Primes to replace 24-105. Suggestions welcome.

[soe_post]

I got rid of my 24-105 because it was a little too big for my taste and it wasn't fast enough for low-light indoor pictures

of my kids. Now, I have a budget of around $1K to get a couple of prime lenses to "replace" the 24-105 for my Canon

40D. I already have a 35mm f/1.4 lens as my primary indoors lens. I also have the EF-S 10-22. My criteria are

simple; I'm looking for something small and fast to be used mostly indoors but also versatile for occasional outdoor

usage, and reasonably well-built and have good quality optics for the budget. Maybe that's asking too much.<br>

<br>

That said, I was considering the following options (all Canons for now):<br>

a. 50mm f/1.4 + 85mm f/1.8<br>

b. EF-S 60mm f/2.8 + 85mm f/1.8<br>

c. 20mm f/2.8 + 50mm f/1.4<br>

d. 20mm f/2.8 + EF-S 60mm f/2.8<br>

e. 20mm f/2.8 + 85mm f/1.8<br>

Third party lens suggestions are welcome--I just don't know enough about them. I also don't really need anything

longer than the 85mm, yet. Thanks so much in advance for your suggestions.

[tdigi]

I would go 28 1.8 50 1.4 and 85 1.8. This is a pretty standard prime kits used my many photographers.

 

I had the 20 2.8. Not bad but you would be better off getting a Tamron 17-50 over any of the 20mm's IMO.

[andre_reinders]

I like option A - as you already have the 20mm angle covered.

That would give you 10-22mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm

 

or cropped at 16-35mm, 56mm, 80mm, 136mm

 

(Wide, Standard, wide portrait, tele portrait)

 

Seems like a winning combo. :)

[tdigi]

sorry I did not see the + sign. since you have 35 I would skip the 28. and go with the 85 for certain. Again not alot of good

primes in the 20 range so I would go with a tamron zoom its not much bigger then the prime.

[peter_rowe]

I have the 35mm and find it a really nice length both indoors and outside. I have the 50mm F1.8 and that is pretty useful length for inside use. I have the 60mm Macro - now that is one sharp lens. It's an F2.8 though so you will have to decide on that, I use this lens a lot both indoors and outside. It's a bit long indoors in small places but great for closer shots, and it focuses really close if you need to - great closeups of the kids. I have the 85mm F1.8 that I find too long indoors and the closest focusing distance is way out there at something like 3 feet! You won't be using it for portraits unless you have a lot of space to back up. For me this greatly reduce it's usefulness indoors. If I were you I think I would get just one lens for now and see how that goes - either the 50mm F1.4, or the 60mm Macro. You can do a lots of great things with the macro if you are in to that kind of thing and it is the sharpest lens that I have.

 

Good luck!

[yakim_peled1]

I vote for option B.

 

20/2.8: I was never impressed with the pictures and reviews I saw in the net. Also, your 10-22 covers this FL and if it is anything like my copy, it is excellent in all regards.

 

28/1.8: I had it and was never impressed with it. I could live with soft corners (it is not an L) but my copy flared badly (others are not as bad).

 

50/1.4: I had this one and the 50/1.8 at the same time. I sold it very quickly as I thought the difference between the two was marginal. I consider this one a bad value for money.

 

Sigma 50/1.4: I was very impressed with the pictures and reviews I saw in the net. Just two issues: (a) It is not that small (b) I heard of AF issues.

 

As you have the 35/1.4 I think that both 28/1.8 and 50/1.4 are a bit redundant. One or two steps and you have either.

 

60/2.8: I was very impressed with the pictures and reviews I saw in the net. That said, if you do not need/want macro, why not re-think it?

 

85/1.8: I had it and if it and was very impressed with it.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[matthijs]

Never forget the 100/2 or even the 135/2.

 

If you like tight portraits, headshots, tight indoor sports pictures one of these in addition to a 50/1.4 would

be very nice.

 

Regards, Matthijs.

[ben_quinn1]

The 35 f/1.4 L is possibly Canon's best lens, to keep up with this quality you need to get the 85mm f/1.2 L or the 135 f/2 both of which are quite long on a 40d. I think you already have the lens you need for indoor portraits. Therefore for wider so for 24 f/1.4 L or for longer 50 f/1.2 L. However I think the best lens on your list is the 85 f/1.8 but its quite long on a 40d.

 

I would say a f/2.8 lens is too slow for what you want as you would need to stop down a bit.

[JDMvW]

The 50mm f/2 mk II is so good for the price, that you ought to get it, but if you have to spend lots of money,

there is no substitute in indoor, available darkness portrait photography for the 50mm f/1.2 L lens. I think an

85mm is too long indoors on the 15x22mm sensor cameras.

 

The combination of an f/1.2 lens with the high-quality high ISO capabilities of Canon EOS gives you spectacular

capabilities. You've already got the "normal" range covered with your 35mm. The 50mm length, in my humble

opinion, is better for portraiture in general (not just indoors) than either the 85 or even the 60mm.

[yakim_peled1]

OP: I'm looking for something small and fast

 

To all those recommending 50/1.2 or 85/1.2, do you consider them as small? I know it's personal but I don't.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[Philip Freedman]

As an enthusiastic amateur I, too, find my 24-105 f/4 L lens too big, heavy and attention-catching (especially with its large petal lens-hood) for use as a city walkabout lens and I much prefer my 50 f/1.4 which I find very sharp and handy. But can anyone recommend a genuinely light-weight and small-sized mid-range zoom that is of sufficient quality to use on the 5D where a prime lens like to 50 is a little too restrictive?

 

Thanks, Philip

[eric merrill]

Soe:

 

I can hand-hold my 24-105/4 in just as low of light as I can my 85/1.8. Since you weren't happy with the 24-105, I would steer away from the 85/1.8.

 

You have the 35/1.4. I was going to suggest that. If the light is too low for the 24-105, that's the lens I switch to. I would stay away from the 50/1.4. Too problematic.

 

You don't mention your camera type, but since you're listing an EF-S lens as an option, I'll suggest the 17-55/2.8 IS.

 

 

Eric

[arie_vandervelden1]

My suggestion: use your 35/1/4 for shooting with available light, and use a f/2.8 zoom like Tamron 17-50/2.8 for use

with flash. I also have a Canon 20/2.8 which I used to use a lot for indoor shooting of kids, but it's been gathering

dust since I got the Tamron zoom. Compared to the 20/2.8 the Tamron is equally sharp, equally fast, same size,

flares much much less, and it zooms.

 

Canon 17-55/2.8 IS is often recommended as an ideal lens for indoor shooting of kids. This lens costs a bit more, it

is larger, and it is more obtrusive. Or if you're not interested in wide, consider Tamron 28-75/2.8. The Tamrons are

small, light, and unobtrusive. Either zoom could be supplemented with Canon 85/1.8

[yakim_peled1]

Dear OP: Do not listen to all these recommendations about the 17-55/2.8 IS. Ever since I got it I never used my 35/1.4. Sure, I tried to shoot with both but this damn DoF issue makes me use the zoom more and more..... :-(

 

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/607298

 

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[tdigi]

But the 17-55 is just as big as the 24-105 and I think size is his main issue.

[JDMvW]

Yakim - yes, compared to a 24-105. It's 200 grams lighter and shorter.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>With one possible exception, all of the lenses in your list are very good to excellent. The one possible exception is the 20/2.8, which has a mixed reputation; some people find it very good, while others find it disappointing. Some of these are, of course, faster than others; you have a couple of lenses in your list which are only one stop faster than the 24-105, and since they all lack IS, they're only marginally better low-light lenses for moving subjects and much worse low-light lenses for stationary subjects.</p>

 

<p>Nobody but you can answer what focal lengths you use most frequently, and knowing that is a large part of answering this question.</p>

[ben_quinn1]

Why are you recommending zooms when he wants a prime?

[bill_walters1]

Your selection "A" is a good one. Whatever you do, I think the 85mm 1.8 should be one of your choices. It's small, light, fast, inexpensive and has a great rep. If you bought the 85mm and went for the 50mm 1.8 instead of the 1.4, that would leave plenty of money for a third lens.

[pankaj purohit]

I have a 50mm f/1.8, I recently bought it and it is paying me well even it is best from lenses I have.

 

It is one of the cheapest lenses which prform great. I prefer this for low lightings and when largers apertures needed for great bukesh.

 

I also invited advices in my earlier posted thread for a wide angle prime lens, and I got good responses for Nikkor 24mm. I don;t know why you didn't mentioned that focal lenght in your recomandation list, and surprised that nione else suggesting you. I don't have that, but I am planning to buy that.

 

I would also be interested in about 24mm but I don't exactly know other specifications of it but I am searching for those.

[Funtak]

"...little too big for my taste and it wasn't fast enough for low-light indoor pictures of my kids..." I am not sure that I understand you: you have superb equipment, Canon 40 D and 24 -105 IS L lens are one of the best combinations; how to use it is another question. I use the same equipment as You do, I am not a pro and never will be, but I use 40D with 24 -105 in 80% of shooting situations You describe..Primes are a bit sharper, it is true, but for taking photos of the kids, NO ONE will tell the difference. No hard feelings. vf

[William Michael]

> I got rid of my 24-105 . . . it wasn't fast enough for low-light indoor pictures. . . I want small and fast to be used

mostly indoors but also versatile for occasional outdoor usage, and reasonably well-built and have good quality optics

for the budget <

 

Option C i.e. 20mm f/2.8 + 50mm f/1.4

 

Even though you have a 35F1.4, oft that will not be wide enough for ``mostly indoors``

 

The 10 to 22 is wide yes, but is not F2.8, at 20mm: it is F4.5, which is slower than the zoom you have discarded.

 

The 20, 35 and 50 prime set give you a 135 format FoV equivalent of 32 / 56 / 80, which is a very powerful INDOOR

kit, albeit the 20mm is only F2.8, but it seems it is the fastest around that FL you can get in Canon, (without moving

to the 24F1.4L).

 

The 85F1.8 is a very nice lens, but on the theory that you can usually move closer, but sometimes cannot get further

away from the subject, when inside, the 50mm is a better general choice if it is necessary to choose between these

two lenses, for indoor use, on an APS-C body

 

Therefore Option C: Indoor use is your primary output requirement stated: available light shooting / fast lenses and

lens size were your descriptive parameters.

 

The EF20F2.8 as used on my 20D performed quite OK, IMO better than the 28F1.8: others` mileage might vary.

 

WW

[danny d]

You have the 35L.... Done.... Go enjoy it.

 

 

BTW- Post some photos on your workspace, without people having the ability to view your work and your stlye they are all just throwing darts at the board or telling you about "their" preferences...

[david_littleboy__tokyo__ja]

"mid-range zoom that is of sufficient quality to use on the 5D "

 

The "usual suspect" here is the Tamron 28-75/2.8. Sharp, cheap, light. Funky slow AF, though.

[stephen sullivan]

EF 28 f1/8 needs to be updated. Corners are to soft and prone to poor CA.

 

(Your Option A.) EF 50 f/1.4 USM is a very sharp lens and would go great with an EF 85 f/1.8 USM.