omg... what have I done?

I just ordered an 85 1.2 from B&H.

Reason being: I find my 135 too long for most shots. I've also have difficulty hand holding it (have the same problem with the 70-200). Short, fat lenses I have no problem with.

Further, I really want to downsize my kit to two lenses.

I'm agonizing over whether I should keep my 24 1.4 or sell it for the new Sigma 35 1.4. My philosophy is to use the 85 for portraits and the other lens for everything else (street photography, portraits, architecture / landscape).

Do you think a 35 can take on the role of 24+50? I'm really leaning in that direction, since I find the 24 too wide more often than I find 50 not wide enough.

I'm really adverse to switching lenses or else I'd be more receptive to the idea of a 3 lens kit...

Thoughts?

I love the sigma 35. It's the perfect walkaround focal length and pairs perfectly with an 85. I'd sell the 135 and the 24L to help you cover the cost of that 85L

It seems the fundamental question on the table is if you are better served by
"slightly wider 'normal' lens", or
"slightly longer 'normal' lens"

Only you can decide what better suits your shooting style. It sounds as if you already have that question answered, since you " find the 24 too wide more often" But that flies in the face of liking to shoot landscapes and architecture, as you stated you like to do.

LostArk wrote in post #15382760
I just ordered an 85 1.2 from B&H.
Do you think a 35 can take on the role of 24+50? I'm really leaning in that direction, since I find the 24 too wide more often than I find 50 not wide enough.

Sounds like you really need a 35. 35 + 85 makes a great combination.

Wilt wrote in post #15382992
It seems the fundamental question on the table is if you are better served by
"slightly wider 'normal' lens", or
"slightly longer 'normal' lens"

Only you can decide what better suits your shooting style. It sounds as if you already have that question answered, since you " find the 24 too wide more often" But that flies in the face of liking to shoot landscapes and architecture, as you stated you like to do.

Well my theory is that eventually I want a 24 TS-E and as a hobbyist I can't really justify having two 24mm L primes.

The lens is beautiful but I find I struggle with it because of the razor DOF when wide open. Since I picked up the 24-70 Mk II I have found it lives in my bag most of the time. It has it's purpose but not my primary choice anymore. Lens has a learning curve that will take some time a nd practice to figure out. Good luck with your purchase. To answer your question I would go with the 35 as the 24 is a little too wide.....

ts-e 24L ii + 35L + 85L would be a great trio.

LostArk wrote in post #15383095
Well my theory is that eventually I want a 24 TS-E and as a hobbyist I can't really justify having two 24mm L primes.

A 24mm TSE suits an entirely different purpose and accomplishes different things than a 24mm f/1.4 lens.
One needs to buy a flat blade screwdriver and the Philips head screwdriver because they are for different purposes and accomplish similar things with very different screw heads.
And owning a size 10 pair of rubber soled sneakers and a size 10 pair of leather soled dress shoes are for different purposes and accomplishes different things; one is great for hiking and the other is better for dancing.

Sometimes you simply need to buy 'two' because they are for very different purposes.

I am sort of in the same boat. I love the 24 but i find it gets the most use on my 60D. The new sigma looks very impressive but 35 is so close to 50 i would probably switch the 50 for the 85L. Picking primes is tough but that sigma 35 looks like a great one.

My 35L & 85L do everything I need them to do!

I had a larger kit, But do prefer the simplicity of the 35+85 combo

Wow I felt the exact same way when I pressed the checkout button on the 85mm f/1.2 II. Was a massive hit. I feel if you sell the 24 and get the Sigma that would be a good choice. The next lens in my batch is a 35mm which will pair up nicely with my 85L and 135L. Do think about if you want the wide angle lens for shooting stuff like landscapes. I personally don't do much of those so I'd happily trade a 24 for the 35. The 35 is a very standard walk around lens and is great for everyday photography. I just see myself using a 35 more than the 24.

snowblower wrote in post #15384009
The lens is beautiful but I find I struggle with it because of the razor DOF when wide open. Since I picked up the 24-70 Mk II I have found it lives in my bag most of the time. It has it's purpose but not my primary choice anymore. Lens has a learning curve that will take some time a nd practice to figure out. Good luck with your purchase. To answer your question I would go with the 35 as the 24 is a little too wide.....

I used to really struggle with DOF when I started using primes, but studying how the AF actually works and installing focusing screen EG-S has really helped. I find that my biggest problem is holding the camera perfectly still more than finding focus. For this reason I think I may soon invest in a monopod.

Wilt wrote in post #15384168
A 24mm TSE suits an entirely different purpose and accomplishes different things than a 24mm f/1.4 lens.
One needs to buy a flat blade screwdriver and the Philips head screwdriver because they are for different purposes and accomplish similar things with very different screw heads.
And owning a size 10 pair of rubber soled sneakers and a size 10 pair of leather soled dress shoes are for different purposes and accomplishes different things; one is great for hiking and the other is better for dancing.

Sometimes you simply need to buy 'two' because they are for very different purposes.

You make a very good point, one I'm very aware of. But, I've come to realize that 90% of the time I only need 24mm or f/1.4, usually not both at the same time. I think I'd probably miss no more shots with a 35 1.4 than I do now from having to switch lenses.

Tommydigi wrote in post #15384185
I am sort of in the same boat. I love the 24 but i find it gets the most use on my 60D. The new sigma looks very impressive but 35 is so close to 50 i would probably switch the 50 for the 85L. Picking primes is tough but that sigma 35 looks like a great one.

I initially bought the 24 1.4 instead of the 35L because I used to own a 7D and I felt the 24 was better for duty on FF and APS-C. Are you suggesting that you like the 24+50 combo instead of 35+85? I considered that, but personally I find 50mm a bit awkward; never wide or long enough.

Thanks for the input everyone

The 50 1.8 is only $100... Keep it. 35, 50, 85 are my favorite focal lengths. Sure they don't cover the same focal range that a 24 would allow, but I have no need for a lens that wide. If you ask the question about a 35, you probably don't need it either :P

EnsitMike wrote in post #15384840
The 50 1.8 is only $100... Keep it. 35, 50, 85 are my favorite focal lengths. Sure they don't cover the same focal range that a 24 would allow, but I have no need for a lens that wide. If you ask the question about a 35, you probably don't need it either :P

Well I actually prefer the 35mm FoV to 24, which ironically is how I ended up with a 24; I owned a 7D for about a year before I got my 5D2. That's also how I ended up with a 50; 24+50 = 35+85 on crop (more or less). Only reason I got the 135 is because when I got my 5D2 I couldn't throw down for an 85 1.2 in the same fiscal quarter lol. I've thought about keeping my 50 1.8 for portability, but I think I might get a shorty forty for that duty!

I got my 24 to complement my 50. I think 35 is a nice in between but I would never want 35 as my widest lens. I purposely go with the 2 formats (APS-C/Full frame) to sort of give me the 24/35 50/80 combo. There is a time I could use any and all focal lengths but I guess that's what a zoom is for.