Going Prime...

tjstrider

So I am looking at my current set up and considering going more prime oriented with photography.

Presently I'm at

5D2/50D
17 - 40 4.0
70 - 200 2.8
50 1.8

I'm thinking of keeping the 70 - 200 2.8
and doing
35L
50 1.4
100 macro
and eventually or immediately 135L

Has anyone else gone down this route, and regretted having to change lenses to switch the perspective?

I primarily do travel and portrait type work. I would like to do more wedding type stuff. I also run a photobooth business on the side, which I use the 50D and 17-40 with typically.

The other option is upgrading my 50 1.8 to the 50 1.4 and then getting the 24 - 105 or 24 - 70 4.0L

jmphotocraft

I had a 35L. Great lens, but the size and weight aren't a lot less than a 24-70/2.8. It's a big lens. A 35 can masquerade as a 50 by cropping, so I would think hard before getting both. If you love the 50, I'd go 28 for the wide end. 100 is a good choice for portraits.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

divamum

You've got the longer end covered by keeping the zoom; I'd concentrate on the wide end for now. My feelings about the 135L are well known here at dgrin - I think it has pixie dust ground into the glass, as it offers a magical sparkle that no other lens can, IMO (the 70-200 mk II comes close, but even it isn't quiittee as magical as the 135 at f2 on a ff camera. Just... drool). You need room to use it, too, and you do have that focal length covered already. Btw, 100 and 135 are remarkably close together; I found it redundant for a brief time when I had both focal lengths.

Matthew Saville

Easy there, Optimus! I don't think any of the lenses you currently own would truly be "replaced" by any of the primes you're interested in, really. Or at least, you might start using primes a lot more but I don't imagine you would be able to sell off either of your zooms.

The 17-40 is definitely necessary for going wider than 35mm for detail shots of wedding venues, at least in my opinion. I really really like being able to go wide, what can I say.

On the long end, I'd love to replace my 70-200 with a 135, trust me, but I feel like it would be unwise to totally sell off my 70-200 as an event photographer. Yes, I do use my tele primes any chance I can get because they're lighter and faster than a 70-200, but I still need that 70-200 from time to time.

Either way, if you're going in the direction of weddings I can definitely say NO to your other option that includes 24-X f/4 zooms. That would definitely be kinda wasteful considering you already have 17-40 and 70-200 covered very well. If anything, buy a 2nd full-frame body so that you can have two lenses at your disposal at once, and you'll REALLY find it hard to need that mid-range zoom ever again!

Also, don't bother with the 35 L, just get the Sigma 35 1.4 ART. It is the bees knees. Trust me, even as someone who used to be absolutely head over heels for the 35 L. The Sigma beats the pants off the Canon.

=Matt=

Shima

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Also, don't bother with the 35 L, just get the Sigma 35 1.4 ART. It is the bees knees. Trust me, even as someone who used to be absolutely head over heels for the 35 L. The Sigma beats the pants off the Canon.

=Matt=

Hmmm maybe after I upgrade to Mk3 bodies from my Mk2's I'll have to look up at swapping from 35L to the sigma one you mention... been using my 35L religiously at weddings, but never tried it's Sigma rival!

chrisjohnson

Recently bought the new Canon EF 35 f2.0 IS USM. I looked at the L and the Sigma but this one is lighter, has great IS, is cheaper, and the image quality is excellent too.

I shot for years with a 35 and an 85 prime on film and never missed a zoom in this range. I did not change lenses often either - I tend to adjust to the lens on the camera and work with that. It is a different way of shooting.

I decided not to buy a mid range zoom for my 6D. I have 35-50-100 and this works fine - actually wondering how much use the 50 will get. Thinking of adding the 135L to scratch an itch .....

Not sure if I would go this route if I was doing weddings. It seems a very busy activity where you don't always have time or opportunity to position yourself the way you do with primes. However, I look at Shima's work from time to time and she has a special style. I find when you shoot with the same focal length you introduce a harmony into a set of photos that you don't get with a zoom.

tjstrider

Oh i don't think I mentioned that I'll be going to Israel this year for 2 weeks. So I am somewhat nervous about losing my zooms for this. I was thinking about taking a prime for ultra-dark situations + a 24 - 105 for the purpose of having 1 lens that works for most photos...

i Tend to agree that the photos that I see with that special prime magic are typically out of the 85 - 135 mm lengths rather than the shorter end of the spectrum.

2 bodies is a real possibility in the near future.

If I end up with a 5D3 I almost wonder if we have gotten so far in ISO land that a 17 - 40 and 70 - 200 would cover 99% of any event needs...

nak

I don't regret having to switch lenses to change perspective. My preferred shooting style (available light candids) is well matched by what the 135L delivers on a full frame, so I keep it on the camera quite a bit and switch to my zoom as a considered decision. I treat my zoom as if it were a collection of 5 discrete primes (24, 28, 35, 50, 70) and I avoid zooming while looking through the viewfinder. I want to look at the scene and say, "This needs N millimeters to get what I want." Then I set the zoom by reading the numbers on the barrel. The viewfinder might tell me I was wrong, or that I can't get what I want at my selected focal length.

This point of view works well when perspective really matters and you have the luxury of potentially missing a shot.

babowc

I only take one or two primes (35/85, 16/58) casually.
With two bodies, zoom + prime might make sense, but not with a single body.

My casual shots, I never miss having a zoom. I hate carrying big, constant aperture zooms.
But whenever I shot second/third/assistant shooter with a pro, I usually kept the heavy zooms. The only few times I've used primes were when it was very dim/moody lighting.