Which would you pick? A New "IS" Prime Trinity or...

Let's assume for a moment two things:
1. Canon continues to release 2.8 IS primes like the recent 24 and 28mm lenses. Let's also assume that Canon releases a 50mm 2.8 IS and a 85mm 2.8 IS. Let's say each one costs $800 USD.
2. Canon does NOT release a 24-70 2.8L IS for at least another 5 years.

Which would you prefer?

Option A: Three 24, 50, and 85mm 2.8 IS prime lenses for a total of $2400 USD. (You gain IS and more reach.)
Option B: One 24-70 2.8L II lens for $2300 USD. (No lens switching.)

i would go with the primes

Zoom of course...

2.8 IS prime? Pft you might as well get Tamron 24-70 VR that costs half of that.

These IS primes aren't even going to be as sharp as the zoom ever. So why would I pick the primes then???

I'll take the Tamron.

rumors say that sony is offering a FF camera with in body IS... hope they can improve their lens lineup as well because the thought of mounting on fast primes with stabilization..... that would be awesome.

Sirrith wrote in post #14980659
I'll take the Tamron.

Second that.

I'd take a 1.8 or 1.4 prime without IS over a 2.8 prime with IS every time. And if I need IS for video, the Tamron will give me all of those prime FL's and IS for less than half the money.

Of your two options, I'd take B. But my first choice would be to go the Tamron route as well. Can't believe that lens doesn't get talked about more around here.

Of the two options I'd pick my own third option of keeping my faster 24mm f/1.4L II, my 40mm pancake, and my already stabilized 200L IS, and just for kicks my 28-135mm IS.

BrickR wrote in post #14981322
Second that.

I'd take a 1.8 or 1.4 prime without IS over a 2.8 prime with IS every time. And if I need IS for video, the Tamron will give me all of those prime FL's and IS for less than half the money.

Agreed, this seems a lot more sensible.

IS can not freeze action so it's pretty much useless in many situations anyway. I don't know why so many people in this forum are so obsessed with it. A high quality large aperture lens is usually better and a lot more useful than some crappy 24mm f2.8 prime with IS

I think people like IS because there are just as many situations that don't require action to be frozen, but do require greater depth of field and/or slower shutter speeds. Saying IS is useless in many situations may be true, but you could say the same for many lens features that people find a use for. If I had the choice between two identical lenses, one with IS and the other without, I'd choose the IS for the added versatility.

The IS primes are also slated for a lot of use on C300/C100 bodies as when handheld, IS provides a lot of advantages. I wouldn't go for the new 2.8 IS primes if its strictly stills - the 24-70L II is much more versatile and convenient + 2.8 the way through.

FuturamaJSP wrote in post #14981797
IS can not freeze action so it's pretty much useless in many situations anyway. I don't know why so many people in this forum are so obsessed with it. A high quality large aperture lens is usually better and a lot more useful than some crappy 24mm f2.8 prime with IS

a large amount of shots I take are relatively static, like people posing, candids, ect. IS helps a lot, and useful at any FL. I find that with posed shots, I can get away as low as 1/30, and with truly static shots, 1/6 - 1/20 is fine. More light = lower ISO shots or more DOF. it's handy as hell, and better than lugging a monopod/tripod everywhere.

neither
primes 50 f1.4
85 f1.8
24 f whatever and use the faster lenses w/o is

I would go with option C. The 24-105/4 with the 58mm trinity (28/1.8, 50/1.4, and 85/.8)

Second choice would be the 24-70 II