# Ditching the Primes - Advice/Opinions Needed



## MonkeyB (Jul 25, 2014)

hi all, new user - first post.

anyways, i've been shooting with a 6D and an 85/1.8 along with a 24/2.8 IS. this lightweight kit has been pretty easy to live with, using the 24 for landscapes/scenes/buildings/cars and the 85 for people. was planning on a 200/2.8 one day to finish it off.

my situation has changed though, with a new baby - and i'm finding it hard to use the 24 at all anymore for family photos. the 85 is still nice, but every shot becomes tight and almost repetitive. was thinking about selling the 24 in exchange for a 35 and/or a 50. however, wouldn't a standard zoom just be easier to live with, than the primes? 

strongly considering selling the 24 and 85 and then grabbing a 24-70/2.8 ii. my understanding is that this lens will give me prime-quality shots throughout the semi-wide/normal range. would add the 70-200/2.8 ii after a couple years to finish the zooms kit. 

hate to sound lazy, but kids are a handful. anybody see anything wrong with this approach? any other suggested paths?

thanks.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jul 25, 2014)

seriously have a look at the EOS-M and 22mm f2

this lens is perfect for new borns

the combo is light so you can easily shoot one handed while holding the baby
the minimum focus distance of the 22mm is something like 150mm so again easy to take pics while holding the baby
at the moment this can be had so dirt cheap its not funny.

this combo can be popped into a nappy bag easily to go with you wherever you want

once they start running around the AF will struggle but you will get alot of great shots
and its such a cheap setup at the moment its crazy to not consider it


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 25, 2014)

I've sold all my 50mm lenses, my 35mmL, and my 85mm f.1,9. They were great lenses, but with the high ISO capability of the 5D MK III, my 24-70 MK II and 70-200mm MK II and 100-400mm L along with my 16-35mm f/2.8 get almost all the use.

I kept a few primes, 15mm FE, 17mm Tokina f/2.5, 100mmL, and I just could not part with my 135mmL.

Do what works for you, you are young enough to get them later. Your new baby should come first.


----------



## tolusina (Jul 25, 2014)

I suggest you try an oh so inexpensive yet absolutely marvelous 40mm pancake.
Mount it up on the 6D, use no other lens for a few weeks, see if it meets your needs. It sure meets most of mine with a somewhat similar usage scenario.
If you don't like it, you're not out much, you can add it to your for sale stack o' primes when you switch to zooms.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 25, 2014)

The 24-70/2.8 II and 70-200/2.8 IS II are my two most frequently used lenses for my three kids.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 25, 2014)

MonkeyB said:


> anybody see anything wrong with this approach? any other suggested paths?
> 
> thanks.



Careful you don't end up posting in nine months time to complain you're sick of large, heavy gear. 

If I only had two lenses ( on FF ) I can't think of two worse ones to have than the two you currently use. They are both excellent lenses in there own right, but not when have have to either use an 85 or a 24 in any and every circumstance.

You need to have a 50 or a 40 in there. 

In fact anyone who uses full frame but doesn't have access to 40-50 range is nuts


----------



## Hillsilly (Jul 25, 2014)

If you're ok with their price, size, weight and max aperture, then go for it - They're great lenses. I don't recall ever seeing a serious complaint about either lens. Personally, I prefer a smaller 40mm + 135mm combo instead with a 4yo, 3yo and 2 month old.


----------



## infared (Jul 25, 2014)

I think everyone is giving good advice here...the 40mm sounds like an easy experiment to see how the range of three primes works....if you want to remain "purest"! l
I have a lot of primes (see list below)...but I have to say, that since I bought the 24-70mm f/2.8L II, I find myself picking that up a lot more than I did my 24-105mm. The 24-70mm II is impressively sharp. for any lens, let alone a zoom, and it would allow you to be much more spontaneous with great versatility. You might really like it!


----------



## Aichbus (Jul 25, 2014)

tolusina said:


> I suggest you try an oh so inexpensive yet absolutely marvelous 40mm pancake.
> Mount it up on the 6D, use no other lens for a few weeks, see if it meets your needs. It sure meets most of mine with a somewhat similar usage scenario.
> If you don't like it, you're not out much, you can add it to your for sale stack o' primes when you switch to zooms.


I own the 40 mm pancake and it is a marvelous lens, but not for moving subject, at least that's my experience. Can't recommend it for that ...


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 25, 2014)

The 24-70II is a great lens, but the range is limiting. The 70 is often too short. If given the choice between the a single lens (24-70II) and a series of primes, I'd opt for the primes.

Agree with Sporgon that you're missing a lens in the middle of the range. I'd look at the 35 f/2 IS (picked up a refurbished copy through the Canon store for less than 500 during one of their sales) and Sigma's 50A. Both have fantastic IQ, but I'd definitely test out the 50A in a store to make sure that it works well for you on your 6D before buying it. The 40 is a great value lens, but it looks like you have a significant budget and being limited to f/2.8 when so many other lenses around that focal length are faster can be limiting in its own right. This option will also be lens expensive than the 24-70II, which will allow you to get the 70-200II that much sooner. ;D

I'd also keep the 24 f/2.8 IS. It'll serve you well as your child grows and you start travelling more again. It also gives a nice environmental portrait potential (i.e. shooting from a low position when the baby starts walking).


----------



## dstppy (Jul 25, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Careful you don't end up posting in nine months time to complain you're sick of large, heavy gear.
> 
> If I only had two lenses ( on FF ) I can't think of two worse ones to have than the two you currently use. They are both excellent lenses in there own right, but not when have have to either use an 85 or a 24 in any and every circumstance.
> 
> ...



I, too, can't stand heavy lenses. 

For whatever reason, 85mm on FF is my favorite for use on (one) kid; 50mm on crop.

I say get a zoom and keep the primes. They can have my 200mm when they pry it from my cold, dead hands


----------



## MonkeyB (Jul 25, 2014)

thanks for the input! 




dstppy said:


> I, too, can't stand heavy lenses.
> 
> For whatever reason, 85mm on FF is my favorite for use on (one) kid; 50mm on crop.
> 
> I say get a zoom and keep the primes. They can have my 200mm when they pry it from my cold, dead hands



i do get a lot of use out of the 85 - the wife wants me to keep it, and i probably will due to it's "art" factor over the zooms. the 24 is gone though, as the zoom with 2.8 will at least duplicate it if not best it. IS is something i thought i wanted for eventual video - but we much prefer stills anyway - and a vixia can be had for less than a lens!



infared said:


> I think everyone is giving good advice here...the 40mm sounds like an easy experiment to see how the range of three primes works....if you want to remain "purest"! l
> I have a lot of primes (see list below)...but I have to say, that since I bought the 24-70mm f/2.8L II, I find myself picking that up a lot more than I did my 24-105mm. The 24-70mm II is impressively sharp. for any lens, let alone a zoom, and it would allow you to be much more spontaneous with great versatility. You might really like it!



yep - versatility is going to be key.



Sporgon said:


> Careful you don't end up posting in nine months time to complain you're sick of large, heavy gear.
> 
> If I only had two lenses ( on FF ) I can't think of two worse ones to have than the two you currently use. They are both excellent lenses in there own right, but not when have have to either use an 85 or a 24 in any and every circumstance.
> 
> ...



i have been waiting on the update to the consumer 50 so i left that blank for the time being. no idea when or what canon will do with the sigma art out there now. 



neuroanatomist said:


> The 24-70/2.8 II and 70-200/2.8 IS II are my two most frequently used lenses for my three kids.



thanks - i was assuming that was the case for a lot of folks, but wanted to confirm.


----------



## wsmith96 (Jul 28, 2014)

I don't think you can go wrong with those two zoom lenses on what you have. I say go for it!


----------



## Menace (Jul 28, 2014)

"The 24-70/2.8 II and 70-200/2.8 IS II are my two most frequently used lenses for my three kids"

These are the only two zoom I have and if you have the funds then go for it. They will work really well with your 6D.


----------



## MonkeyB (Jul 29, 2014)

Menace said:


> "The 24-70/2.8 II and 70-200/2.8 IS II are my two most frequently used lenses for my three kids"
> 
> These are the only two zoom I have and if you have the funds then go for it. They will work really well with your 6D.



thanks for the assurances. re: funding - i figure that the sum of all the associated primes (consumer types and then the L's at the longer lengths) will be at least in the same ballpark as the zooms...



wsmith96 said:


> I don't think you can go wrong with those two zoom lenses on what you have. I say go for it!



the 24-70/2.8ii has shipped! 8)


----------



## JumboShrimp (Jul 29, 2014)

All good advice except for the occasional reference to the 70-200/2.8L IS. Instead, seriously consider the 70-200/4L IS. Much lighter and quite affordable. Since I acquired mine, I hardly use the 2.8 any longer.


----------



## alexturton (Aug 2, 2014)

The 24 70 ii is sublime and you won't regret it.


----------



## MonkeyB (Aug 5, 2014)

alexturton said:


> The 24 70 ii is sublime and you won't regret it.



this sums it up nicely. i LOVE it.


----------

