3 Primes or 24-70L

[Technographer]

I'm trying to decide on whether it's better to go with 3 primes(28 1.8, 50 1.4, 85 1.8) or just go with the 24-70L. The pricing is similar, but I was leaning towards the primes because of weight and low light capability. Plus I already have the 24-105L, so one might not get used as much. Any opinions would be appreciated. Thanks.

[Pasukun]

If you already have 24-105L.. I would most definitely go for the prime lenses.

[Rumrunner]

If you already have 24-105L.. I would most definitely go for the prime lenses.

I agree, since you already have a zoom in that range, adding fast primes would broaden your horizon IMO.

[simon_andrzejewski]

go for primes, better quality and speed

[peanuthead]

No brainer.

[Stan43]

Primes all the way.

[pup]

get one prime -- the 35 L :)

[gooble]

I would get the primes.

Being the owner of an EF 85 1.8, I would highly recommend it. I plan to get the EF 50 1.4 and would like the EF 24-105L so you are more or less talking about the same group of lenses that I eventually want to have.

Good luck.

[convergent]

If you have the 24-105, then definitely go with the primes. I have 2x 24-70s and since I got the 24-105 I rarely use them. If I need speed... mostly for shooting indoor sports, then f/2.8 usually doesn't cut it. And if I were doing a museum or something, the 24-105 with IS would actually go lower in light than the 24-70.

[august23]

get one prime -- the 35 L :)


I agree.:D

[remo]

Primes :)

[narlus]

another vote for the primes.

[Technographer]

I'm also leaning towards the 3 primes more then anything, also to add a few primes to my gear. I'm pretty set on the 50 1.4 and the 85 1.8, but I've heard mixed reviews on the 28 1.8. Does anyone else have any suggestions on a wide prime?

[pup]

the sigma 30 1.4

[richardho11]

Even if you didn't have that zoom. I would still get those primes over the zoom. You can zoom with your feet and have a great set of sharp low light absorbing monsters! Not to mention the great bokeh you would get with those as well! :D

[Ericmrob]

I have and like the sigma 30 1.4

[quickben]

DANG you beat me to it!

This lens will vignet pretty badly on his 5D. Plus it suffers, to some degree, from the same problem as the canon 28 1.8 in that it has excellent centre sharpness but is quite soft in the corners. His 5D will only exagerate this. The canon 28 1.8 was designed for full-frame and is off the chart for centre sharpness, but is very soft in the corners.

Sigma's QC on the 30 1.4 is shocking. I had three examples and they all had something different wrong with them.

I'd stick with his original three choices.

Plus they'll look better all sat together in his bag :-)

Gary.

[Alejandro Sandoval]

85 1.2 L

[Heatseeker99]

I say go with the 24-70 2.8L over the primes.













j/k... I felt like being the black sheep :) :)

[efroten]

If you can afford it, get the 24mm 1.4L :) But that sort of screws up the pricing a bit there doesnt it. :) Could always save a few hundred and get the 50 1.8 instead of the 50 1.4.

[nburwell]

get one prime -- the 35 L :)

I second that! Fantastic lens!

I would go with the primes since others mentioned you already have the 24-105.

[salut]

Yep... 35L.

[rslv]

the sigma 30 1.4

Sigma AF 30 f/1.4 EX DC ASP HSM CA

DC: Digital Camera - won't work on a full frame 5D.

[Technographer]

Thanks for all the input. Looks like the majority is for primes over the 24-70. I think I'm going to definitely consider the primes and have a full set up to 100mm(28,50,85,100)

[ed rader]

the sigma 30 1.4

it won't fit either camera he owns.

ed rader

[DenZ]

Hm, how about:

14mm f/2.8L
24mm f/1.4L
35mm f/1.4L
50mm f/1.2L
85mm f/1.2L
135mm f/2.0L
and a 200mm f/1.8L to top it off?

Someone wanna get a calculator to see how much this dream prime set would cost?

[SuzyView]

50 1.4, 85 1.8 and the 35L :);)

[rslv]

Thanks for all the input. Looks like the majority is for primes over the 24-70. I think I'm going to definitely consider the primes and have a full set up to 100mm(28,50,85,100)

Just a thought:

I think a Holy Trinity(-esque) setup compliments the 5D better, ie. 35, 85 and 135mm.
You have the range covered with pretty good zooms - maybe, instead of quickly adding "mediocre" primes, it would better to slowly aquire some very good primes. The kind that would motivate you to use them, not only for their lowlight capability, but for their superior imagequality. Primes can seem like more work when you're used to zooms - maybe you should choose primes that have that extra something, primes you will want to choose instead of the convenient zoom.

A slow, scaled, almost reasonable way to upgrade would be:
85 1.8: $350
135 2.0L: $900
35 1.4L: $1150

[SuzyView]

I think he was trying to stay under $1100 with 3 choices. I think I would get the 85 1.8 and save for the other 2 you suggested, rslv. I think the 85 is worth it and the 135 is a nice lens.

[Tom W]

As much as I love my 24-70, since you already have the 24-105, I suggest a range of primes as well. The 35/1.4 and perhaps an 85/1.8 would be a good pair. One, a little bit wide, and one, a little bit long.

[ed rader]

As much as I love my 24-70, since you already have the 24-105, I suggest a range of primes as well. The 35/1.4 and perhaps an 85/1.8 would be a good pair. One, a little bit wide, and one, a little bit long.

c'mon Tom...you know if he wants near-prime performance he should dump the 24-105L and get the 24-70L and then decide what primes to get to round out the kit ;) .

ed rader

[Indecent Exposure]

I agree.:D
+1

35L

:D

[mrfourcows]

3 primes - they offer you what the zoom can't.

besides, your 24-105L will cover when versatility is needed (to some extent).

[Stackinchips]

Now What if he DID NOT have the 24-105?

Cuz I have the SAME question in mind.

[jr_senator]

Before zooms were very good (they were very bad, in fact) suggestions for 35mm film SLRs went something like this; either 24 or 28mm, 50mm and 85 or 100mm (105 if you had Nikon). Or, 35mm and 85mm. I thnk the same applies today regarding primes. Since the 28 f/1.8 ain't so great, the 35L would be a good choice. If you can't get the 85mm now because of budget, you are not exactly 'shut out' of that focal length and maybe could get it later.

[abhalikh]

Recently discovered this site - a wonderful resource for the prospective camera purchaser. I've spent hours reading the endless 24-70 vs. 24-105 and zoom vs. prime debates, so I thought I'd up an old thread rather than start a new one.

Anyway, unlike the original poster of this thread I *do not* own the 24-105 at the moment. In fact I don't own any DSLR. Growing up our family used a film slr with a 50/1.8 & a 200/4, so I'm used to the constraints of a prime. Haven't really done any photography since highschool in the late 90s (no more free access to darkroom dampened by enthusiasm for film), but now that quality dslrs are becoming relatively affordable I want to get back into it.

I want to get a 5d, primarily for its low light ability & the Canon lense line-up. So reading the 24-70 vs 24-105 debates & scouring pbase pictures for subject motion blur, I became convinced I'd prefer the faster lens.

But for a bit less than a 24-70, I could get:
24/2.8
35/2
50/1.4
85/1.8

I'm quite tempted by that line up, but wary of not having any zoom at all (most of the prime cheerleaders here seem to own at least 1 standard range zoom as well).

Also, even this photographer I found on pbase, whose Cardiff galleries http://www.pbase.com/maciekda/wales really inspire me to go all prime, nonetheless uses zooms, particularly the 24-105, extensively in his travel galleries. Is travel with a bunch of primes impractical? Is sensor dust manageable?

The 24-105 as a kit with the 5d is around $400 cheaper than the 24-70 - as I plan to travel quite a bit, should I just get that, & use the saving to get a 50/1.4 for the low light situations?

Finally, I'm planning to get the 135L regardless - if I do go the prime route, could I leave off the 85/1.8? They seem to do roughly the same type of portrait work, & the numerous 85 vs 100 vs 135 threads suggest the 85 isn't quite long enough for discreet candids or capturing architectural details (which would be my main use for >50mm FLs).

Well this turned into more questions than I anticipated; any comments would be appreciated!

[Mum2J&M]

I went with primes only because I didn't like the weight of the 24-70. It was a great lens, though. If it had been just a little more manageable for me, I would've definitely kept it. What's the focal length you'll use the most? Can you decide that based on your 24-105 use? Will you be using it on the 5D? There's also the 24L 1.4, which is a great lens IMHO. But it depends how much you'll need wide and how much you can spend. It would be much wider on your 5D than on my 30D. ;) Good luck.

[airfrogusmc]

PRIMES all the way.

[JimAskew]

If you already have 24-105L.. I would most definitely go for the prime lenses.
Ditto :)

[SuzyView]

Shoot, if I had that choice, I'd get the 135, right Jim? ;)

[airfrogusmc]

I only own three lenses. All primes. 24, 35 & 85.

[Mum2J&M]

I'm trying to decide on whether it's better to go with 3 primes(28 1.8, 50 1.4, 85 1.8) or just go with the 24-70L. The pricing is similar, but I was leaning towards the primes because of weight and low light capability. Plus I already have the 24-105L, so one might not get used as much. Any opinions would be appreciated. Thanks.
Ed - looks like he's already eliminated this option...

[Tom W]

I only own three lenses. All primes. 24, 35 & 85.

I wish I could say that!

[sootyvrs]

Primes without a doubt if it was me.

I would maybe just get 1 or 2 primes for now to see how you enjoy them. Maybe 50/1.4, 85/1.8 or 100/2.

Then you will be a better position to see what focal length primes are required. If you have the 5D, I would also recommend the L's if your budget allows.