jeret_slack Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 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 More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 Which format are you using? What are you shooting generally? What do you want to gain by the switch to primes? Take note that most of Canon short primes are not top performers. http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/overview Happy shooting, Yakim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_bellenis Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 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 More sharing options...
john_bellenis Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 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 More sharing options...
freelance Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 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 More sharing options...
eric_l._tillman Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 Just to throw out another option - sell both the 24-70 and the 50L, buy 24L,50f1.4, and 85f1.8 . I will agree with John and Antonio about the 24-70, I would add the 85 (or 100f2, my fave) but your scheme may work better for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Michael Posted August 10, 2008 Share Posted August 10, 2008 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 More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now