primes decisions

[will_sohn]

<p>i have a 50 1.2 and other lenses<br>

I don't bring my excellent 16-35 unless I'm sure I need it. I want a 24L or a 35L, and to buy it I would sell my 24-70<br>

since i have a 50, perhaps a 35 would be too close to each other that I wouldn't need it so I'm contemplating a 24<br>

and because the 24 mk 2 is a newer lens<br>

I'm not going to wait for the 35 mk2 because i think it'll be a bit out of budget<br>

please help thanks,<br>

Will</p>

[zensphoto]

<p>Well, it sounds like you are looking for a prime wide lens. What are you thinking about shooting with the 24? Let's say, landscapes or you just want wide so you can also get up closer. The 50mm F/1.2 L is a real fine lens. You can see what the 35 looks like because you have the 16-35 so if you compare that with the 50mm you know what that is going to look like. I have the 18 - 200 EF S and there are many times the 18 is exactly what I am looking for when i want wide. I guess you need to ask yourself is 24 going to be what you need and is it wide enough to buy a prime for it or is it just going to be something you use from time to time.</p>

[matthijs]

<p>MNaybe you can ezxperiment with the 16-35 to determine the preferred focal length.</p>

<p>(If it were me I'd get the 24 in a heartbeat.)</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>What Matthijs said: determine with your 16-35 whether you actually prefer 35 or 24mm. For me, these are two completely different lengths - and also, 35 and 50 are not that close, for my uses anyway. For a full frame camera, it's the pair I always have with me - the 24mm is much more "optional".<br>

I'm not using Canon, so I can't comment on the exact models otherwise.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Personally, with a 50mm, I find a 28mm to be the most harmonious partner. I suggest you consider the new 28/2.8 IS.</p>

[nathangardner]

Both are awesome. I'd personally sell the 50 f/1.2 and get the 1.4 version + the other prime you want. In most cases I

think the L primes are unnecessary and the regular primes are just as good and 1/3 of the price. The 35L is, however, an exception and an awesome

lens and the 24L is great b/c the regular wide primes from Canon aren't that great (unless you get one of the new ones

with IS). The 24-70 is a pretty useful lens and I'd hate to see it go when all that unnecessary money is tied up in the 50L.

Just my opinion.

[g dan mitchell]

<p>No where in any of this do you say a word about your specific use of any of these lenses. In addition, you seem tremendously conflicted over which to get for a whole range of nebulous reasons, and you add to the mix some issues around getting rid of current lenses without saying anything about how you use them either.</p>

<p>Based on what you write, it is basically impossible to give you any credible advice. It also looks a little bit like you might be falling victim to Gear Lust, that unfortunate condition in which a person becomes more than a bit obsessed with the acquisition and collection of gear for its own sake.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Shoot with the 16-35mm enough to see where you tend to put the focal length. I'm guessing that you're shooting full-frame, so 24mm is wide enough for many situations. Anyway, after shooting a number of subjects, examine the EXIF to see the focal lengths that you use the most and base your decision on that.</p>

<p>Before you jump to all primes, are you using Digital Lens Optimizer in your Digital Photo Professional (or an equivalent software)? DLO corrects for lens distortions, such as barrel, vignetting, softness, CA, etc. at every aperture and every focal length. I use DxO's Optics Pro 7.5 for this, but it's also in DPP, LR and some other excellent Raw conversion software.</p>

<p>Several years ago, I was ready to send my 24-105mm into Canon for adjustment, due to softness on many shots. I'd already received approval from Canon, but then I tried Optics Pro and it fixed my problems, bringing IQ up on par with my primes. Since then, Canon has added DLO to DPP and other software now have lens correction.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<blockquote>

<p>I'd personally sell the 50 f/1.2 and get the 1.4 version + the other prime you want. In most cases I think the L primes are unnecessary and the regular primes are just as good and 1/3 of the price. The 35L is, however, an exception and an awesome lens...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree. I have several L primes, including the two you're considering, but the 50/1.2 is not among them. The 50/1.4 is simply optically superior to the faster prime.</p>

<p>But I also agree with Dan that it's very difficult for anyone to give you meaningful advice when we don't know how you intend to use the lens. I personally don't find 35mm to be too close to 50mm, and 24mm is very different than 35mm. So I would decide which focal length you want first before you look at specific lenses.</p>

[will_sohn]

<p>thanks everyone! i plan to use this lens as a night time walk around lens or street shooting. I love my 50 but sometimes, especially at night, a wider field of view is very useful. any tips?</p>

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>I borrowed my friends new Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC and compared it to my 17-40 F4L, 85 1,2L and 28 1.8 prime and found the 24-70 and actually found the Tamron to be sharper when shooting handheld that all three lenses. I have to keep the primes for my work because I shoot video. When using LED lights on battery packs being able to open up to 1.2 and 1.8 means being able to shoot longer without running down batteries. Other than that I would always use the Tamron VC lenses.</p>