toxic wrote in post #10532886
^ I find it interesting that you have frequently knocked (50L) and overlooked (200L) primes in your bag, but none of the vaunted ones (35/85/135)...care to share your experiences?
There's nothing romantic with my lens choices, they are in my bag based purely on need. I need a 50 as that was my primary lens for 15 years before I switched to digital. I don't LOVE any of the 4 50mm choices, I just hated the 50L the least. The 50CM is too slow as a gen purpose 50, the 1.8 has terrible focus and nasty bokeh, the 1.4 isn't crisp and clear until you stop down to f/2 or so, and the L is heavy and has focus shift issues. Considering I use primes wide open EXCLUSIVELY (if I need to stop down, that's what zooms are for) I figured the focus shift wouldn't be a concern to me. And it is has fantastic image quality wide open.
The 200 2.8L is one heck of a beautiful lens with amazing image quality. But I got it purely for it's reach and weight. After years of holding up a 70-200 2.8 every weekend I developed back and shoulder problems that I now need treatment for every two weeks. The 70-200 isn't that big a deal to hold up for a few hours, but repeated over and over year after year, it takes it's toll and broke me down. For wedding reception shooting, I like to stay far away so the 135 didn't cut it. Since I use flash, IS was of no benefit to me. My back is much happier with the 200L.
The 85L is too goofy of a lens in my opinion. It's too big for it's own good. 85mm at 1.2 has so little DOF that it almost looks silly to me. It seems to have a counter-intuitive design where the DOF is so darn small yet the focusing is so darn slow that my keeper rate for candid shooting was horrible. It was fine for still people but as soon as they are moving it was blah. Considering the 1.8 is excellent wide open, has excellent focusing ability and speed, is small and very light, and costs like five times less for all this added performance, it was a no brainer which one to keep. The idea of having the 85L *sounds* romantic, but from a purely practical standpoint, it was a waste of my money. Yes it can get that odd shot that makes you go WOW, but I need thousands of consistent great shots, not one or two wow shots.
As for the 135L, I don't need one as using the 85 1.8 on my 40D is much like having a 135. One of the advantages of multi format shooting, and why I'd never move to a FF only setup. (again, something that sounds romantic but in practicality, having a crop gives you a heck of a lot more options)