If you had to pick one of these lenses, which would you pick?

[august23]

Now assume that you don't need a zoom. I know, that makes things alot easier to decide. But assume you can use your feet. Which of these is most OPTICALLY superior for ANY walkaround, travel, or professional shoot.

35L
50L
85L
17-55
24-70L

The reason I ask is. If you didn't find yourself needing a zoom, would you compare the zooms here to the primes? Or would you be better off with a prime like the 35 or 50?

[august23]

Oh wow, I just realized how bad this topic might sound. NO! I'm not buying/selling lenses anymore! I'm just curious as to how great the advantage of a prime is.

[HighPlainsPhotographer]

I have always been attracted to zoom lenses, but recently purchased my first prime, a 85 f/1.8. Now I am hooked on primes. I thoroughly enjoy using it. Having said that, I would like to have a 35L for it's fast aperture and excellent IQ.

Shaun

[Mark_Cohran]

Too many different focal lengths to compare......You need to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. I wouldn't chose the 35L over the 85L over the 24-105L over the 24-70L based on purely optical qualities. You have to compare lenses based on your needs as a photographer.

Mark

[august23]

Ok let's cut zooms out, as they're obviously optically inferior. So a prime at 2.8 is optically more efficient in situations than a zoom at 2.8? This is my general point I'm trying to understand.

[blueM]

Oh wow, I just realized how bad this topic might sound. NO! I'm not buying/selling lenses anymore! I'm just curious as to how great the advantage of a prime is.

I think you're in denial - this is just the first step. :)


Isn't the 17-55 headed out the door already?

[august23]

LOL no way. Can't do it. If the 17-55 goes, the 24-70 goes with it, and I'll just be a prime nut (except the 10-22.) Except Im not returning these to the store, I'd sell them here or to family. Enough returning stuff, time to cut you guys some sweet deals! :p

[Bill Roberts]

Well I'm obviously biased towards primes (you only have to look at my sig to see that). But choosing from your list I'd actually be pretty tempted by the 17-55 for a general walk around lens, But optically I think the 35mm L probably has it. I wouldn't pick the 85L for this purpose even though it's my favourite lens by far. For portraits though it'd win easily.

So... on balance my vote goes to the 35L

cheers
Bill

[Mark_Cohran]

I don't own the 50L, but I find the 35L and the 85L pretty indistinquisable in IQ - but the 85L my more my favorite lens because of the focal length.

[PaulEY]

arghh tough, I am torn between the 85L and the 24-70L, sod it, I will have both

[ohtoberich]

Depends on the focal length, right? Optically, the L primes are pretty sweet. What do you mean by "optically more efficient"? Sharper? Brighter, thus easier to focus? Part of the allure of primes is those wide apertures!

For a walkaround on a 30D, I'd pick the 17-55, or the 35L if you prefer primes.

[august23]

I think what I was trying to do was ask if besides the inability to zoom, if primes were lacking in anything else besides not being able to zoom. Sorry for such a confusing thread, it made more sense in my head. :p

[Bill Roberts]

I think what I was trying to do was ask if besides the inability to zoom, if primes were lacking in anything else besides not being able to zoom. Sorry for such a confusing thread, it made more sense in my head. :p


Well primes do tend to be faster, lighter and have arguably better IQ. Other than that I don't think they lack much. :D :D

[johnstoy]

Of the;
35L
50L
85L
17-55
24-70L

I own the 24-70L...however I use my 85mm 1.8 often in theater venue shooting... the 1.2L version, of the 85mm 1.2L is most interesting to me... I could use lower ISO speeds, and faster shutter speeds...these variables alone are worth it...

The 50L is a close second, while the 24mm 1.4L and the 135mm 2.0L's are next in line for me...thereafter the 35L...

If the 17-55 was an "L" and not an S series, it would be hot, hot hot, on my list...

[august23]

The reason I ask is rather....scary. I'm thinking about selling BOTH of my mid-range zooms, and getting the 35L. NOW NOW NOW HOLD ON! Hear me out! I know I drove everyone here NUTS about the two lenses I have. Check it out though. You all know I'm a huge IQ nut, so, what better than an L prime? Looking at most of my shots, majority of them are taken between the 28mm and 44mm (on the 1.6 crop.) So the 35 fits the bill. It's got everything I would need too. Low-light, superb IQ, and the only downfall is no zoom ability. But I'm realizing how little I zoom as it is! That's why I ask if the 35L sounds like it would be a wise decision for me to make, and maybe finally put an end to all this gear switching. What do you think?

[nicksan]

Are you asking whether the primes would be DRAMATICALLY superior to your already superior zooms, the 17-55IS (Pseudo L) and the 24-70L?

I mean, what are you searching for?

OK, so we know you are a IQ freak and a Pixel Peeper!!! (Couldn't have guessed that one:) :) :) ) Are you not happy with what you got? Are you hoping that the 35L will magically transform that unhappiness to unlimited bliss?;) ;) ;)

Sounds like the 24-70 is PERFECT for what you are shooting...

I think the general thinking is that Primes have "better" IQ than zooms because of less glass elements, etc...only have to worry about 1 FL...etc...

August, I do understand the gear orgy thing however!

I, myself thrashed around quite a bit, before getting it out of my system with the 5D purchase ending with the 70-200 2.8IS. (Well I do still want the 100 macro!)

Yeah...it's freakin' exciting I know!

It's a disease I tell you...:lol: :lol:


The reason I ask is rather....scary. I'm thinking about selling BOTH of my mid-range zooms, and getting the 35L. NOW NOW NOW HOLD ON! Hear me out! I know I drove everyone here NUTS about the two lenses I have. Check it out though. You all know I'm a huge IQ nut, so, what better than an L prime? Looking at most of my shots, majority of them are taken between the 28mm and 44mm (on the 1.6 crop.) So the 35 fits the bill. It's got everything I would need too. Low-light, superb IQ, and the only downfall is no zoom ability. But I'm realizing how little I zoom as it is! That's why I ask if the 35L sounds like it would be a wise decision for me to make, and maybe finally put an end to all this gear switching. What do you think?

[august23]

I'm actually looking at the money saver right now lol. I'm sorta thinking a zoom for the walk-around isnt exactly what I need. With the extra cash I could pick up a 70-200 f/2.8L IS and be set. I'd have the 10-22, 35L, and 70-200 f/2.8L IS. That'd pretty much cover everything. I'm not looking for a miracle worker. I'm thinking maybe it'd be even more versatile because once things get really dark, I wouldn't be thinking "oh, time to switch to my 50 1.4!" Get what I'm saying? Really what's to miss in the 23-34mm and 36-69mm range? It's maybe a couple of steps at most, assuming I'd even need to zoom.

[nicksan]

I knew you had something brewing in your head August!
:lol: :lol: :lol:

I'm actually looking at the money saver right now lol. I'm sorta thinking a zoom for the walk-around isnt exactly what I need. With the extra cash I could pick up a 70-200 f/2.8L IS and be set. I'd have the 10-22, 35L, and 70-200 f/2.8L IS. That'd pretty much cover everything. I'm not looking for a miracle worker. I'm thinking maybe it'd be even more versatile because once things get really dark, I wouldn't be thinking "oh, time to switch to my 50 1.4!" Get what I'm saying? Really what's to miss in the 23-34mm and 36-69mm range? It's maybe a couple of steps at most, assuming I'd even need to zoom.

[august23]

:p its so easy to spot. I make a new thread, start with a question that seems unintimidating, and then BAM, I unleash hell. I know there aren't too many prime fans, but surely someone could defend in their name and tell me this is a good idea!?

[evan_d]

I'd love to take that 24-70 off your hands, if I had any money... :(

[august23]

If I go through with this prime thing, I'm probably gonna give back to this forum in some way for all their help by selling it for like $800. This isn't a joke.

[baw5t0n]

I think you need all of them... I really do... and I know you know you do, too... so, forget this foreplay and just get them and shoot some ducks... we want one filling out the frame with the 35L...

[JimAskew]

Now assume that you don't need a zoom. I know, that makes things alot easier to decide. But assume you can use your feet. Which of these is most OPTICALLY superior for ANY walkaround, travel, or professional shoot.

35L
50L
85L
17-55
24-70L

The reason I ask is. If you didn't find yourself needing a zoom, would you compare the zooms here to the primes? Or would you be better off with a prime like the 35 or 50?

If you are looking for a prime walkaround lens for your 30D then add the Sigma 30MM f/1.4 to your list and then buy it :) Cost to performance ratio can not be equaled.

[Stan43]

There will never be an end to all this gear switching. That being said I reccomend the 35L. I like the 85L better but for different reasons.It won't be versatile enough for a walk around. For what you describe I would pick the 35L. Any way you sell one of your zooms, 17-55 , and get the 35L. Ride with it and see how you like the set up.

[sboerup]

35L wouls be the smartest for a walkaround. As for primes, they arent lacking anything but weight. Bonuses of primes are: weight, focusing speed, sharpness, IQ, and more. 24-70L sounds like your lens. I used to think that buying X lens would solve my problems or mysteriously make each photo awesome from that lens. In my experience, its far better to learn how to properly de velop your images afterwards. Its not perceptible which lens you use if you develop your photos properly.

But, I buy the L lenses for their consistent functionability, I know that i can rely on them to focus properly amd quickly, their FTM, and strength to take a beating.

[Double Negative]

I love my 35mm f/1.4L - it's sharp, fast, light. Depending on the situation though, I like the 24-70mm better as a walkaround lens, especially if I don't forsee low-light shooting or am unsure of what I'll face. The IQ nod definitely goes to the 35mm but the 24-70mm is no slouch and has never disappointed me.

I'll tell you about the 85mm f/1.2L II later today. ;)

[canoflan]

Depending on the occasion, either the 35 or the 24-70. I have the 24-70 and can vouch for it.

[august23]

I like that idea double negative. I think I'm gonna do it like this, what do you guys think?

10-22 - 24-70
35L 85 f/1.8

Again, you guys know I hate tele. :p

[august23]

I think I finally, FINALLY did it! I know what's going to make me happiest! This is really, really it guys!

The 10-22 for my landscapes and wide-needs.
The 24-70L for times I need wider than my 35L or longer.
My 35L to cover most ground. 35L can do everything. Low-light, landscape, portrait work, everything! I'll have the 24-70 for reach AND low-light AND portraiture if I need, and the 10-22 will cover all my landscape/wide requirements!

I did it! 3 lenses, and I'm unstoppable! Mwahahaha. Oh man, this is gonna be one hell of a triforce when I go to Italy in June. Bring it on baby!! And thanks for all the help guys! Sorry to say, you probably won't see any more of my indirect lens threads for a while! :p

[Mark_Cohran]

... you probably won't see any more of my indirect lens threads for a while! :p

Somehow, I just doubt it. :)

Mark

[august23]

Somehow, I just doubt it. :)

Mark

Grrr.. ENOUGH OF THIS TOUGH LOVE!!:mad:

[Double Negative]

Somehow, I just doubt it. :)

ROFL!

[Collin85]

Wait wait, does this mean you've now bought the 35L twice and gotten rid of three copies of the 70-200 (2x f/4 IS + 1x f/4)? :lol:

Dude, don't ask us what's the best combo for you.. take a good look at what you shoot. I'm still astounded as to the amount of lens swapping you've done just to find out what's a good combo for you.

Since I recall you saying that you mainly do family photos and that sort of stuff, I felt a little surprised that you returned your first copy of the 35L. Not surprising at all that you ended up getting it again though. I think you'll find this to be a keeper.

And you bought atleast 2 70-200s just because you felt a vast urge to own a L. :lol:

Now do us all a favour and try to not expend any more unnecessary effort on lenses and just go out and take more photos. ;) I have a gut feeling if the emphasis was on developing photography from the get-go (from the first moment you got that 400D), rather than a heavy-handed focus on gear, you wouldn't of had this huge of a case of swappaitus. :lol: