

or

Option 2
Canon 10-22 or Tokina 11-16 II
Sigma 18-35 f/1.8
Canon 40 f/2.8 STM
Canon 85 f/1.2L II
Canon 135 f/2L or Canon 200 f/2.8L II

or

Option 3
? ? ?

Eventually I'll upgrade the 135 or 200 f/2.8 to the 200 f/2 when funds warrant such a purchase, but for now I'll have to make do combined with the 1.4x III and 2x III teleconverters. I'll be using all of these lenses both on my two FF cameras and also on my 70D (with exception to the UWAs in Option 2, and the Sigma 18-35 would only be acceptable between 24-35).

Side note: I mostly do portraits and street photography, but I'll occasionally do an amateur sporting event as well. All casually.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 14, 2013)

Option 1, for a wide angle on your FF bodies.


----------



## bleephotography (Sep 14, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Option 1, for a wide angle on your FF bodies.



Thanks for your input, Neuro. Based on your extensive collection  do you have any other recommendations to cover my intended purposes? I've since added Option 3 because the only lens I've actually tried is the 85 II. The others i've just researched a bit.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 14, 2013)

I'm going the other way. For years, the zooms could not match the primes for sharpness, and camera bodies struggled at ISO 3200. Now, with the sharper zooms, my primes are going unused.
I'd buy just one from a shop that has a 30 day return, and see how much you use it.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Sep 14, 2013)

I'm not a fan of the idea "or this, or that." :-X The combination of zooms and primes gives you more flexibility, depending on the type of photo. Indeed, in works of great responsibility, I always carry two bodies. One with a F2.8 zoom and flash, and other with F1.4 prime. If you shoot in the studio only, makes sense to abandon zoom lenses. Otherwise, your second option is safer for times when you do not have total control over people or objects.


----------



## bholliman (Sep 14, 2013)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> The combination of zooms and primes gives you more flexibility, depending on the type of photo.



+1

I can't imagine limiting myself to primes OR zooms. I own both and use both frequently. Different tools for different purposes.


----------



## Click (Sep 14, 2013)

My choice would be Option 1.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 14, 2013)

Not sure about your overall budget, but you might consider keeping the 24-70 II, and swap the 70-200 II for the 135L and 85L, or perhaps the Sigma 85/1.4. 

IMO, for many portrait uses the 70-200 II is great. On FF, the 85L often needs to be stopped down for sufficient DoF (I often shoot at f/1.6-2 for one person, f/2.8 for more than one). But the 70-200 II isn't really a discreet lens. 

But...I see a Zeiss 100/2 in your signature, a fine portrait lens if MF works for you in that situation. 

As for the 135L vs. 200/2.8L, you've got the 70-200 now - check EXIF or set it to each focal length and see which would better meet your needs.


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 14, 2013)

I'm in transition to zooms.


----------



## bleephotography (Sep 14, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> As for the 135L vs. 200/2.8L, you've got the 70-200 now - check EXIF or set it to each focal length and see which would better meet your needs.



Good advice all, thanks! I've looked at my EXIF and the lenses I've used, and 90% of the time I use them at either the widest or longest ends. When I had the 16-35, I used it solely at 16; the 24-70 usually sits at 24 or 70; and the 70-200 at 70 or 200. Give or take 10-15mm, on rare occasion. I find myself instinctually foot-zooming if I need just a few more (or less) mm, which is why I'm considering making the switch. Honestly, the 24-70 II isn't that bad on weight for me, but the 70-200 II tends to irritate my mild case of carpal tunnel...but I do really enjoy both lenses, although I often wish they had an extra stop or two (hence my interest in primes).



RLPhoto said:


> I'm in transition to zooms.



Why when you have such a nice kit?  Do you plan on keeping all your primes?


----------



## sdsr (Sep 14, 2013)

I'm slightly puzzled - you say that primes feel more natural than zooms, but apparently you only own one. So I'm wondering whether you've spent a considerable amount of time using nothing but a couple of primes instead of zooms. If you haven't, follow Mt Spokane's advice.... (I find I go through phases liking both, either separately or together; it can be simultaneously restricting and liberating to wander around all day with just one prime.) If you're certain you want to take the prime route, option 1 makes more sense to me.

Option 3: Monogamy's all very well, but why not shake things up a little. If I were you, you would be me, and this is sort-of what I did: Two Canon DSLRs are enough. Keep your Canon lenses for now (they're awfully good and you may end up with seller's remorse), sell a Canon body and, if this is financially feasible, develop a primes-only alter ego via one of the newest Olympus or Panasonic M43 bodies (the new OM-D EM-1 seems especially appealing; check out Ming Thien's recent two-part review on his blog) and a handful of primes - e.g. Olympus 12mm f/2, 17mm 1.8, 45mm 1.8, 60mm macro, 75mm 1.8; Panasonic/Leica 25mm 1.4. Among the factors you mention, in terms of weight and size, and for street photography, such a combination is likely peerless.


----------



## DavidKM (Sep 14, 2013)

After having only zooms and then only primes... and now having both, I can understand your desires but...

Why does it have to be one or the other. Zooms or primes... why limit yourself. That 24-70II is a killer lens with as good if not better IQ as most primes. Paired with the 70-200II, ridiculous versatility. Then pull out the 15mm, 17L, 24L, 35L, 50L, or 85L, or 135L when you're in the mood for it. Pretty much how I roll most of the time.


----------



## eml58 (Sep 14, 2013)

It's often a good idea, when you have a good idea, to wait a while & see if it was a genuinely good idea, or Lens Envy in this case, perhaps.

You own a couple of Canon's current best Lenses, the 24-70f/2.8L II & 70-200f/2.8L II, getting rid of them to replace them with Only Primes may not be in your best interests, You can certainly replace them with a selection of fast Primes 24f/1.4, 50f/1.2, 85f/1.2 L II, 135f/2, 200f/2, but the cost will be significant, and I'm not convinced you will see a Major difference in IQ.

I am of the opinion that Good Primes (The ones I mentioned Above) will generally produce better IQ at a given Length than a Zoom that covers the particular Length, in the 24-70 Range I have the 24-70f/2.8L II, 24f/1.4L II & the 50f/1.2 L, these Primes are excellent lenses, are they significantly better than the 24-70f/2.8l II ??, I don't think so, are you able to produce better Images with the Primes in this range, not better in my opinion, but different, mainly due to the ability to Blow out the Background more @ f/1.2 or f/1.4, But again, how often ??, not so much has been my experience.

Again in the 70-200 Range, I use the 85f/1.2 L II, 135f/2 & 200f/2, all again amazing Lenses, but they are pretty well particular Tools for again a certain job, primarily where you want to Blow the background, the only caveat I would add in this Range is I find the 85/135 & 200 Primes all produce a sharper image generally than the 70-200 at a similar Range, but it's at a cost, and it's at an inconvenience at times of carrying 3 Lenses instead of one.

Another factor to consider is weather sealing, in the 70-200f/2.8L II you have a well sealed Lens, that's not the case with the Primes until you get to the 200f/2, this may not be a major factor dependent on what you shoot, in my case, wildlife in Africa & Arctic/Antarctic environments, it's a major decider of what Kit I take to these Places. 

Admittedly I'm fortunate in that I can afford to own &utilise both, the Zooms & the Primes, but having both, and using both, if I could only afford the one or the other, given the excellent IQ offered by the two Zooms in question, I'de stay with the Zooms, then set your sights on a particular Lens you feel you absolutely have to have, rent one for a while, if it's what you wanted, work on adding it to the Zooms you have and using it for that particular situation where the Prime will enhance your Photography.


----------



## scottkinfw (Sep 14, 2013)

Great info!

Just an observation. In option 2, you are thinking about two zooms, while trying to get away from zooms. The 24-70 2.8 II is awesome. The 70-200 2.8 II is also quite excellent. Think hard and long before parting with these gems.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Sep 14, 2013)

Maybe I am not adding anything new, but PWP, who often comments here, is a seasoned professional and he has abandonded the primes in the 24-70 range due to the fact that the MkII is just so good. 

Myself, I can't afford to mock about too much, but I would never abandon my 70-200 2.8 MkII. I have one prime, the 35L and I like it very much for what it gives me. I think a combination is the best for those who can afford.

I am sure that whatever you choose, you will be happy as all are quality lenses. Good luck.


----------



## RGF (Sep 14, 2013)

I use my zooms more often than the few primes I have. I used primes only for special circumstances. I like the flexibility to compose with a zoom when I can not position myself (which is often needed with a prime)


----------



## pwp (Sep 14, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I'm going the other way. For years, the zooms could not match the primes for sharpness, and camera bodies struggled at ISO 3200. Now, with the sharper zooms, my primes are going unused.


Me too. Now that zooms really do deliver the goods, primes are a rapidly disappearing species in my business. 
Other than special purpose lenses like tilt/shift glass or 300 f/2.8, it's zooms every day of the week here. Technically fussy clients couldn't be happier. 

-PW


----------



## AudioGlenn (Sep 14, 2013)

I started out with the idea that I wanted to shoot only with primes. But for the type of work I've been doing lately, I discovered that zooms are more useful for my style of shooting. I sold my 35L and 50mm 1.4 after I got my 24-70 II. Honestly, I regret having to sell my 35L. It was nice for those special times when I need the low light capabilities (mainly for video) but those occasions are few and far between. 

I agree with others' posts about having both in your arsenal. I will start building my prime collection once again after I get a 16-35 f/2.8L II. Starting with the 100mm Macro L, then an 85 1.2, TS 17mm L, possibly a new 50mm whenever that is announced or a newer/sharper 35L (no rush on either for me), and eventually a 200mm f/2L.


----------



## Eldar (Sep 14, 2013)

I have the two zooms, which I combine with the 35/1.4 (I have the Sigma, but I would have been just as happy with the Canon), 85/1.2L II and the 135/2L. The 24/1.4L II is a great lens, but I sold it because of the quality of the 24-70/2.8L II. The prime is a lot better in low light conditions though. 
The 35/1.4 is in my view different, because you benefit from shorter DOF and bokeh beyond what you get with the zoom. And the 35mm focal range is my preferred walk-around prime. I have not tried the 40mm, but I would seriously consider the 35/1.4 instead, unless size is what you´re looking for. 
In the longer end, I am rediscovering my 135/2L. I normally go for my 70-200, but, after reading some of the very enthusiastic threads on CR, I realize that I ought to use the 135 more. The slightly shorter DOF is good for portraits and its bokeh is great. It is also a much handier size than the zoom.


----------



## klickflip (Sep 14, 2013)

It really depends on your preferred way of shooting & subjects. 

My general way is.. if its kinda reportage stuff where your right in amongst things then the 35 1.4 is great (I use the sigma and its amazing shoot nearly wide open and if your focusing 1-2m then background get blurred really nicely, its just wide enough to do more general atmospheric wide views too. 

the 50 1.2 is always on my camera in case, and I use that the most. Its great at portraits from head & shoulders to waist up to full length - Just use your feet to zoom it either way! and personally I think adds a fashiony feel to images, basically dynamic enough & flattering enough Plus the OOF creamyness is unbeatable... even by the 85 1.2! yes the 85 has so much OOF but the 50 does it a tad nicer because you get a better blurry sesnse of the surroundings that can add story & atmosphere to the image. The 50 1.2 feels the best lens on.. period! Super solid & perfect size everything feels so balanced with it on.

And the 85 & 135 are great when you really want to separate your subject from the background, or be able to shoot a bit more distance / removed from your subjects. 

From what you say though Id hazard a guess that you're more wow'd or prefer the dynamic look of wide 24 views that you can create and longer focal views to get that press/sports feel. 
Thats great but what I would say is those views are prob more becoming easily, i.e some look and style is made for you instantly by those focal distances and the lens.

I'd encourage you to try using a 35 and 50 for a week and begin to appreciate the infinite subtleties that you can achieve with these lenses, also a real sense of engagement with your subjects and surroundings.
Instead of an image just popping straight out to you, you have to really move around, forwards, back, up & down to find a interesting or flattering view. 
If you like lots of landscape or architecture then a 24 or wider is prob a must have though, - maybe get a 26-35 / 17-40 to keep your love of wide views. 
And if you shoot some amature sports then the 70-200 is a pretty essential, yes the 135 and 200 can do it very very nicely but they are much more specialist to get one shot rather than say cover a whole event from the side. Though if you have ground access and want to craft and set up the views then these will be amazing and more satisfying. But not half as flexible if say you normally shoot your kids / friends / local team and like to share the shots with all of them. 

So my recommendation would be
16-35
35 1.4
50 even start with the 1.4
70-200

But try just a 35 or 50 (or maybe even the 40pancake to cheaply begin with but guessing it will feel really tiny, plasticky compared to even a 50 1.4 so you might not take it too seriously)
These primes will really help in you framing and ability to see, also might through up some nice surprises and a fresh enthusiasm since you probably dont shoot at these FLs much. 

Happy standard prime shooting!


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 14, 2013)

bleephotography said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > As for the 135L vs. 200/2.8L, you've got the 70-200 now - check EXIF or set it to each focal length and see which would better meet your needs.
> ...



My primes will never go but ill be using zooms more often for flash stuff where I end up at f/4 and smaller anyway.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 14, 2013)

klickflip said:


> But try just a 35 or 50 (or maybe even the 40pancake to cheaply begin with but guessing it will feel really tiny, plasticky compared to even a 50 1.4 so you might not take it too seriously)


 
;D

I guess you've never used or owned a 40mm pancake ! 

It actually feels as if it has good structural integrity compared with the 50 1.4.


----------



## verysimplejason (Sep 14, 2013)

If I were you, I'd keep both zooms and just add primes as you need it only. Both are excellent already. You can start with a 50mm. You can start with the cheapest, 50mm F1.8 II. It can show you if you're built for primes or not. Then you can acquire as you go. Don't worry, its IQ is excellent and are comparable to L lenses. If you decide to sell it later, you'll not lose a lot of money. But I don't think you should part with your lovely zooms. They had their uses and are both quite excellent except that they're really heavy.


----------



## verysimplejason (Sep 14, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> klickflip said:
> 
> 
> > But try just a 35 or 50 (or maybe even the 40pancake to cheaply begin with but guessing it will feel really tiny, plasticky compared to even a 50 1.4 so you might not take it too seriously)
> ...



+1. It's a nicely built lens at least for its size. I just hate the 50 1.4. I find the 1.8 more reliable most of the time.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 14, 2013)

I mix zooms with primes. When I started investigating and learning to use primes, I bought them all. 24IIL, 35L, 50L, 85IIL, 100 macro L, 135L, 200IIL. But soon found that I liked and worked best with the 35L, 85IIL and 135L. So I sold all the rest and bought a 16-35IIL and 70-200 f2.8 L IS II for the other ranges. When i need the primes (and I use them a lot) I use what I have. For everything else, I use the zooms.


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 14, 2013)

The 24-70 + 70-200 is a super combo. About you add couple more primes(24, 85) before selling it.


----------



## bleephotography (Sep 14, 2013)

Wow, I wasn't expecting so many great responses!

It's true I've only shot with a few primes (the Canon 100L & 200L, and Sigma 35 Art), so my experience is limited in that regards. But like I said, I rarely zoom in and out in between the widest and longest ends of my zooms, so it seems only logical that I could benefit from the lighter weight and faster aperture of primes; granted I'd be losing out on the convenience and versatility of my zooms if I choose an either/or scenario.

So I think what I'll do is purchase the 40 pancake and 85 II for now and see how I cope with not being able to zoom. I actually returned the 24-70 II a few weeks back (forgot to update my sig) due to $ constraints, but I grew very fond of it while I had it. This is why I'm in a position to make a switch now.

If I go with the 24-70 II again or the 24 II, I'd buy it reburb from the Canon store (as I did with my 70-200 and will do with the 40 and 85 as well). Or, for the cost of a 24-70 II, I could buy the Tamron equivalent AND the Sigma 18-35. Basically, I have about $3800 to spend and I'd have that much more if I sold the 70-200 to reconfigure my kit. IDK, all your input has got me really thinking and torn whether this is the best decision, and unfortunately the closest camera store with any of these lenses in stock is over an hour away


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 15, 2013)

bleephotography said:


> But like I said, I rarely zoom in and out in between the widest and longest ends of my zooms, so it seems only logical that I could benefit from the lighter weight and faster aperture of primes



There may be a flaw in your logic. It's common for zooms to get the most use at the extreme ends. The question is, do you shoot your 70-200mm at 200mm...then 70mm...then back to 200mm, etc.? If so, could you see yourself swapping lenses between each focal length change?


----------



## Halfrack (Sep 15, 2013)

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2010/07/lenses-dont-collect-the-whole-set

Also remember that the conditions you shoot in may dictate your lens choices more so than anything else. Primes are nice, and in some ways a cheap way to get to a desired length, but having multiple lenses with you at all times, and switching may not allow for the shot you want.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 15, 2013)

bleephotography said:


> Wow, I wasn't expecting so many great responses!
> 
> It's true I've only shot with a few primes (the Canon 100L & 200L, and Sigma 35 Art), so my experience is limited in that regards. But like I said, I rarely zoom in and out in between the widest and longest ends of my zooms, so it seems only logical that I could benefit from the lighter weight and faster aperture of primes; granted I'd be losing out on the convenience and versatility of my zooms if I choose an either/or scenario.
> 
> ...



For a long time I didn't have a zoom in the 24-70mm range. I found it was a great benefit to have a zoom from 70-200mm but not as much in the wider ranges. I used a 24mm f/1.4 L or my 35mm f/1.4 L if I wanted something wide.
I have the 16-35mm II and never used it.
I know own a 24-70mm II and the quality is good enough I leave it on the camera and use my primes when a specialty situation arrises only. So I guess I go for option 3, own the zoom and the primes for whatever specialty you enjoy. For example landscape get one of the fine 24mm L lenses. If you fancy macro get a 100mm f/2.8 L.


----------



## bleephotography (Sep 15, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> bleephotography said:
> 
> 
> > But like I said, I rarely zoom in and out in between the widest and longest ends of my zooms, so it seems only logical that I could benefit from the lighter weight and faster aperture of primes
> ...



Although I _could_ see myself swapping lenses (I don't do any sort of event/paid photography yet), I'm sure I would miss the ability to zoom quickly to either ends.



Halfrack said:


> http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2010/07/lenses-dont-collect-the-whole-set
> 
> Also remember that the conditions you shoot in may dictate your lens choices more so than anything else. Primes are nice, and in some ways a cheap way to get to a desired length, but having multiple lenses with you at all times, and switching may not allow for the shot you want.
> 
> ...



Thanks to all of your advice, I plan on acquiring a 24-70 again (either the Canon or Tamron, haven't decided yet) and I'll simply add more primes as needed and as funds permit, starting with the 85 II and 40 pancake. I don't know what I would do without you guys and this great forum 

Cheers.


----------



## terminatahx (Sep 24, 2013)

uh, the 24-70 2.8L II and 70-200 2.8L II rival many L primes. I suggest you check the MTF tables. Nice to have choices though, I'm jealous.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 25, 2013)

terminatahx said:


> uh, the 24-70 2.8L II and 70-200 2.8L II rival many L primes. I suggest you check the MTF tables. Nice to have choices though, I'm jealous.


If one is running with zooms, then it's fairly easy to use just a single camera body. The problem with primes is the distinct last of compositional options, sure one can move about but it's nowhere as flexible or fast as a zoom. Racking in or out is so much easier and faster. So many of us prime users require a camera body for each prime...I often have three cameras around my neck shooting weddings. 
But please don't confuse the look and creative options a fast prime can offer over a f2.8 zoom with focal length options. Just becuase a 24-70 f2.8 L has 24mm, 35mm and 50mm markings doesn't mean that the photos will look the same as the ones shot from a wide open prime. Although the DOF look difference gets less noticable as the focal length gets wider. The 35mm f1.4 L is far better at melting a background than a 24mm f1.4 L can. Which is why I like to use a 16-35IIL for focal lengths under 35mm. Apart from brightness, there's little creative differences. At the longer end, it's even more pronounced, a 85IIL is far easier to isolate backgrounds with head and shoulders portraits than a 70-200 f2.8 II L is capable of. I'm not saying the zoom can't get great results, but it needs a much longer working distance and the telephoto compression effect may or may not look as at attractive as the shorter 85mm compression.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Sep 25, 2013)

Be careful and check out your 24-70 II when you get it. I could not get a good one. I could not get them to AF as accurately as my mk I version on two different bodies. I had high hopes but decided to return the last one and keep my original. Now I am exploring primes in that range. Got an 85L which I am infatuated with to a fault. Not exactly in that range but working my way down as my bank acct allows.

Something else to keep in mind though most wouldn't realize...you also tend to get more light transmission with a prime in general than with a zoom. The additional optical elements can give you up to 1 stop less light even at the same f ratio setting. Could be important if you do a lot of low light shooting. One example I can give is that comparing my 100L with my 70-200L mk II at the same f stop and focal length, I lose 2/3rd of a stop worth of light on the zoom.

Might not be important to you but just be aware in your decisions....and test your new lenses every which way and then some to make sure it lives up to your expectations.





bleephotography said:


> Wow, I wasn't expecting so many great responses!
> 
> It's true I've only shot with a few primes (the Canon 100L & 200L, and Sigma 35 Art), so my experience is limited in that regards. But like I said, I rarely zoom in and out in between the widest and longest ends of my zooms, so it seems only logical that I could benefit from the lighter weight and faster aperture of primes; granted I'd be losing out on the convenience and versatility of my zooms if I choose an either/or scenario.
> 
> ...


----------



## surapon (Sep 25, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Option 1, for a wide angle on your FF bodies.



+ 1

And Plus extra TS-E 24 mm. F/ 3.5 L MK II for the Most Imagination/ Innovative Photos that you can create, and No any lens can do--Except some of Lensbaby, in some of the tricks.


----------



## sanj (Sep 25, 2013)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> I'm not a fan of the idea "or this, or that." :-X The combination of zooms and primes gives you more flexibility, depending on the type of photo. Indeed, in works of great responsibility, I always carry two bodies. One with a F2.8 zoom and flash, and other with F1.4 prime. If you shoot in the studio only, makes sense to abandon zoom lenses. Otherwise, your second option is safer for times when you do not have total control over people or objects.



yep


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Sep 25, 2013)

My answer is dependent upon whether you are trying to stay close or equivalent to the cost/value of the zooms. If that is the case:

24II, Sigma 50/1.4, Sigma 85/1.4, keep the 70-200II (assuming you get copies of the Sigmas that work well with your bodies). 

Or if you can wait, I would be curious to see how well the upcoming Sigma 24/1.4 will perform. Might save a little that way also.

On the other hand, if you are willing to add some cheese on top, I say go all Canon with the same focal lengths I mentioned above.

Don't know how wide you absolutely need, but I shoot a lot of people/street as well and I find 35 and 50 to be much more useful FLs than 24. If that is something you find you can agree with for your purposes, I highly recommend the 35L, Sigma 35 (assuming you get a copy that plays nice with your body of course), and Canon 35/2 IS. I know many have overlooked the 35/2 IS, but since the price drop, it is definitely a lot of bang for the buck and very versatile.


----------



## ablearcher (Sep 25, 2013)

I would keep the zooms and add one prime at a time to see how often I use it. In your situation i would add 135L to your zooms setup. This is a great portrait and street lens and relatively inexpensive. See how often you prefer it over your 70-200 zoom. See if the IQ difference justifies having a fixed FL lens.


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Sep 25, 2013)

After years of humping large SLRs, motor drives and big zoom lenses, I now travel with a 35mm, an 85mm
and don't feel I miss a thing.


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 25, 2013)

As someone who just did the exact opposite (sort of), I would really ask yourself if this is the best course. I sold my 35 1.4, 50 1.2, and 135 2 to get a 300 2.8 II. I kept my 24 1.4 II, and 85 1.2 II, but found myself using the other lenses less and less after upgrading to the 24-70 II and 70-200 II. 

If I were you, I'd consider trading the 70-200 II (a huge lens) for the 85 1.2 II and 135 2 to get the portability you desire. That's how I'd start. The 85 1.2 II is amazing and the 70-200 can't touch the look you get from f1.2-2.

If you're still having prime lust, I'd keep the 24-70 II as it's not that huge, and then pick your most used prime focal length (i.e, 24, 35, or 50) and buy that lens. For me, my love is the 24mm perspective, so that's what I kept, but others prefer the 35 or 50.

If you don't shoot the vast majority of your shots at f/2.8 or need portability, I'd just start with one prime before selling your zooms to make sure. The convenience you give up is much bigger than you think unless you mostly shoot portraits, street photos or the like.

Your last option is to rent one more primes for a week or two and try to shoot everyday with them so see if it's worth it for you. Everyone is different and I never imagined I'd part with my primes, but not that I only have 2 of them, I don't miss the rest.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Sep 26, 2013)

dickgrafixstop said:


> After years of humping large SLRs, motor drives and big zoom lenses, I now travel with a 35mm, an 85mm
> and don't feel I miss a thing.



When I rebuild my lens kit with good quality glass (instead of the cheap stuff I could afford in my youth), those are the primes I am also getting. Later I might add something in the 150mm macro range. One I build my prime kit I might consider a mid range zoom as a walk around. Or I might not. 

Of course, it depends on the type of photography one does. For my type, a small set of primes will work better than a zoom.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 27, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> As someone who just did the exact opposite (sort of), I would really ask yourself if this is the best course. I sold my 35 1.4, 50 1.2, and 135 2 to get a 300 2.8 II. I kept my 24 1.4 II, and 85 1.2 II, but found myself using the other lenses less and less after upgrading to the 24-70 II and 70-200 II.
> 
> If I were you, I'd consider trading the 70-200 II (a huge lens) for the 85 1.2 II and 135 2 to get the portability you desire. That's how I'd start. The 85 1.2 II is amazing and the 70-200 can't touch the look you get from f1.2-2.
> 
> ...



Renting is a great thing to do. It's a little loss in money but it does give you the chance of really working with the lens before the big purchase. When I was a newbie pro, I would hire a lens I needed for a gig to try out and see how I got on with it. When I had the money to buy, I know exactly what I wanted and didn't want and it made my gear quest a lot more informed. These days, I do most of my weddings with just three lenses. Landscapes, just three lenses...Wildlife, just three lenses....unfortunatly mostly different lenses!


----------



## bleephotography (Sep 28, 2013)

ablearcher said:


> I would keep the zooms and add one prime at a time to see how often I use it. In your situation i would add 135L to your zooms setup. This is a great portrait and street lens and relatively inexpensive. See how often you prefer it over your 70-200 zoom. See if the IQ difference justifies having a fixed FL lens.



Thanks. I'm actually in the process of doing exactly this. I added the Sigma 35, which is my preferred focal length, and I'm looking to add the 135 and repurchase the 24-70 II when the next batch of rebates come around. Having a lighter telephoto will come in handy when I don't want to lug my 70-200 around or when I'm doing more head and shoulder portraits.


----------



## bleephotography (Sep 28, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> As someone who just did the exact opposite (sort of), I would really ask yourself if this is the best course. I sold my 35 1.4, 50 1.2, and 135 2 to get a 300 2.8 II. I kept my 24 1.4 II, and 85 1.2 II, but found myself using the other lenses less and less after upgrading to the 24-70 II and 70-200 II.
> 
> If I were you, I'd consider trading the 70-200 II (a huge lens) for the 85 1.2 II and 135 2 to get the portability you desire. That's how I'd start. The 85 1.2 II is amazing and the 70-200 can't touch the look you get from f1.2-2.
> 
> ...



Well, after a few days of pondering, I just couldn't bring myself to get rid of my 70-200 (especially now that I've added the 1.4x extender for sports). Having a couple fast primes at either ends of the spectrum in addition to the versatility and quality of the 24-70 II seems like the most logical choice for how I shoot. I'll be getting the 135 instead of the 85 II, but who knows...maybe I'll add the latter later. Thanks for the advice!


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 29, 2013)

bleephotography said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > As someone who just did the exact opposite (sort of), I would really ask yourself if this is the best course. I sold my 35 1.4, 50 1.2, and 135 2 to get a 300 2.8 II. I kept my 24 1.4 II, and 85 1.2 II, but found myself using the other lenses less and less after upgrading to the 24-70 II and 70-200 II.
> ...


I'm happy to have helped and you'll love the 135 f/2 - it's an amazing lens and WAY more discreet and portable than the 70-200 2.8. You can always add more primes, as you say, but the 135 makes the most sense of any lens to replace the 70-200 when you need something smaller. It works well with the 1.4x as well, provided you stop down to f/5.6 or smaller.


----------



## Grumbaki (Sep 30, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> The 24-70 + 70-200 is a super combo. About you add couple more primes(24, 85) before selling it.



That. But Sigma 35 and 85L.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Sep 30, 2013)

This is funny, because i am having a prime addiction issue. LOL...i have a 50, an 85 ad a 100 macro...and i have just spent close to 2 weeks renting a 24mm 1.4. I love that lensand plan to buy it once a few deposits make it through this week. My 24-70 has become less and less used over the years, and i love the look of the 1.4....


----------



## mackguyver (Oct 3, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> This is funny, because i am having a prime addiction issue. LOL...i have a 50, an 85 ad a 100 macro...and i have just spent close to 2 weeks renting a 24mm 1.4. I love that lensand plan to buy it once a few deposits make it through this week. My 24-70 has become less and less used over the years, and i love the look of the 1.4....


I think it must be phases we all go through. I fell for primes, moved on to zooms, back to primes, and now I'm using a mixture. It must be part of *L*'addiction de Canon.


----------



## BozillaNZ (Oct 4, 2013)

If you made up your mind to trade all your zooms to prime, make sure you have 2 bodies and use them side by side in any serious shooting sessions. Otherwise you will stuck in the forever changing lenses back and forth and miss many shots.


----------



## mackguyver (Oct 4, 2013)

BozillaNZ said:


> If you made up your mind to trade all your zooms to prime, make sure you have 2 bodies and use them side by side in any serious shooting sessions. Otherwise you will stuck in the forever changing lenses back and forth and miss many shots.


+1


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 4, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > This is funny, because i am having a prime addiction issue. LOL...i have a 50, an 85 ad a 100 macro...and i have just spent close to 2 weeks renting a 24mm 1.4. I love that lensand plan to buy it once a few deposits make it through this week. My 24-70 has become less and less used over the years, and i love the look of the 1.4....
> ...



Yep been there too...I guess i should make a tee shirt....


----------



## Northstar (Oct 4, 2013)

Keeping the zooms and adding the 135mm is a good plan.

With those zooms and your 35 art and 135, you'll be in great shape.

You mentioned shooting some sports, I didn't find the 135 very good for fast action...To many OOF shots.


----------



## surapon (Oct 4, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> bleephotography said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



+ 1 for me.
Yes, Sir, Dear Mr. mackguyver.
Past 8 months, I use 135/ 2.0 more than Big 70-200/ 2.8 IS .-0-------Yes, Better more beautiful Picture, Better Shallow DOF, Better Bokeh, Just in my Idea.
Thanks.
Surapon


----------

