24L + 50L + 85L or 24-70L

This isn't one of your typical tell me which lens to buy or what are the pros and cons of each setup, but rather; Which setup would you prefer?

I know it comes down to the speed and weight of the primes vs the versatility of the zoom. I've been contemplating selling my 24-70 and picking up a 24L. Ever since I purchased my 50 and 85 the only time I reach for my 24-70 is when I want to shoot at 24. I know the question will be asked; "Do you need 1.4 at 24mm?" The answer is no, but I've fallen in love with my fast primes and shooting at large apertures. 24mm at 1.4 will give me a unique look that the 24-70 just can't accomplish. I know the bokeh of the 24L won't be as nice as the 50 or 85 (bokeh is subjective), but the 1.4 maximum aperture is very attractive. I know large apertures aren't the answer for every low light situation (flash may be needed in certain situations), but I found that 2 stops of light make a huge difference.

At the current time I'm mainly taking pictures of my newborn daughter, now 7 weeks old, which gives me the ability to setup a shot and pick the right focal length. The only reason I haven't sold my 24-70 is the fear of needing the versatility when she starts moving/running around.

What setup would you choose in this situation? Thanks for your time and input, it's greatly appreciated.

-tyler

I would stick with the 24-70. I love it's optical quality, feel, weight, size, etc. Having to change lenses all the time is not something that I like doing. Most of my photography is outdoors. Dirt and moisture getting into the camera are always issues. If I was shooting indoors and I needed the crazy fast glass I could see myself changing lenses more often. But carrying around a backpack full of gear is pointless. Maybe the slower 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, and the 24mm f/2.8 would be better since they are smaller and lighter. The third to one stop difference won't make much difference in most situations. And I could pocket a huge amount of extra cash.

24-70 + 50L. Really though the primes will be better iq wise, but it's also ~$4500 more.

I'd go for the primes combination, if money was not an issue.

Used all those lenses, primes will take much better pictures. Never was a huge fan of the 24-70L.

I suspect that you will get fewer good images with the primes but you will get more great ones. You can shoot as many frames as you like, so ignoring the price difference I'd go with the primes.... or maybe 24-70 + 85L

Thank you all for your responses.

Sorry I didn't make it clear in my first post, I currently own a 50L, 85L II and 24-70L. My current dilemma is selling the 24-70L to purchase the 24L II. I would be losing the versatility of the zoom but gaining the speed and compactness (24LII compared to 24-70L) of the prime.

For traveling, it wouldn't be likely for me to bring all three primes. Depending on what I intend to shoot, I currently bring one zoom, one prime and a 580EX II. If I were to sell the 24-70 and pick up the 24L II, I would likely bring 2 of the 3 primes plus my flash.

-tyler

TeeBoi wrote in post #12540079
This isn't one of your typical tell me which lens to buy or what are the pros and cons of each setup, but rather; Which setup would you prefer?
What setup would you choose in this situation? Thanks for your time and input, it's greatly appreciated.

-tyler

Haven't read the full thread, but how do you feel about the Sigma 50, Sigma 85, 35L, and 24L. A bit less than the 50L+85L+24L, and many would claim the Sigma 85 is superior to the 85L (which it is in significant ways, least of which is AF), and the Sigma 50 is basically a 50L with a 1.4 aperture in terms of color/contrast/AF/buil​d. 1.2 primes aren't actually a half stop better (more like 10% extra light) than 1.4 primes anyway on modern digital bodies. Of course, the 35L is due for replacement, so maybe a TSE or Nikon 14-24 would be appropriate.

Of course, you forfeit weathersealing with the Sigma primes, and there's always Sigma AF issues to be wary of if buying online.

Get the prime!

The 5d2 mates with primes so perfectly.

If that's the case, get the 24!

why don't you just save for the 24L instead of selling the 24-70? (unless you haven't touched it in months and feel that you probably won't much in the future)

you already have the 50 and 85 so just get a 24 on top.

Because you already have, use and are apparently happy shooting with the 50 and 85, I'd have to say go for the full trilogy and get the 24L too. You'll actually end up carrying more weight, will need a bigger bag, and likely will have to change lenses fairly frequently. But if those aren't major factors now, then the 24mm will probably make you happy.

Next you'll need the 35L... And the 20/2.8... Then you can sell your 17-40.

And then you'll want the 135L... And the 200L.... Then you can sell your 70-200!

It's a slippery, slippery slope!

TeeBoi wrote in post #12540232
Thank you all for your responses.

Sorry I didn't make it clear in my first post, I currently own a 50L, 85L II and 24-70L. My current dilemma is selling the 24-70L to purchase the 24L II. I would be losing the versatility of the zoom but gaining the speed and compactness (24LII compared to 24-70L) of the prime.

For traveling, it wouldn't be likely for me to bring all three primes. Depending on what I intend to shoot, I currently bring one zoom, one prime and a 580EX II. If I were to sell the 24-70 and pick up the 24L II, I would likely bring 2 of the 3 primes plus my flash.

-tyler

sounds like you made your decision.

Save up for the 24L to add to your existing set up as-is. If you prefer the primes then sell the 24-70L zoom. Zooms are really convenient when you have your kid running around though.