Zooms to Primes: advice?

Thinking of going all prime...

I currently have the 24-70 and 17-40. Got the 24-70 because I thought a standard zoom was necessary and the 17-40 because I wanted an EF lens to fit both my film and crop bodies. Well, I'm not a fan of the 24-70s weight and the 17-40 hardly gets used.

I'm thinking of selling both to get a 50mm L and pocket wizards for myself and a 50mm 1.4 for my wife.

I like that primes are typically sharper than zooms not to mention the weight decrease in my hands and in my bag.

Anyone else go from zooms to primes strictly? Share some advice if you don't mind.

StayLucky wrote in post #12947815
Anyone else go from zooms to primes strictly? Share some advice if you don't mind.

I would start by buying just a cheap Canon 50 f/1.8 and seeing if you like it. If you do, unload your lenses and go from there.

For me, a 50mm on a 50D would not be an ideal one-lens situation. I'd lean more towards a 35mm or 24mm.

timnosenzo wrote in post #12947829
I would start by buying just a cheap Canon 50 f/1.8 and seeing if you like it. If you do, unload your lenses and go from there.

For me, a 50mm on a 50D would not be an ideal one-lens situation. I'd lean more towards a 35mm or 24mm.

I've thought about the 35mm, but I regularly use a 1D2, as well and really like the 50 on that sensor.

The prime set up I'm thinking of is this: 24mm, 50mm, 135mm.

I think I'll only go back to zooms, like a 70-200, if I start to start sports shooting seriously. Luckily, I have regular access to that lens as well until I decide if it's worth spending the money for me.

For what it's worth, I shoot portraits and concerts mainly. I also feel like having a singular focal length will improve my composition IN CAMERA.

I use a Nikkor 105 2.5 AI or Nikkor 50 1.2 AIS for portraits. Both lenses adapt to an EOS body. Both are manual focus. The 105 is about $100 and has very nice bokeh. The 1.2 is a little more, about $350.

For these prices you can keep your AF zoom and have professional prime lenses.

I assume you need the speed on your wide angle for concerts?

I am going to get a 17-40 for my WA, because I don't use the speed under 50mm with my 1d2.

One 50mm L for yourself and 50mm f/1.4 for your wife, that's not very reasonable. Get a 35mm L and a 50mm f/1.4 if I were you, that way you guys can swap if situation arise. The 50mm f/1.4 performs 80% of what the L offers, some of the 50mm L users said their lens suffers from inconsistent AF...at 1/4 of the cost, the 50mm f/1.4 makes more sense. But if shooting at f/1.2 is a must for you, the L is the one. IMO, f/1.4 already gives a very shallow depth of field, I don't need anything more than that~!

I second and third this motion.

ridindirty wrote in post #12948015
I assume you need the speed on your wide angle for concerts?

I am going to get a 17-40 for my WA, because I don't use the speed under 50mm with my 1d2.

Speed for concerts, yes. the 17-40 just doesn't cut it.

thestone11 wrote in post #12948059
One 50mm L for yourself and 50mm f/1.4 for your wife, that's not very reasonable. Get a 35mm L and a 50mm f/1.4 if I were you, that way you guys can swap if situation arise. The 50mm f/1.4 performs 80% of what the L offers, some of the 50mm L users said their lens suffers from inconsistent AF...at 1/4 of the cost, the 50mm f/1.4 makes more sense.

Good point. I never thought about that. *facepalm*

Right now the 24-70 almost dwarfs my 50D, IMO, and makes it feel like a Rebel. I like it, but not as much as the lure of a singular prime at the moment. The idea of less weight in my hands and my bag is appealing, not to mention the pressure it puts on you to compose in camera, that's one perk that's really drawing me to a prime. I like the idea of a singular lens set up, or 2 lenses since my wife and I can share.

Have been kicking around the idea of getting a 35L and a 50 1.4 for my wife but I worry that if I don't get a 50mm L then I'll have buyers remorse. Not sure why, but I do.