Jump to content

Need help


jeret_slack

Recommended Posts

Ok I have been debating about going to primes... So would this be a good idea...

 

I have a 24-70 2.8L sell it and get:

 

Canon 20 2.8 & 85 1.8

 

I have the 50 1.2L

 

I have no other money to spend only what I get from the lens...

 

I was also thinking maybe saving the money and when I get a couple 100 bucks more get the 35 1.4

 

let me know what you guys think..

 

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I like fast primes to supplement good zoom lenses, not to replace them. The 24-70mm f2.8L is probably my

most used lens - it's interesting that the two primes you mention are both OUTSIDE of the range of the zoom you are

"replacing".

 

I would add the 85mm f1.8 to your 24-70 f2.8 for a bit more reach and a lower light alternative and keep the 50mm f1.2L

for low light or extreme shallow depth of field work. Constantly changing lenses comes with a larger penalty with DSLRs

than film bodies as sensor dust is an ever present potential problem - this is one disadvantage of using primes

(obviously along with the loss of variable focal length!).

 

Your mileage may well vary depending on what and how you shoot, but if it were me, you'd have to pry the 24-70mm f2.8

out of my hands, before I'd switch to just primes. For what it's worth I do own quite a few fast primes and I use them

solely in situations where I need the extra light gathering ability, or for the extremely shallow depth of field. At the risk of

enraging the purists - after post processing, sharpening and print processes, there is essentially no image quality

difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I like fast primes to supplement good zoom lenses, not to replace them. The 24-70mm f2.8L is probably my

most used lens - it's interesting that the two primes you mention are both OUTSIDE of the range of the zoom you are

"replacing".

 

I would add the 85mm f1.8 to your 24-70 f2.8 for a bit more reach and a lower light alternative and keep the 50mm f1.2L

for low light or extreme shallow depth of field work. Constantly changing lenses comes with a larger penalty with DSLRs

than film bodies as sensor dust is an ever present potential problem - this is one disadvantage of using primes

(obviously along with the loss of variable focal length!).

 

Your mileage may well vary depending on what and how you shoot, but if it were me, you'd have to pry the 24-70mm f2.8

out of my hands, before I'd switch to just primes. For what it's worth I do own quite a few fast primes and I use them

solely in situations where I need the extra light gathering ability, or for the extremely shallow depth of field. At the risk of

enraging the purists - after post processing, sharpening and print processes, there is essentially no image quality

difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not get rid of the 24-70, sharper than many primes. The 20 2.8 does not perform vey well. You are going to find it soft after using your 24-70. The 85 is an excellent prime, but unless it is very urgent for you, I'll wait until to save the money to get it. It is not too expensive.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Irrespective of shooting style, subjects, interests and the camera`s format, I think the answer to your question is:

 

NO, it is not a good idea.

 

The only thing got is 15mm of length and a stop an a third of speed and ONLY at 85mm, and that is a TRADE not a GAIN:

 

For that you loose the flexibility of the 24mm to 70mm at F2.8.

 

You gain nothing at 28mm, IMO.

 

If it were me, I see more logic in cutting my own sandwiches for lunch and going without take away coffees for a month and buying the 85mmF1.8 as an addition to my kit.

 

WW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...