Why oh why shouldn't I switch out for primes?

[form]

Yesterday I was in the luxor, and I could barely snag 1/30 sec. in several interesting, photo-worthy spots at f/2.8 and ISO3200, and I was thinking that a fast prime would make those spots perfectly viable wedding photo-ops. Fast primes seem like they would open so many doors, letting me use available light in many places where I can't do the same with my zooms.

So why shouldn't I sell my zooms and buy fast primes instead? I know it's handy to be able to zoom quickly, but is that really as beneficial as it may seem? Would I get better output from primes than I do from my zooms because the extra 2 stops of light opened doors for me, or would my images suffer overall because ideal framing would become more difficult?

Cost-wise, the 24-70L would be almost worth the 35L, and I could buy a 50 f/1.4 outright, thus giving me two lenses that are 4x as fast as my zooms. Why shouldn't I do this?

[form]

No opinions?

[tim]

Zooms are handy, why does it have to be either/or? Get both and use the best tool for the job. I'm wary of camera shake without IS or a tripod.

[form]

Money keeps me from owning both. I really want an array of f/1.4 or faster primes because of the incredible number of low light situations and creative opportunities in resorts and other indoor places that just can't be exploited without fast lenses (a 5D mark II/D700 would also be nice).

[randplaty]

There are SO many reasons to own fast primes. The 2 extra stops of light is just one of them. Wider apertures allow your camera to focus better in low light. More narrow depth of field for pleasing bokeh. Better sharpness and less lens flare.

That said, are you shooting with two quality bodies? If you can put a 35mm on one body and an 85mm on the other, that pretty much covers most of the range of a standard zoom. If you're comfortable shooting with two bodies, I'd say go for it.

If you only like to have one body around your neck, I think you need to stick with your 24-70.

[tim]

I own exactly what I want to own right now - mostly F2.8 IS zooms, with a couple of primes. Details in my gear list.

[bnlearle]

As I'm sure some think I beat dead horses here :) I think primes are great. It seems like you are the ideal candidate for them. You, like me a year ago, sound like you are believing less in the importance of zooming and more in the importance of more ambient light and wider open apertures.

Daniel's advice about bodies makes great sense. From a personal preference standpoint, I'm more comfy with the 24L and the 50L over the 35L and 85L. But I think most would feel better with Daniel's suggestion. I really don't know why I'm more comfortable this way, tbh. Weird :)

Bobby

[bnlearle]

And to add, I shot every wedding last year with (for the most part) ONLY the 50L. Basically every image on my site. I had the 24-70 - hardly used it. 70-200 was only in ceremonies. 16-35 for party dancing (not first dances). Outside that, I'd say 85% of my shots last year were on the 50L at f/1.2. Now that I've got the 24L, 50L, and 135L, I feel even more capable. But just saying, a single L prime can really change things up for you. There's my stamp of approval :)

[form]

Well I may be getting a 50 f/1.4 soon....but the other stuff is still out of my price range unless I sell my zooms.

My main camera bodies are 5D and 40D. Technically, 24 on the 5D and 50 on the 40D would give me the wide and long ends of a standard zoom, but the new 24 is as expensive as the 85L II and I can't afford $1600 for a prime. The 35L is closer to my price range, but still a bit expensive.

I was set on the 35L for a long time but now I'm not really sure anymore.

[tim]

The Canon 50 F1.4 never really impressed me, even after calibration it had to be F2.0 before it was even vaguely sharp. I'd consider the Sigma if you really want a 50 and don't want to spend a packet.

[bnlearle]

Don't get the 24L version II. Get a USED 24L here on POTN. Where I got mine (and many other things). You can get 'em for under $1k all the time.

[form]

The 50 f/1.4 has a very distinct halation effect that's mistaken for lack of sharpness. I've used two of them and they match the tests on the-digital-picture.com. In fact the lens retains good detail, but the contrast is a bit low and the halation gives a softening effect. It's much less expensive than the L primes, which I just don't have nearly enough money for right now. And, I'm dying to try 50mm on full frame; it will be just like having a 35L on the 40D.

[tim]

Whatever reason you want to give it the images from the 50 F1.4 aren't sharp until F2.0, even with sharpening, IMHO. You know a lot of big words. I trust me eyes.

[razyl]

Havent we had a discussion on this already?? All the pros and cons of zoom vs prime aside, it seems to me that you really want to get the primes but cost is the major hurdle.

If that's true, then I think you have to make a business decision, not a lens decision. If wedding photography is your bread & butter you should structure your pricing, costs, etc etc so that you CAN afford these lenses. If they will markedly improve your output then you should get em. I dont think you should keep asking "what if" or "will I wont I" - charge a bit more at each wedding and just get them!!

The kind of money people pay for wedding photography it's almost a crime NOT to have the best possible equipment for what you want to achieve.

[bnlearle]

What is your current setup, form?

[form]

5D, 40D, 20D, with Sigma 10-20, Canon 24-70 and Tamron 28-75, Canon 85 f/1.8, 135L, and 70-200 f/2.8L IS. I'm thinking of dumping the 135L; I almost never use it and anything I can do with it, I can probably do with the 85 or the 70-200 just about as well.

[bnlearle]

If you sold some gear, you could EASILY have an all prime setup - assuming you wanted it.

But honestly, if you aren't that into the 135L, I think you might not be as much a prime shooter as you think you may want to be. I LOVE that lens. I shot a wedding with it this weekend and couldn't believe how much more I liked it over my 70-200.

But yeah, sell the 20D, 24-70, 28-75, and either the 85 or the 135L and you can get yourself a 24L and a 50L (both used). Basically a trade. It just depends if you want it.

Bobby

[razyl]

What did you like more about the 135mm Bobby?

[form]

I'm afraid to give up the 85 without having an 85L, and I want to have a "last-resort" standard zoom, so I'm keeping the 28-75 and trying to sell the 24-70L again.

[tim]

I shot a wedding with it this weekend and couldn't believe how much more I liked it over my 70-200.

A whole wedding? That would be interesting.

[bnlearle]

What did you like more about the 135mm Bobby?This photo's a great example. Shot this on saturday...

SOOC
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y126/bnlearle/IMG_1939a.jpg

PP'd
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y126/bnlearle/IMG_1939-1.jpg

5DMKII+135L at ISO6400, 1/80th, and f/2.0


My 70-200 could have gotten a similar photo, I admit. Not as much light for 1/80th of a second though. However, the way the people just behind the bride and just in front are already swirling out of focuse? That's why :) Plus, if you notice next time you've got your 70-200 on, the difference from 70 to 135mm's is big. The difference from 135 to 200mm's? Not so much. I shot most the time on my 70-200 at 200mm's anyways. Plus I like the way the 135L looks and feels over the 70-200. It's basically the same size as the 16-35.

Summary - weight, look, IQ, bokeh, more light. Good reasons, if you ask me :D
I'm afraid to give up the 85 without having an 85L, and I want to have a "last-resort" standard zoom, so I'm keeping the 28-75 and trying to sell the 24-70L again.
Trade the 24-70 for a 24L. There's one. Sell the 135L and buy a used 50L for a couple hundred bucks more. There's the other. If you want them, get them! If you don't want to go through the trouble of getting them, don't beat yourself up about something you aren't going to get.

A whole wedding? That would be interesting. Not the whole wedding with JUST that lens. But another whole wedding subbing the 135 over the 70-200. That's two full weddings, and e shoot, and two family sessions where I haven't felt the need to put the 70-200 on yet. A few weddings under my belt and I'll sell it (assuming I don't have feel the need to use it).

[form]

I've seen lots of things that say the 50L has a lot of variability between copies and that's not encouraging when I can get the f/1.4 version for 1/5 the price.

[bnlearle]

I'm not saying to get the 50L. I've been confused on who says it's good and who doesn't. I say get the 1.4 and if you want to upgrade, sell it and go for the L! Either way, you can get the primes you seek EVEN EASIER now that you want the 1.4! 24-70 gets you a 24L and a 135L will get you a 50 1.4 PLUS some cash :D

[form]

But I was planning on buying a 50 f/1.4 outright anyway...and I almost got one for an excellent deal too, but the guy preferred a local sale and I wasn't local.

[bnlearle]

Why the "but"? We're on the same page :) That's that much better! Than you can still sell your 24-70 for a 24L and have WAY more cash left over!

[Perry Ge]

On the subject of 50mm primes...I've owned the 50 1.8, 50 1.4, Sigma 50 1.4, a ton of manual focus 50mm primes, but it was inevitable that I ended up with the king. I know a wedding photographer here in Toronto who just sold his 1-series bodies and his 85L (I could NOT believe this) because he was loving the 5D2 + 50L combo so much.

[form]

Must be nice having so much money to throw around.

You said yourself in your posts that your first 50L didn't perform the same way as the last one.

Obviously if I had plenty of cash I'd have all the primes and the zooms, and a 5D II for that apparently very usable ISO6400.

[Perry Ge]

Well I worked for every cent that I've spent on my gear. After bills and necessities are paid for, I'm happy to save up and spend my disposable income on my passion.

Anyway, that's off topic. The point is the 50L is a good lens :p, but yes, there is undoubtedly copy variation - but those who own it that I know all seem to love it.

[form]

Yay looks like I might be getting the 50 f/1.4 after all: I sent a very guilt-sucking email to the seller and he replied saying I should become a defense lawyer, and that since I was the first to respond to his ad he'd work with me. It's the second best deal I've seen for a 50 f/1.4 (the very best was $200 shipped, but that was w/o hood).

[picturecrazy]

I would definitely not want to be without zooms. I would keep the zooms and save up for the primes and get them when you can afford them. With flash, you'll find you pretty much RARELY NEED more light than 2.8. If you can master flash technique, you can make flashed shots look just as pleasing as available light, and in many cases, even better.

But primes certainly have their place. They can be lighter and smaller, and useful if you like to blur the living crap out of everything. I wouldn't want to be without them, but if I had to choose, I'd dump the primes before the zooms any day.

[form]

Flash isn't an option under many circumstances inside the casino/resorts here. I would love to have the utmost freedom to use my equipment, but bottom line is that most of my shoots are not in wedding-specific venues; I find myself shooting about 60% of the time in very non-photography-friendly resorts that don't allow photographers to carry umbrellas and off camera flashes all over the place. During the last shoot, I used the available light inside for most of the indoor photos, even resorting to using one of the back-lit starbucks ad monuments just to get enough light. The floors are always dark carpet, the walls are multicolored and the pillars/etc. available to bounce flash against are not ideal.

To be honest, I like flash and have been using it for a while now, but it's cumbersome.

Last month, when I would think primes, I thought about better DoF control. Now, when I think primes, I think "I can shoot in the casino with reasonable camera settings with that, but not with any of my zooms."

[bnlearle]

With flash, you'll find you pretty much RARELY NEED more light than 2.8.
This is where I think Edmonton is blessed with nothing but well lit ceremony locations - unless you're using flash in those, of course :)

Fact is, I'm a low volume shooter (shooting less than 20 a season) and I still had quite a few ceremonies that were KILLING me because they were so dark. One was basically candle lit. My 70-200 was almost useless. My 50L saved the day for me. 5D+50L+ISO3200+1/40th+f/1.2 was my saving point since I couldn't use flash. You bet I wanted to ask the BnG, "what are you thinking?!?!" - but that doesn't work. I had three options for that wedding.

1. Shoot with primes and get the shot.
2. Shoot with zooms and have the most terribly pushed B&W's and tell myself it's not my fault they had such a low light ceremony.
3. Shoot with flash.

I'm very glad I had primes so that I didn't have to resort to either #2 or #3.

Sure, primes take a bit of getting used to for most people, but I can't think of a single shot I can get with my zooms that I can't get with my primes. However, I CAN think of shots I can get with my primes that I CAN'T get with my zooms. I think that is what the OP is juggling in his head, at the moment ;) He's seems to be saying he's in an either/or situation.

If you can afford to keep both - and you use both - OF COURSE you should keep both zooms and primes :)

Bobby

[picturecrazy]

This is where I think Edmonton is blessed with nothing but well lit ceremony locations - unless you're using flash in those, of course :)


haha, definitely not all well lit ceremonies. I rarely flash indoor ceremonies, but I definitely have used off-cam flash in ultra low-light processional/recessionals. In such low light like 0EV, flash is the ONLY way to get a clean, crisp photo with the highest image quality. But other than that, IS zooms are my saving grace. Ceremonies are very slow paced for the most part. Mostly just people standing/sitting there. With the 17-55 I often shoot at 1/2 shutter handheld and they turn out most excellent. 1/10 on the 70-200 IS with proper breathing and triangulation technique. Something I just CANNOT do with my 200L.

There are definitely things primes do that zooms cannot, but the vice versa is certainly true too. The vast majority of my shooting career has been primes-only. I definitely found it limiting.

So have both. Seriously. You'll be happy. :)

[bnlearle]

haha, definitely not all well lit ceremonies. I rarely flash indoor ceremonies, but I definitely have used off-cam flash in ultra low-light processional/recessionals. In such low light like 0EV, flash is the ONLY way to get a clean, crisp photo with the highest image quality. Am I a dork for not knowing what OEV means? Seriously though, you're overstating the necessity of flash here, I think. That or you're sort of stating your opinion of a "clean, crisp photo..." as the exact definition. You bet flash will make a high quality photo. But ISO4000, 1/40th, and f/1.2? That's a beautiful photo, as well. Personal preference on which is better. Obviously, I like the f/1.2 w/out flash more than the f/2.8 with flash and you differ. No problem (I know you don't think there's a problem there, either ). But implying that the flash is the ONLY way? Fact is, there's another way. It's called two and a half stops. That's the difference of shooting at f/2.8 and f/6.7. That's huge. That's also the difference between shooting at f/1.2 and f/2.8. That's no small deal ;) But other than that, IS zooms are my saving grace. Ceremonies are very slow paced for the most part. Mostly just people standing/sitting there. With the 17-55 I often shoot at 1/2 shutter handheld and they turn out most excellent. 1/10 on the 70-200 IS with proper breathing and triangulation technique. Something I just CANNOT do with my 200L. That's probably because you have the 200 f/2.8L, though, right? You're sort of choosing the one L prime that doesn't have the faster speed advantage that most primes do. I don't think anyone would argue that the 200 f/2.8 is better than the 70-200. Now, bring the 200 f/2 IS in the mix and it's another story. Also, you could get an extra stop with the 135L and 135mm to 200mm isn't a big difference. Not arguing with you that YOU shouldn't use your 70-200 - I mean, I own one for a reason :) Just saying that if you chose a prime lens with the prime benefits (faster than the comparable zoom) then you would have more light. You chose the weakest prime example :D There are definitely things primes do that zooms cannot, but the vice versa is certainly true too. The vast majority of my shooting career has been primes-only. I definitely found it limiting. I still don't know anything that I couldn't personally do on primes that I could on zooms. Like I said, I just don't see how IS can trump two and a half stops. Not saying it doesn't for others, but I think most of us would choose an f/2.8 lens WITHOUT IS as opposed to an f/6.7 WITH IS. Again, I think that's the difference between f/1.2 and f/2.8. So have both. Seriously. You'll be happy. Agreed. But like I said in the post before, I think the OP isn't in a position to have all. I'm posting in response to that in mind. If that weren't the case, I wouldn't say much other than "use both if they both work for you!" ;)

[picturecrazy]

Am I a dork for not knowing what OEV means? Seriously though, you're overstating the necessity of flash here, I think. That or you're sort of stating your opinion of a "clean, crisp photo..." as the exact definition. You bet flash will make a high quality photo. But ISO4000, 1/40th, and f/1.2? That's a beautiful photo, as well. Personal preference on which is better. Obviously, I like the f/1.2 w/out flash more than the f/2.8 with flash and you differ. No problem (I know you don't think there's a problem there, either ). But implying that the flash is the ONLY way? Fact is, there's another way. It's called two and a half stops. That's the difference of shooting at f/2.8 and f/6.7. That's huge. That's also the difference between shooting at f/1.2 and f/2.8. That's no small deal ;)


EV0 means you'd be shooting at ISO3200 F/1.2 1/20. If the light gets that darn low (and I've been there) I'll bring a flash out for the processional/recessional. That's what I'm saying. In ambient light that low, adding your OWN light (i.e. flash) is the only way you're gonna get a crisp, clean subject. A motion-blurred camera-shaken ISO3200 shot is simply not gonna be nearly as clean or clear as an ISO800 F/4 flashed shot. That's all I'm saying. I'm not overstating flash at all. There are simply many benefits that flash can bring to the table. A prime is no more of a end-all-be-all solution than flash is. They both can rock it. I am NOT against primes, I'm just definitely not in agreement that primes are always better than flash. In any case, the OP said he doesn't want to use flash so I guess the point is moot.


That's probably because you have the 200 f/2.8L, though, right? You're sort of choosing the one L prime that doesn't have the faster speed advantage that most primes do. I don't think anyone would argue that the 200 f/2.8 is better than the 70-200. Now, bring the 200 f/2 IS in the mix and it's another story. Also, you could get an extra stop with the 135L and 135mm to 200mm isn't a big difference. Not arguing with you that YOU shouldn't use your 70-200 - I mean, I own one for a reason :) Just saying that if you chose a prime lens with the prime benefits (faster than the comparable zoom) then you would have more light. You chose the weakest prime example :D I still don't know anything that I couldn't personally do on primes that I could on zooms. Like I said, I just don't see how IS can trump two and a half stops. Not saying it doesn't for others, but I think most of us would choose an f/2.8 lens WITHOUT IS as opposed to an f/6.7 WITH IS. Again, I think that's the difference between f/1.2 and f/2.8. Agreed. But like I said in the post before, I think the OP isn't in a position to have all. I'm posting in response to that in mind. If that weren't the case, I wouldn't say much other than "use both if they both work for you!" ;)


Comparing F/6.7 to F/2.8 is not a really reasonable comparison. F/2.8 has long been satisfying photographers as an acceptable threshold for a zoom lens' light gathering ability. F/6.7 goes far past the acceptable threshold. That's like comparing someone with a BMI of 22.9 to someone at 18.5. A difference of 4.4. Both are within the normal range, but ADD 4.4 instead and you're at 27.3, which is right on the fence of obesity. It's past the acceptable threshold and the two can't really be compared.

Anyhow, not looking to argue. I'm just saying from experience, I would rather build up a zoom collection before a prime collection. I did it the other way around and wished I hadn't.

[bnlearle]

So much of what you say I think "totally, right on!" but then you say stuff like this...

"A motion-blurred camera-shaken ISO3200 shot is simply not gonna be nearly as clean or clear as an ISO800 F/4 flashed shot."

...and I can't help but respond :) You're stacking the deck with your language. Of COURSE motion blurred image is better than one that isn't. But you're assuming it'll be shaky and blurred - even though you just talked about shooting at 1/2 a second with your lenses and being just fine ;)

Agreed about the acceptable threshold. Still think the point stands. More light is more light. That's all I'm saying. People use flash because of an absence of light. Well if you can get more light, then there's another LEGITIMATE option, that's all. Two and a half stops is just that - two and a half stops ;) You can leave out the two and a half stops and supplement a flash OR you can use the two and a half stops and throw out the flash (talking about for ceremonies, mind you). I'm fine with people using flash - even though I don't consider it an option for ceremonies. I'm also fine with people getting more light by way of primes - which can let in two and a half stops more in ;)

Yeah, not looking to fight :D Just couldn't help with comparing the 200 2.8L with the 70-200L - the most stacked deck comparison for primes/zooms :P Weight and MAYBE a sharper image is the only advantage there. No additional light. No extra bokeh (which is the MAIN reason for primes).

Again, all of my posts here have been with the OP's issue in mind. I would NEVER say only use primes. I know I'm rare in that I only use them. I would NEVER suggest everyone else to sell they're zooms for primes tomorrow :D

Bobby

[picturecrazy]

So much of what you say I think "totally, right on!" but then you say stuff like this...

"A motion-blurred camera-shaken ISO3200 shot is simply not gonna be nearly as clean or clear as an ISO800 F/4 flashed shot."

...and I can't help but respond :) You're stacking the deck with your language. Of COURSE motion blurred image is better than one that isn't. But you're assuming it'll be shaky and blurred - even though you just talked about shooting at 1/2 a second with your lenses and being just fine ;)


I was talking about the processional/recessional in this paragraph. Not while they're standing still. It's the motion that causes all the difficulty. Standing still I think we agree that it's easy to use slow shutter speeds.

As for the 200L... you're right I have it purely for reception weight savings. The 70-200 is too heavy. But I have to use it with flash otherwise it's an pretty useless reception lens. I tried the 135L but I just couldn't get close enough often enough. The difference as you say isn't huge between 135 and 200, but it was significant enough for me. The one stop advantage wasn't making up for the fact that I had to shoot at 1/100 though.

[bnlearle]

Ahhh... gotcha ;) Flash during those parts is totally fine, imo :D

Yeah, I got the 135L as I just hated the space my 70-200 took on my non local weddings - especially the international ones. I never thought it would replace it entirely, but it seems to be doing so. The swirling background I get with that thing. Oh man. I just love it. However, the 70-200 is such a great lens that I find myself not wanting to sell it. I think I'll give it about 5 more weddings or so. If I don't even have the thought about using it with that many weddings, then MAYBE I'll sell it :D

[SOK]

Sorry to butt into Lloyd and Bobby's discussion here :D...

OP; with no disrespect intended, I'm often confused by your threads. Your rant on "what it means to be a professional photographer" had me scratching my head a little, but this one has me bewildered.

As I understand it, you'd like some primes to enable more low-light non-flash opportunities, don't have the cashflow to go and do it so you're looking at selling some current gear, yet you're not even sure if it's a good idea?

Surely you could rent/borrow/steal a 50 1.4 or a 35 and give it a trial before you started selling lens parts to fund the purchase of one?

Surely it's not good business sense to ditch tools that, while maybe not 100% ideal, have proven themselves as money making assets?

Again - no disrespect intented....maybe I'm missing something?

[form]

If I was sure of anything, why would I post here asking other people?

I met Bruce Dorn and Bob Davis for the first time today (I was at PMA), and they both shared some interesting info with me about lighting and how to get some better shots...the psychology of it, etc.

[SOK]

If I was sure of anything, why would I post here asking other people?

I'm not suggesting otherwise; but I still don't know what you want us to tell you.

It's clear you both know the pros and cons regarding zooms and primes, but only you can possibly know if selling the former to fund the latter is a good move (hence my suggestion to rent one before you buy). Is there more to it that I'm not seeing?

[form]

I want information...that can really help me decide what to do. Renting is a drain on money and it leaves me with nothing, so I really don't want to rent. I played with the 35 f/1.4 on a 5D mark II today at PMA and it was an okay focal length...couldn't decide on it.

I really want to keep my zooms and get primes too, but I was wondering deep down if I could easily get away with having maybe just a 70-200 and using primes for the rest of the range.

[form]

So today I bought a new Canon 50 f/1.4 for $339.40 shipped plus generic hood from ebay for about $7.26. This is more than I wanted to spend on it (thought I was going to get one for $250 w/canon hood), but it's still much more affordable than a 24/35/50/85L. I just don't have thousands to spend on equipment right now.

This lens should serve well as the normal lens on my 5D, plus the f/1.4 aperture will give me better low light shooting ability than I have with anything else. It's filling two gaps at once.

I'd still like a 35L, 16-35L, 85L, etc...but...well I can afford this, not those.

[tim]

Do test it and make sure you're happy with focusing and sharpness, and get it calibrated if necessary.

[form]

I bought new so I can get any calibrations for free, and am getting a mack warranty on it because of all the complaints about this lens breaking at some point. Since I've used other copies I know what to expect with overall image quality.

[bnlearle]

How much is that mack warranty??? And for someone who's constantly complaining about not having enough money and talking about other photographers who have gear you like by saying things like "must be nice to have that much money to throw around"... surprised you bought new, is all. More surprised you'll add on a mack warranty (unless it's like 10 bucks).

[form]

$20 from buydig for the mack warranty. I have never bought warranties before, so the only reason I'm buying this one is because of the number of incidents reported with the lens, especially the AF system dying, and the cost to repair.

I tried, so very hard, to buy the lens used. Just the other day I pleaded with this one guy who was selling his for $225 plus shipping, with hood included, and he was about to sell it to me when his wife (who supposedly second shoots with him) said NO!

The lens routinely sells used for $275-$325, sometimes with hood, sometimes without. It rarely sells for $225-$250. Considering the difficulties I've had trying to get it at the price point I wanted, and combined with the fear of it breaking, the difference for a new one seemed to be acceptable this ONE time.

There's no way I have enough money to buy a new 24L, 35L, 50L or 85L. Just because I can make a $370 purchase doesn't mean I can make a $1200-$1800 purchase.

[stathunter]

Bobby - first off your work is good. I am moving more in your direction with primes-- after using them I want to totally move to an all prime setup-- but like Lloyd said zooms are sometimes more useful.
I have a 35L-- and love it -- I also have a 135L -- but do not have a 50L --- sounds like everyone love them. I think I will have to get one-- I have yet to be disappointed with any prime I pick up. I do not have an 85L and have no plans for one-- I think it may be great but too slow and not useful enough-- I think the 50L is more versatile and faster.

[form]

I know I'll never get rid of all my zooms either; I will forever have some form of standard zoom, ultra-wide zoom and telephoto zoom.

After playing with the 85L II at PMA this year, it's my opinion that the focus speed is roughly comparable to the Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS.

[bnlearle]

Bobby - first off your work is good. I am moving more in your direction with primes-- after using them I want to totally move to an all prime setup-- but like Lloyd said zooms are sometimes more useful.
Thanks, but I don't know where you gathered that I don't think zooms are useful? ;) I use my 16-35 for every wedding. Granted I'd use a 16mm f/1.4L if they had one :p

[newbie builder]

I'm finding I also reach for my zooms less and less every day....my 105 f/2 and 50 f/1.4 (i'm a nikon guy) produce beautiful images that I just can't get without a prime and unless I'm shooting sports I hate to grab anything else. Even if I am using flash, using primes that go down to f/2 or f/1.4 means that the flash doesn't have to be dialed up as much, which means quicker recycle times and also less people tend to be less annoyed with the flashing since it's on a lower power and doesn't stun their eyes as bad (applies more to party shooting when it's a virtually pitch black room than receptions)....

[form]

Yes it does indeed cut down on flash recycle times and in fact can make certain situations possible for flash when the power output would otherwise be inadequate.

I also bought the 50mm prime because I'm really worried that a wedding will come along where I won't have a fast enough lens unless I have something that goes down to f/1.4 or better. So it's filling 3 gaps: prime focal length I don't have, faster aperture for narrow DoF while being wider than my 85 f/1.8, and faster for light gathering.