Sell 24-70L for primes?
jmphotocraft
Registered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
I'm a Dad with 7 and 10 year olds, and I do a little pro work on the side. A few portraits, some real estate, and some sports. Otherwise I am all about family photography. Current gear is in my sig.
Since getting the 35L almost a year ago, I've barely touched the 24-70. It seems so big and clunky now. It's fetching a good price on ebay probably because it's gone from B&H. I'm thinking of selling it and getting an 85/1.8 and pocketing the difference. Anyone done something similar? Got some 85/1.8 samples you can share?
Thanks.
Since getting the 35L almost a year ago, I've barely touched the 24-70. It seems so big and clunky now. It's fetching a good price on ebay probably because it's gone from B&H. I'm thinking of selling it and getting an 85/1.8 and pocketing the difference. Anyone done something similar? Got some 85/1.8 samples you can share?
Thanks.
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
0
Comments
I cannot see working without a standard zoom for what I do, but it's pretty different from what you describe for your photography.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Diva, with a 35 I don't feel a need for a 50. I feel like I can crop to get most of the way there if I need to. The 85 would technically be redundant with the 70-200, but the latter is such a beast and not at all discrete. The 85 would be more about handling and not putting people off so much.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
85mm @ f/2
I have both the 85 1.8 and the 70-200 2.8 IS. The image quality is comparable at similar apertures. Main benefits to the 85mm:
-The wide aperture gives you a lot more blur. The picture above was taken looking downward at a small pond... this can be a lifesaver when you can't control the background.
-SO MUCH LIGHTER. I've tried to keep up with my baby cousins with the 70-200 and it sucks.
-Faster shutter speed. If the kids are jittery, an extra stop of speed can make a world of difference.
The three major factors are: 135mm perspective just looks right, wide open f-stop controls the backgrounds and DOF, and image quality [sharpness & color] that delivers on the promises made by the focal length and aperture.
When taking pictures of people I personally shoot the 135mm unless short distance-to-subject forces me to the 24-70 f/2.8.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Before I picked up the 85 1.2 the 85 1.8 was always in my bag. It seems like I hesitated to use it, only because the 70-200 II was always available as well. But I think it offers a great value and outstanding image quality. The AF speed is way better than my 85 1.2, and if you're shooting at f/1.8-2.0 you'll see a nice bokeh improvement vs the 70-200. It's also tiny! Which I like...sort of.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Oh, I'll always pimp the 135L, but it didn't seem to be the "missing lens" for this particular scenario
If you want stealth and lightweight, then the 85 1.8 (or even 100 f2) are great choices.
http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_10051_10051_282308_-1
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
you definitely have some overlap in focal lengths, if you almost never use the 24-70 it makes sense selling it and getting the 85 1.8
That is a big gap. I use the 24-70 f/2.8L to cover shorter lengths. If 85mm on a full frame is your sweet spot for portraiture, by all means go with it. 135mm just happens to be mine.
I didn't switch from crop to full frame. When talking about what I shoot and why, most of the folks I talk to shoot crop sensor on a tighter budget. For them I recommend the 85mm f/1.8 because it gets them the same perspective, aperture, and fast focus that I'm getting for about a third the cost of the 135mm.
With your zooms, is focal length an accident of where you are standing? That is to say, when given the freedom, do you see the shot, tell yourself what focal length would give the best perspective and then move to frame it or do you zoom to frame and perspective is whatever that focal length yields?
The reason why I ask is that one of the points of shooting a prime lens is that you know and want a particular perspective. (The others typically being IQ and aperture.) So that "gap" in focal lengths doesn't matter if you don't want to shoot those lengths. All of us are trying to make sure that you get to the focal length that you will find most satisfying.
If you are already "framing with your feet" even when you have a zoom lens mounted, you're a prime candidate for prime lenses.
Man what an expensive hobby.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.