Replacing 24-70 by two primes

<p>I'm looking to replace 24-70mm 2.8 by two primes on full frame. What is the better combination? Who has gone this route?</p>

<p>24 / 50mm</p>

<p>24 / 85mm</p>

<p>35 / 85mm</p>

<p>35 / 135mm</p>

<p> </p>

>>> What is the better combination? Who has gone this route?

 

I have, except I went with a single prime, a 35mm.

 

How could others make a recommendation for you though, without knowing what you shoot?

<p>I haven't gotten rid of the 24-70, but when I do choose two primes to carry instead of the zoom it's invariably a 35L/85L combo. I did a week long vacation with a lightweight 35 f/2 and 135 f/2.8 combo and that worked well also.</p>

<p>How often do you shoot at 24? Do you prefer slightly less reach on the long end to limit it to 50, or do you often wish you had a little more reach? What do you like to shoot? Are you thinking about the L primes or the non-L primes, because then the prices may come into consideration?</p>

<p>I have the 24 2.8 and the 85 1.8. Both are very good, in my hobbyist opinion. I'm not sure I'd want just the two, as the gap is a little large between them. I've never used a zoom on the wide end and find having only the 24 to be a little limiting (on an APS-C body). My 85 1.8 sees the least use, but when I need it I love having it.</p>

<p>Anyway, more information will probably get you more detailed answers.</p>

<p>DS Meador</p>

<blockquote>

<p>How often do you shoot at 24? Do you prefer slightly less reach on the long end to limit it to 50, or do you often wish you had a little more reach?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Often. Both, wider and longer. I dont' want to duplicate the zoom, I am open to a different way of working. I want to simplify, hence a two prime set-up which will force me to think differently. I will keep the zoom home.</p>

<p>I'm not in the market for 85L. That lens is slow and, imo, overpriced. That leaves 85mm 1.8. What can this lens do that 135mm 2.0 cannot? They have similar aperture and close focus. I guess if you have access to 135mm 2.0, you won't grab 85mm 1.8. Am I correct?</p>

<p>That's for tele. As for the wide angle, I've heard 35L and 135L is a popular combo. Anyone want to explain why? The gap between the two is huge. That said, no one needs to cover every mm.</p>

>>> I've heard 35L and 135L is a popular combo.

 

A popular combo for what?

 

Without knowing *what* subject matter you shoot, no one can make a worthwhile recommendation. As an example, I wouldn't know what to do with a 135mm. But that's just me..

Look at the EXIF for your images with the 24-70mm and buy the lenses where u tend to shoot. If you're constanly at

24mm then buy a 21 or 17mm. If u constantly shoot at 70mm then get a 85 or 110mm.

<p>If I were you I would go for the 35 and the 85, I love those two lenses. If I could only carry one it would be my 35 f2, if two I'd add my 85 f1.8. The 35 is wide enough for most things and can still get some great wide angle portraits, the 85 gives a little compression to shots and great portraits.</p>

<p>35/85/135 are popular because they cover a lot of basic shooting styles. 35 for most everything, 85 for portraits, 135 for tele. What you decide on really depends on how and what you shoot.</p>

<p>24/50/100 is also a popular combo for pretty much the same reasons ( if you use both APS-C and full frame it sorta doubles your setup )</p>

<p>Considering price and quality most people suggest the 50 1.4 and 85 1.8. Both are great lenses that are small and light and 2 of the more popular canon primes. The wider end gets a bit tricky since you either have to go with L lenses ( 24L or 35L ) or older non USM primes ( 28 1.8 is the exception )</p>

<p>the 135 is considered one of Canon's best but you may also consider a 100 macro which can be fun. Again this all depends on your style.</p>

<p>You may also take a look at Sigma's offering which are becoming very popular ( 50 1.4, 85 1.4 )</p>

<p>Qwerty, we still don't know "what" it is that you shoot, and this really would help. Are you looking for faster glass for low light? If not, the zoom really is a good way to cover those ranges.<br />You mentioned simplifying- plain and simple, the Zoom is the best way to do that. If you want to expand and still keep it simple- Keep the zoom and go for the 135/F2 as your second lens.<br />85 and 135 are worlds apart. The 85/1.8 on FF is a great portrait lens, the 135/F2, while still considered a portrait lens, is more in line with tighter shots, or for taking candids from a more comfortable working distance to the subject.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Ok. So we still don't know what you want to use these primes for, other than taking pictures. We also don't know whether you're using APS-C or FF.</p>

<p>Brad has said he chose 35 and wouldn't know what to do with a 135. Of course, he's using the 35 on a FF. So, if you get the 35 but are using APS-C it probably won't work for you the way it works for him. Brad shoots a lot of street portraits with environment included - lots of full body portraits rather than head-n-shoulders shots.</p>

<p>My 85 1.8 on my APS-C works like a 135 would on a FF (at least generally speaking). I really like the lens. However, I prefer close in head-n-shoulder shots of people and believe that a 135 (if not the 200) would really suit me better on the long end, even on APS-C, as I do a lot of candid shooting and the distance can help in that regard. Of course, the price difference between the 85 1.8 and the 135 2.0 is enough for me to make due with the 85.</p>

<p>I'm adding an example of what I like to shoot, which is very different than most of what Brad likes to shoot. This is why it would help to know what you like to shoot.</p>

<p>So, the 24/85 combo on APS-C would be similar to the 35/135 combo on FF. If you don't mind 3 primes the 24/50/135 would probably be a nice set for APS-C. Personally having the 24 and 85 I'm looking at a 50 in the future. At that point I'll know if I need to think of selling the 85 and picking up a 135.</p>

<p>DS Meador</p><div></div>

<p>Easy, but two ain't nearly enough, go for four!<br>

24/1.4 L (either version, although II is shaper and has less CA wide open)<br>

35/1.4 L<br>

50/1.4<br>

85/1.2 L (a wonderful lens: the f/1.8 doesn't even come close in contrast and color rendition, not to mention more subjective qualities such as "bokeh."<br>

So, I have just replaced your $1400 lens with $4-5K worth of hardware. Now, whip out the old overworked plastic and pay for it - you'll love it! :-)</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>we still don't know "what" it is that you shoot</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Anything really. Mostly people, weddings, travel and landscape. Sometimes products.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>We also don't know whether you're using APS-C or FF.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The first post says full frame.</p>

<p>I find 24/50/100 a bit stringent and prefer an asymmetric line-up. I wouldn't know what to use 50 for in that set-up (nothing wrong with 50mm). Either go wide or go tele. That's why 35/135 caught my eye. Any feedback on that? I've seen this set-up here and there and wonder what people use it for. <br /><br /> <br /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>How about 35/85/135? I personally would miss the 100mm between 35 and 135, especially indoors.</p>

>>> Anything really. Mostly people, weddings, travel and landscape. Sometimes products.

 

I'd stick with your zoom in that case...

<blockquote>

<p>How about 35/85/135? I personally would miss the 100mm between 35 and 135, especially indoors.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why, what would you miss it for?</p>

<p>Please note that 85mm and 135mm have the same focus distance. You can get more close-up with 135 than with 85.</p>

<p>When people pose, you can take two steps back with the longer lens, but when people do not pose, it's very annoying to get in their face with a shorter lens. So 135 seems to work for poses and candids; 85 is great for posed shots but less for candids. That's my reasoning. Feel free to correct or to agree.</p>

<p> </p>

>>> So 135 seems to work for poses and candids; 85 is great for posed shots but less for candids. That's my

reasoning. Feel free to correct or to agree.<P>

 

 

Disagree. For how I like to shoot anyway. Even on a full-frame cam, for shooting people, a 135 and 85 are like

telephotos. If you are posing people, then you are taking portraits. Great portraiture has a ton to do with good

subject engagement. It's best done close. And a wider lens lets you include more environmental context, which is also important<P>

 

For candid street photography, closer is also better. Strong street photography is done best when you are part

of the energy and rhythm of the street, rather than sniping it from afar. It's easy to tell the difference looking at images and prints.<P>

 

 

I use a 35mm lens exclusively for both candid street photography and street portraiture. I wrote a blog piece

speaking precisely on this subject, in more detail, earlier this week on this subject. <a href= "http://allcitysf.com/2011/07/35mm-

lens/">Click here to read...</a>

<p>Sorry I missed that you use FF. I read the OP two different times and it didn't register.<br>

DS Meador</p>

<p>35 / 85mm.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Great portraiture has a ton to do with good subject engagement.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree. Still, I don't feel like approaching every unfamiliar subject. Formal shoots yes, strangers no.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Sorry I missed that you use FF. I read the OP two different times and it didn't register.<br /> DS Meador</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's OK ;)</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>How about 35/85/135? I personally would miss the 100mm between 35 and 135, especially indoors.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Why, what would you miss it for?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I mainly do informal portraiture of my children indoors, and my house is small. The 35-85mm range is ideal for me for this application. (I got rid of my 100mm prime because it was a little too long.)</p>

<p>Outdoors, I have no trouble using 135-200mm or even longer for photographing my kids.</p>

<p>If you're shooting weddings, then keep the zoom. Too many situations where you can't control the distance.</p>

<p>Hmm...based upon your update and the mention of weddings- two zooms, add the 70-200 2.8 Non IS-one of the best zooms there is in an extremely useful range for your FF. What Jeff S said-</p>

<p>I visited a rose garden today and there was a wedding shoot going on. The photographer was using a prime, and he needed to reposition himself when going back and forth between candids/pairs to full group shots-to the point he stood in flower beds, on the edge of a water fountain etc because he was limited by his choice of lens. His videographer didn't need to move nearly as much, save for compositional considerations.</p>

<p>A zoom is a completely different tool than a prime. One does not "replace" the other.</p>

<p>I replaced my 24-105mm by Voigtlander 20mm and Canon 85mm f1.8. I also have a voigtlander 40mm which I occasionally swap with 20mm. But it all depends on what you shoot.</p>