Sell zooms for fixed?

[paul_runnoe2]

<p>I know that were I to ask for opinon my subjects and useage would be the primary factory in considering fixed focal length lenses over zooms, but I'm really just asking for pnet's users' personal preferences and why.</p>

<p>I find that I've been frequently grabbing my 50mm f/1.8 II for indoor lamp-lit shots of my new baby girl. Winter is setting in, plus I work the night shift which means I only see a few hours of daylight a day.</p>

<p>My kit is the Canon 17-35mm f/2.8 L, 50mm f/1.8 II, and 70-200mm f/2.8 IS. I typically swap between one of the two zooms for outings, typically outdoor nature shots, or indoor shots of friends/family. For the past year I've been daydreaming about replacing the 17-35 with the new 16-35mm f/2.8 II if only for my own 'gear envy' satisfaction and not for any huge significant change in picture quality (well better sharpness in corners). Mounted on 5DII.</p>

<p>As of late, however, I've been toying with the idea of the 24mm f/1.4 II. Fast, wide, and sharp, it would probably remain on my camera most of the time for general purpose shooting. It would also be good for those lamp-lit baby shots and indoor available-light shooting. Then I thought about replacing the 70-200mm with the 85mm f/1.2 II for portraiture and other mild telephoto shots. Finally, I suppose if I won the lottery I would take a 200mm f/2 to cover the long end.</p>

<p>So, 17-35 2.8, 50 1.8, 70-200 2.8 swapped for 24 1.4, 50 1.8, 85 1.2, and (200 2.0) which do you prefer and why?</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>On the wide side, I usually prefer zooms so I don't need to mess with lens changes. The 24-105 L lives on my 5DII most of the time with occasional appearances of the 17-40 4L when I need to get my feet in the landscape. Once I hit the 200mm plus range I prefer primes as they're faster and lighter. Tele zooms are just too massive, white and slow. Really like the EF 200 2.8L: so small, black and sharp. The main exception is macro and ultra low light. For such I bust out my EF 50 2.5 CM or 50 1.2L.</p>

[carnagex_carnagex]

<p>I have a 24-70L, 17-40L, 35L, 85L. (and Sig's 12-24, 150macro, 120-300 2.8). And Im constantly using my primes much more then the zooms, as the low f/stop allows for more creativity on my shooting stlye. As for the 24mm, as much as I liked it, the problem was that as I shoot portraits, at 24mm for people it caused a little to much distortion close up, hence the reasoning for the 35L. (which is always on my camera) And the 85LII, well once you use it youll have to rethink items that will benefit from that thin of DOF. (it is amazing, but I do recommend getting a high precision screen for your camera if they make it, after getting the EG-S for my 5DII the lens is much easier to use via f/1.2). What you have to think of though is if your going to miss the zoom ability in your shooting style as you already have some great glass. You have a touch choice ahead of you. (for me and portraits/weddings the primes are a no brainer, for everything else my 24-70L is the bomb). </p>

[John Crowe]

<p>I have been a prime fanatic for 25 years! Canon FD and now Nikon: 14/2.8, 28/2, 50/1.4, 135/2, 200/2 and 400/2.8. I used to have, at various times, Canon FD, 17/4, 24/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.2, 85/1.8, 80-200/4 L, 200/2.8, 300/2.8 L, 400/4.5, 400/2.8 L. </p>

<p>I do not use the lenses that you speak of but I have been following the EOS system since the day it was introduced. Your 17-35/2.8 L is the bargain in your system. The $1000 difference between selling it and getting the 16-35/2.8 L II would be a tremendous waste of cash!</p>

<p>The 50/1.8 is the best cheapest lens available!</p>

<p>I am currently considering my first zoom lens (in a very long time) in the xx-200, or xx-300mm range so it is difficult for me to suggest selling your 70-200/2.8 L IS. Except for the fact that it is an IS lens for which you paid dearly for that option. <strong> If</strong> you were to sell this lens I would suggest replacing it with two lenses. The 85/1.2 L and the 200/2.8 L.</p>

<p>I had one of the best 85mm lenses, the Zeiss 85/1.4, that I used to use on my Canon 10D, so I do know just how amazing the top of the line fast 85's are. The 200/2.8 L is also extremely highly rated. The 200/2 that I have is a cheap manual focus one. The 200/2 and 85/1.4 lenses are the sharpest lenses that I have owned, by a very wide margin, especially the 200/2 at f2 and the 85 at f2.8. The Canon EF 200/2 L IS or Canon EF 200/1.8 L lenses are just too limiting in their use for such a tremendously expensive investment!</p>

<p>I had a 35mm lens at one point and never used it. When I had the EOS system I used to think about the 24/1.4 L, 35/1.4 L, 50/1.2 L (well it was the 50/1.0 L at that time), and the 85/1.2 L. For indoor party events of the "whole gang" I'd want the 24/1.4 L, for the bride coming down the aisle I'd want the 35/1.4 L, for no other reason than just spending money I'd want the 50/1.2 L which I know I would never use, and having now had a fast 85, I know that this is the lens I would use the most of all of the above.</p>

<p>That's my story and I'm sticking to it. So in closing I seem to be pushing the idea of the 85/1.2 L, first, followed by the 200/2.8 L, but only the second lens if you insist on selling the 70-200/2.8 L IS. Once you have a bag full of primes, like me, you may find you miss the flexibility of the 70-200, like I know I am. Best of luck!</p>

[sheldonnalos]

<p>I've got every lens on your list pretty much. Here's my take...</p>

<p>The 85L is definitely not a replacement for the 70-200. They are very different in how they work. The 70-200 is fast focusing, covers a flexible zoom range, is useable indoors or out in a variety of circumstances, and is very sharp. The 85L is slower to focus, is fixed, and is best used for creating shallow DOF/low light effects. It's gorgeous, but it just functions in a totally different arena. I never find myself debating which lens to grab between these two - they just serve such different functions.</p>

<p>Removing the whole focal length range from 17 up through 24 is a significant change in your kit. I have so many shots wider than 24mm I couldn't possibly do w/o a wide zoom, but I shoot a lot of landscape. This is a decision that should be based on YOUR needs for focal length range, totally indepent of the primes vs zooms question.</p>

<p>Regarding primes vs. zooms, the real question is on whether you are after the fast aperture/shallow DOF/low light thing. If you plan on shooting at f/2.8 or above then no need to change anything. Yes, primes are sharper but you've got good zooms and the practical differences are minimal at eqivalent apertures. I look at the lens kit with the zooms being the "do anything" workhorses that are my primary choice, then I use the primes as supplemental for low light, creative DOF, etc. I'd recommend that you keep your zooms and look to add primes where they would see the most use. Consider the non-L primes as well, they can be very good. Adding a 35mm f/2 and 85mm f/1.8 would be one option to consider.</p>

<p> </p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>I am frequently baffled by the notion that you must give up one if you choose to use the other. Why primes <em>OR</em> zooms? A much better option for many is primes <em>AND</em> zooms.</p>

<p>I shoot both and there are very definitely situations in my work where one or the other type might have its advantages. There are a variety of situations and subjects for which using a zoom or zooms makes way more sense, and there are others in which the choice to use a prime makes sense.</p>

<p>Finally, if you are wondering about whether or not you might find primes interesting, there are far better ways to find out than buying the very expensive and heavy f/1.4 and f/1.2 L primes. You might presume that they are "the best" - they must be since they are very expensive, very big, and very cool looking, right? Not so fast. There are some wonderful non-L prime choices that can provide equivalent image quality at a much lower cost - the need for the L primes is most certainly not universal. It makes sense to analyze your needs carefully before throwing that sort of money at primes.</p>

<p>(You may have already realized this, but the usefulness of, say, a f/1.4 L lens is not quite as simple as you might imaging. How about the excellent 85mm f/1.4? Good for low light, right? Ah, but also good for producing such a narrow DOF that one of the subjects eyes will be in focus and the other not. If the subject moves a bit forward/backward or if your camera position is not stable then you have a focus issue. It is big. It is heavy. It really isn't any better than the 85mm f/1.8 across most of the aperture range.)</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Paul, the best set of primes for indoor, available light portraiture would be, in my opinion, the 35/1.4 L, the 50/1.4 (or 50/1.2 L) and the 85/1.8 (or the better but bank-breaking 85/1.2 II L).</p>

<p>For my own indoor shooting of my baby, I used my my FD 50/1.2 L (or 50/1.4) and my FD 85 1.2 L almost exclusively. Now that she's a toddler and I've adopted the EOS system, I tend to use my EF 35/1.4 L, 50/1.4, 100/2, and 24-70/2.8 L. I find 100mm to be a tad long indoors, hence my recommendation of an 85mm prime. And I would find 24mm to be too wide for indoor people shooting, hence my suggestion that you get an EF 35/1.4 over a 24/1.4. The 35/1.4 is one of the jewels in the EF line-up.</p>

<p>Because I tend to use primes indoors, and zooms (such as the EF 17-40/4, the 24-105/4 and the 70-200/4 IS) outdoors, I personally wouldn't sell a zoom to finance a prime, unless it were a poor performer.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Yes, get them all.</p>

<p>It's like $1000 bills, you can never have too many of them! Of course, if you <em>do</em> buy all the lenses, then you will not have <em>too</em> many $1000 bills either. ;)</p>

<p>That being said, there <em>are</em> good reasons why the use of primes <strong>only</strong> has become rarer. Get the primes, but keep the zooms.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>I would go with primes and zooms, not one of the other. I would suggest the 85 1.8 over the 1.2 ( my favorite lens on a 5D2 ) It will focus faster and be a nice light alternative to a big zoom. With the money you save pick up a 24-105 or 24-70. Keep your current ultra wide as well as the 70-200. I have many lenses but I really think a 5D2 with a 24-105 can cover just about anything but primes and unique and a lot of fun.</p>

[paul_runnoe2]

<p>All good points everyone.</p>

<p>I think its mostly a gear-craving that I'm having which usually passes after a month or so. Really, my 50 1.8 does just fine, and its so small and light, its my 'going out at night' kit that I can carry around without always having to hold it with two hands like a baby (as I need to do when holding the 70-200).</p>

<p>I appreciate all of the feedback, and I think that I just needed another confirmation that my three lenses really cover anything that I need - which is the same reasoning I used when I got them in the first place!</p>

[alan_ginman]

<p>I am selling my 28-70 Canon zoom. It's a good lens but just too big and bulky for what I take (similar pictures as you take). I will use 28mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.8 mainly. I do have a Tamron 28-70 zoom which is much smaller and lighter than the Canon monster for when I feel the need. But I managed without zooms for most of my photographic life and would quite like to return to the simplicity of primes.</p>

<p>One other factor is that my 3 and a half year old daughter loves to take pictures using my camera. Something I encourage while keeping my fingers crossed. She can hold a camera with a small prime lens on but she simply can't manage a 28-70 zoom. And what is the point of photography if you can't share the experience. She love photographing her mummy and daddy and seeing the pictures on the lcd screen.</p>

<p>Whatever you do, enjoy your daughter and take loads of pictures of her.</p>

<p>Regards</p>

<p>Alan</p>

[tdigi]

<p>Alan, I have the same primes as you ( plus the 100 macro ) but do primes really make it more simple? I find I miss shots while trying to switch lenses so often but I love how the camera feels with just a small prime and the extra stop or 2 allows me to shoot with no flash most of the time.</p>