5D3 with only primes (am I being realistic)?

Just hoping there are a few FF shooters with experience who might be able to comment...

I've been wanting to move to full frame for a while, and I'm giving some serious consideration to a 5D3*. However, none of the current standard (FF) zooms really appeal to me, and I'm wondering if it's realistic to get on with just primes.

I have a 7D with an EF-S 15-85, but since getting a 50mm f1.4 and the 100mm f2.8L macro, I'm finding I'm only really using the zoom for the widest focal lengths.

I was mostly a landscape and macro guy, but recently I'm finding I'm doing more indoor portrait shots (mainly kids). As such, the lack of IS on the 50mm prime isn't really an issue as you need a fast(ish) shutter speed to freeze movement. Good AF and high ISO quality matter more, and while the 7D has good AF, I presume the 5D3 will be better for both AF and high ISO quality. Plus the fact the 50mm is usually a little long on the crop body means that FF would work better.

I'm also presuming that, whilst the 5D3 isn't a big leap forward for low ISO work vs the 5D2, it will be an improvement on the 7D (I'm thinking about landscape image quality).

Based on the resolution chart comparisons over at The-Digital-Picture.com, it seems as though the Canon 24mm f2.8 IS is generally better (at 24mm, obviously) than the 24-105 f4L IS, and pretty close to the highly expensive 24-70 f2.8 L II. The results are broadly similar with the 50mm f1.4. The primes give me faster speed than the 24-105, and whilst the 24mm isn't faster than the 24-70, it does have IS (which I'd find useful on the rare occasions I shoot inside a stately home - where tripods aren't allowed).

The Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC would be an appealing alternative, but the images at TDP don't make it look too great - and as such, adding a 24mm IS to my existing 50mm seems like a better option.

So, a 24mm f2.8 IS, 50mm f1.4 and a 100mm f2.8 IS - does that sound sufficient for landscape and portrait, or am I kidding myself?


* I had been waiting for Canon's rumoured high-res, high-DR model, but hey, it doesn't officially exist yet, no one knows the specs, it'll likely cost a fortune, and as Canon haven't managed a high-DR (no shadow banding) sensor yet I figure it's crazy to wait in vain hope.

Lots of people use only primes and would claim it's the only way to go. Better IQ, wider max aperture. Personally, I like the convenience of zooms, but I could be convinced to go primes. For me it would be 14, 24, 50, 85 and then maybe a 200L.

I'd hate to be a dedicated prime shooter. Both zoom and primes compliment different styles of shooting in different scenario's. Zoom is king for events but if its low light available light shooting you grab your primes. If your using flash for fill and documenting an event I'll grab my zooms.

When I purchase a prime its mainly for wide apertures. f/2.8 primes do not excite me due to being slow for low light situations. You might aswell buy a 24-70Lmk2 if your considering slow primes.

Maybe theres a calling for a tiltshift lens for your landscape work??

I like to have both primes and zooms. I think some folks try to hard to make such a decision more of a religion than anything. A handy focal length zoom like the 24-105 on a 5D along with primes at your favorite focal lengths is a good combination.

paulkaye wrote in post #15432171
Lots of people use only primes and would claim it's the only way to go. Better IQ, wider max aperture. Personally, I like the convenience of zooms, but I could be convinced to go primes. For me it would be 14, 24, 50, 85 and then maybe a 200L.

Funny you should mention a 14mm. I have my eye on the Samyang/Rokinon 14mm. Way cheaper than the Canon equivalent, and some claim it's better (though I'd take that with a pinch of salt).

I had also thought that an 85mm would be useful, but I have access to a (for occasional borrowing) 70-200 f4L IS, which would cover the 85 & 200 duties. I'd be very interested in getting the f2.8L IS II version eventually, but probably couldn't stretch to it immediately. To be honest, I was more worried about whether missing the 35mm region would be a problem. Guess I should check my Lightroom stats and see how many shots are around that focal length!

AlanU wrote in post #15432229
I'd hate to be a dedicated prime shooter. Both zoom and primes compliment different styles of shooting in different scenario's. Zoom is king for events but if its low light available light shooting you grab your primes. If your using flash for fill and documenting an event I'll grab my zooms.

When I purchase a prime its mainly for wide apertures. f/2.8 primes do not excite me due to being slow for low light situations. You might aswell buy a 24-70Lmk2 if your considering slow primes.

Maybe theres a calling for a tiltshift lens for your landscape work??

Yea, I do very occasionally use the 15-85 with flash for indoor portrait work - but that's usually forced on me because the 50mm is too long. I agree that a zoom is more versatile though.

Buying the 24-70Lmk2 would be an option; if it wasn't two-and-a-half-times the price of the 24mm f2.8 prime! I'd then also be asking myself why I bought a lens that's slower than the 50mm f1.4, isn't noticeably better quality, and doesn't give me IS over the prime.

Tilt-shift; would love one! Or rather, would love to justify the cost of one. I have had my eye on the Samyang 24mm T/S. Till will tell if it's up to scratch, but I'd certainly be tempted if it turns out to be anywhere near as good as a Canon equivalent.

Going from a 60D to a 5D mk iii was one of the best decisions I've ever made in my photography. Your lenses adopt an entirely different look. The perspective seems more natural and more three-dimensional, in my opinion. And the 5D mk iii has just outstanding AF capabilities and built-in lens compensation profiles that will breathe new life into your existing lenses. I really disliked my 50L on the 60D. Yet now it is actually my favorite portrait lens on the 5D mk iii. I shoot with the 50L confidently and really love the special look it seems to deliver.

Also, I cannot speak highly enough about the low-light, high-ISO performance of the 5D mk iii. It's incredible!

I shoot exclusively with primes, with only one exception. I use a 16-35L for ultra-wide angle shots when I need it, and when I do use that lens, I'm always shooting with it wide, around the 16 to 20mm range. But otherwise, I usually carry either a 35L or 50L for walk-around purposes and find it versatile enough such that I only need one lens. If I'm gearing up for formal portraits, I take the 35L, 50L, and sigma 85 f1.4. I used to use zooms and enjoyed them, but for my own purposes, I find that the convenience of great low-light performance and massively wide aperture outweigh the convenience of a zoom lens.

all primes all the time, it stated with me with a 50mm f/1.4 and it was all down hill from there or uphill, but since then i have had zooms and left them at home due to favoring primes so i have narrowed it down to my signature.

I think if you jump for a 5dmk3 it'll make your 50mm a tade more useful in tighter spots. I do prefer a semi wide 35L but my goto is my 24Lmk2.

I would rather hold off and get something you'll really utilize in every situation. For a f/2.8 prime I'd really analyze your application now and potential usage in the future. Having IS for a wideangle is a nice to have but in many cases not a need to have. If were talking longer lenses then I'd say YES image stabilization is a good thing.

JeffreyG wrote in post #15432248
I like to have both primes and zooms. I think some folks try to hard to make such a decision more of a religion than anything. A handy focal length zoom like the 24-105 on a 5D along with primes at your favorite focal lengths is a good combination.

Yea - I'm not one of those "primes are for pros, zooms are for wimps" guys, or conversely someone that thinks prime shooters are crazy when there are good zooms around. It's mostly just a case that I don't see the currently available FF 'standard' zooms as being "better" than what I've got (plus a 24mm prime). My point being that given the choice of the 24-70 f2.8 II, the 24-105 f4 IS, and the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC, the prime combination always manages to be one (or more) of sharper, faster, or with IS.

If the 24-70 f2.8 II had IS (and the same image quality) I'd be very tempted - even despite the high price.

sploo wrote in post #15432065
I've been wanting to move to full frame for a while, and I'm giving some serious consideration to a 5D3*. However, none of the current standard (FF) zooms really appeal to me, and I'm wondering if it's realistic to get on with just primes.

I am in the same situation and I'm OK with it most of the time. My only zooms are 17-40 and 70-200II.

However, when I was in Disneyland a few months ago, I was glad that I borrowed my friend's 24-105 for the parade, I would have missed so many shots or not getting the right framing if I only had my primes. So yea it comes down to the situation and what you shoot.

Sorry to burst your bubble. There's pretty much NO noticeable difference in low ISO performance when comparing the 7D and 5D3. Also NO improvements in DR either. So it's not going to benefit you for landscape. Get a D800 instead

Yes you are imo. 24 is too wide for portrait, 50 is kind of boring, and 100 is too slow (both AF speed and aperture). Add a 70-200 as an absolute minimum.

kin2son wrote in post #15432349
I am in the same situation and I'm OK with it most of the time. My only zooms are 17-40 and 70-200II.

However, when I was in Disneyland a few months ago, I was glad that I borrowed my friend's 24-105 for the parade, I would have missed so many shots or not getting the right framing if I only had my primes. So yea it comes down to the situation and what you shoot.



Sorry to burst your bubble. There's pretty much NO noticeable difference in low ISO performance when comparing the 7D and 5D3. Also NO improvements in DR either. So it's not going to benefit you for landscape. Get a D800 instead

Yes you are imo. 24 is too wide for portrait, 50 is kind of boring, and 100 is too slow (both AF speed and aperture). Add a 70-200 as an absolute minimum.

Yes that would have been a tragically boring batch of photos if one prime was used.

I shoot FF and only primes, including wedding and event work.

not sure if this is going to become another prime vs zoom debate. Just remember you can foot zoom aswell as zoom in with your zoom ring using a NON prime. This way you have infinite control of perspective and fov.

When i shoot events I will put a 24mm or 35mm or 16-35 or 24-70 or or or LOL !! on one body and shoot with either an 85mm or 70-200 on the other body.

Just remember putting effort in foot zooming with a zoom or prime chisels a style from every individual.

I`ve seen plenty of fantastic zoom users and primes. I will say both are guilty of possibly being boring though. 50mm and even 35mm primes can be boring ...yawwwwwnnnn but in the hands of someone that does foot work and changing angles the images can be award winning.

I`d never classify myself as a prime shooter or zoom. They are tools and are used for different purposes. If your shooting f/5.6 to f/8 in a studio I will gladly grab a zoom. If I'm shooting low available challenging light its a no brainer to grab a f/1.2 to f/2 prime.

If I had to use primes only I know as a fact that I would miss alot of opportunities even though I'm quick on my feet. On the otherhand the client is probably oblivious that you missed money shots due to slow feet shuffling or too wide angle to hammer the shot upclose.

I was mainly zoom guy now lately mainly using primes. So far 35L, 85mm f1.8, 135L and 300mm f2.8 IS. I for one don't like 24-105mm f4 IS. Trying to dump my brand new one I got with 5dmk3 but so many for sale now a days. When I had 70-200mm f2.8 IS II, I liked it very much.

you said you don't need IS in a 50mm prime...so why a 24mmIS?

why not a 24L?