So, who has gotten rid of their zooms?

I have 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 f2.8

I seem to end up using my 50 1.4 A LOT though

I am bashing around my little brain the thought of losing the zooms and going all prime, but its a scary thought. That zoom ability is a lovely thing to have.

So, if you HAVE done the transition, how did you do it? One lens at a time? an 85mm here, 35mm there? or all at once?

I would like to but in the end I think it is necessary to have one zoom. Possibly a 70-200 or even a Bigma.

I got rid of my 24-70 for a 35L, but for me that works. It may not work for you or anyone else. It all depends on a "needs" basis.

jp129 wrote in post #12297122
I got rid of my 24-70 for a 35L, but for me that works. It may not work for you or anyone else. It all depends on a "needs" basis.

I am really thinking about doing that. Then maybe the 70-200 goes and is replaced by a 135 f2.

HMM! I should rent one.

I keep some zooms as backups for weddings, but I mostly use primes. I could definitely do without the zooms. I don't use mine much, but I do like the 70-200 zooms for some things. I sold my 24-70 years ago though... not a fan.

It's a personal choice though - no one right answer for everyone.

Same here. I still have my zooms from 16mm-200mm. I rarely use the 24-70, but it has its place. I mostly use my primes and the 70-200L for the reach, compression, etc.

Like many here I could shoot all day with a prime if need be, but sometimes a zoom is more convenient. I would think with sports it would be easier to shoot with a 100-400 or 70-200 than a 135, 200, and 400mm prime unless low light was a huge issue.

no primes for me, just the nifty.
keep my 2 zooms, that's all i need.

Hmm, yeah, I guess I should just wait and acquire them in addition to my zooms. I am just impatient! haha. Thanks for all the responses.

I got rid of my two kit zooms (18-55 and 55-250) and moved to mostly primes (8-16, 30, 100, 300). I have thought about adding a 100-400 or 28-300 to the mix at some point but I'd rather use that money for the upcoming 200-400 or 500 II.

The extra sharpness is worth it to me. The aperture is a bonus too.

Just have a 70-200/4 and I rarely ever use it.

I had what you have, got rid of them for 35/85/135. Versatility was severely impacted, so much so I was more worried about what lens I was using versus getting the shot and enjoying myself. So all got sold. My kit today is 24-105, 70-200 2.8IS II, 24L and 50L. I'm as happy as a clam with this zoom/prime balance.

Neither choice is more correct than the other, it simply comes down to what you want to capture and how you wish to do it.

I had a 17-40L, 50 1.4, and 70-200 f/4L IS for awhile and decided to switch to primes. I sold my 70-200L first and picked up a 135L to replace it. Then I sold the 17-40L and 50 1.4 to fund the 35L but needed someting in the mid range so I picked up the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 in February. I can't say that I don't wish for a zoom every now and then but the primes are perfect for what I shoot. As versatile as zooms are, the primes are just as good but instead of fl coverage it's better for low light situations and shallow DOF which I find myself in quite a bit.

I should also mention that 35mm is plenty wide for me on FF and allows me to shoot in tight quarters with minimal to no distortion but some people prefer the 24/50/85 route which is also nice.

chopperdave wrote in post #12297269
I am really thinking about doing that. Then maybe the 70-200 goes and is replaced by a 135 f2.

HMM! I should rent one.

IDK, I did this recently and while I love the 135, found that for my shooting style, the zoom was necessary. Wound up selling the 135 and getting the 70-200 II.

I had the 24-70 and the Sigma 85 f/1.4.

Then I sold the 24-70 and used the 85mm as my one and only lens for 7 months.

Yesterday I added the 35L!.. 85 and 35 = killer combo!