Prime VS Zooms - ONLY for professional shooting

Hi,
my name is George and I'm a professional photographer. I'm new here because before I use only the nikon's stuff. So I quit all my equipment and now I have 5DmkII new from one week ago. Very happy. So I use on my old equipment only primes, I shoot a lot of portraits, fashion ... I don't have any idea how is the canon lens primes or zooms, and for this I need to help in this way. How can I make a new post for you to vote for a prime or zoom? Maybe the admin can help me.
Thank you,
George

You can see my work here: www.georgepopovici.ro

70-200 f/2.8L IS II and f/4.0L IS USM is zoom lens with prime lens quality.

Some of Canon's zoom lenses are amazing. Some aren't nearly as good as the corresponding prime.

70-200mm f2.8 II = best zoom lens. If you need that range, by that lens.

Do you need ultra wide? Wide? or 50mm?

Thank's for replay. I think always at primes, so my options, I think:
for wide: 24L or 35L; for normal 50L (24-70L); for tele/portrait 135L (70-200L).
I read all the good news for the 135, I wonder if the 50 f/1.2 worth the money or is better 50 f/1.4?

Do you need AF? The Zeiss 50mm f1.4 is reaallly good.

135L and 70-200 f2.8II are both amazing.

coming from a poor photographer that spends all my money of my girlfriend instead of gear because she sometimes thinks shes #2 to the camera

i have tested out the 50L and the 50 1.4 and the L is great but i personally do not think its worth the money although it would be very useful for your outdoor portraits rendering much nicer colors and bokeh. but the 1.4 is just as good. assuming you need AF otherwise zeiss is worth it but i have only used zeiss for video and they work wonders.

the 70-200 2.8 IS USM mkII is totally worth it though has the quality of a prime. i did some soccer with one and it gave me great shots, have not tested it for portrait work though but i would be shocked if it didnt work perfect for portraits as well. i personally prefer primes they are overall just sharper and produce more visually pleasing photos

I have nothing to contribute to your question (since I don't have much experience with L glass and I'm not a pro), but I just want to say that I looked through your site and your work is amazing!

As a professional shooting portraits you might not need the versatility of a zoom lens and can stick to the primes. When you are out in the wild a zoom is more handy. You might not be able to move yourself relative to the subject. Primes will be faster in aperture, sharper wide open, faster in focusing, weigh less, be smaller in size, and do not come with IS unless you are getting into the super telephoto range. Zooms will be the opposite.

If you are looking at L glass only then I think price will not make a difference. A prime lens can cost you $2000 and a similar zoom lens will be the same.

How often do you want to change lenses? Being indoors that might not be a concern. Outdoors you have dirt and moisture to worry about.

Just some thoughts. Being a pro you most probably thought about all these already.

CheerS!

george_popovici wrote in post #12886227
Thank's for replay. I think always at primes, so my options, I think:
for wide: 24L or 35L; for normal 50L (24-70L); for tele/portrait 135L (70-200L).
I read all the good news for the 135, I wonder if the 50 f/1.2 worth the money or is better 50 f/1.4?

The two zooms you mentioned are probably the two most-used Canon zooms for portraits. I haven't used the 24-70 but I can tell you the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is flat-out amazing. The image quality is as close to a prime as I believe you will find from a Canon zoom. Since you are just switching to Canon I might suggest that you try renting those two zooms to see if they give you what you are looking for before you spend all that money on a purchase. Your work is excellent by the way.

70-200mm f/4L IS

The 70-200mm f/4L IS or the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS ii are two of the best lenses in the Canon line. I chose the f/4L IS model because of the lighter weight...

I shoot with a 7D camera...

IMAGE LINK: http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com …LJM#1244320241_​7kTXJ-A-LB

IMAGE LINK: http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com …LJM#1244840976_​GPhDr-A-LB

IMAGE LINK: http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com …LJM#1244551055_​ox8GE-A-LB

IMAGE LINK: http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com …LJM#1245211231_​aEf5x-A-LB

Primes, f/2.8 is way too slow.

george_popovici wrote in post #12886227
Thank's for replay. I think always at primes, so my options, I think:
for wide: 24L or 35L; for normal 50L (24-70L); for tele/portrait 135L (70-200L).
I read all the good news for the 135, I wonder if the 50 f/1.2 worth the money or is better 50 f/1.4?

The "Holy Prime Trinity" in Canon for Portraits would be the 35L, 50L and 85L (You should definitely check this lens out if you're a portrait photographer, its got an amazing rendition to its images that no other 85mm lens can really match)

For other options, instead of the 50L consider the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM, They have occasional problems with focus accuracy, but the IQ on a good copy is easily as good as the 50L at a fraction of the cost, Keep in mind the 50L has its own little "quirks" when it comes to focusing (Namely focus shift, ie, if you stop the lens down a little it shifts the point of focus and theres NO way to correct it)

The 135L is awesome too, and considered by many to be the BEST Canon L lens...and the new 70-200 f/2.8L IS II makes prime-lovers grit their teeth and admit its a prime-quality zoom in every regard

Depending on how you work, I'd say its a tossup between primes and zooms, Canon has amazing lenses in both categories, but coming from Nikon I think you'd be most impressed by the L-series primes, Nikon really lacks equals for them...

It seems most of your work is pre planned so you are in control of the environment. With that in mind and shooting on a FF, the 85L and/or the 135L should be in your bag. On the wider end, the 35L is probably a good bet.

If f2.8 is fast enough for you, get the 70-200 MKII. It is an exceptional lens.

Personally I do no like 50mm as a portrait lens so do not own one but you hear varying opinions on the Canon 50/1.2, enough that I would not consider it unless you are really set on getting a 50mm.

Personally, I prefer an 85 to a 135 for portraits unless it is going to be a very tight crop. I almost never shoot portraits anymore with the camera in portrait orientation, so an 85mm works better for me.

If you need excellent quality lens, look at these:
TS-E 24L II
EF 35 f/1.4L
EF 85 f/1.2L II
EF 100 f/2.8 (L IS)
EF 135 f/2.0L
EF 200 f/2.0L IS
And for zoom I recommend 17-55, 15-85, 24-70, and all 70-200 series.
All 70-200 lens has a very good IQ and build quality, with 70-200 II on the top among them.

Brian_R wrote in post #12886583
i have tested out the 50L and the 50 1.4 and the L is great but i personally do not think its worth the money although it would be very useful for your outdoor portraits rendering much nicer colors and bokeh. but the 1.4 is just as good.

This is simply not true. The 50L can be tricky to use wide or nearly wide open but when you learn how to use it leaves the 50/1.4 in the dust.