Prime trinity or 24-70 mkii and 70-200 Mk ii

Ok guys I'm finally down to these two factor's. Sell my 50 l and buy a 24-70mk ii to go along with my 70-200 Mk ii, or sell both the 50l and 70-200 for 3k. Buy the 35l and 135 to go along with my 85 1.8 and I have about 1500 buck to go back to school with or w/e. My main focus is fashion photography, portraits. ( might do senior portraits on campus). Which line up is the best one? I'm more focused about quality of pics than anything els,because which fashion I will be setting up most of my shots anyway. I also do some video work as well

if you can manage with max aperture of 2.8 then the 24-70 mark II and 70-200 mark II will definitely do (considering the sharpness of these lenses are prime level). That said, a shot by a really fast quality prime ( < f/1.8) is beyond compare. It seems the work you would be doing will allow you some time to switch to appropriate glass. I say go for primes. If you were doing anything else like sports, maybe keep a 70-200 around.

If you have time to set up like you said and also do video. I say Prime Time all the way!

portraits? prime time!

personally, wide end is very very critical for me, so I'de keep the 24-70 followed with 85 1.2/4 and 135F2.

basically with primes, they lose quite a bit of versatility, BUT, it forces you to shoot a certain perspective, and once you improve on that perspective, you can create amazing stuff.

thanks a lot guys!!

k-lo wrote in post #16153110
if you can manage with max aperture of 2.8 then the 24-70 mark II and 70-200 mark II will definitely do (considering the sharpness of these lenses are prime level). That said, a shot by a really fast quality prime ( < f/1.8) is beyond compare. It seems the work you would be doing will allow you some time to switch to appropriate glass. I say go for primes. If you were doing anything else like sports, maybe keep a 70-200 around.

how do you like your 135f2?

Mr_Smith4852 wrote in post #16153151
how do you like your 135f2?

One of my favorite glass. Fast A/F (probably fastest in my bag), uber sharp and at around 20ft @ f/2 gives me the right DOF for a half body shot with gorgeous bokeh'd out bg.

In my opinion, altough I don't know what body you have, I say, you keep the 70-200mm II, as it is a great and versatile lens, extremely sharp, and is also great for portraits.
Sure, the 135L might have a more shallow Depht of Field, but you will not shoot portraits below f/4 anyway. Not if you want the whole face to be sharp.

Now for the part below 70mm, I don't really have a suggestion for that.
I would maybe get a 35mm L. Depends if you want / need more versatility (then 24-70), or you need super shallow DoF, for maybe full body portraits, then get the 35mm L, or 24mm L.

But that is just my opinion, not really into the wide angle business.

I've done both L trinities. The 35L, 50L, and 85IIL and the 16-35IIL, 24-70L, and 70-200IIL.

My current lineup consists of the 16-35IIL, 24-70L, 70-200IIL, and 85IIL (and 50 1.4).

IF I HAD TO CHOOSE 2 lenses out of those I would pick the....

16-35IIL and 85IIL (On a full frame)

Why? The 85L blows the 70-200IIL away for portraits and is smaller and easier to carry around. Doen't have the reach that the 70-200 has but I rarely need that kind of reach. (I have a 100-400mm for really long shots) In fact I hardly ever use the 70-200mm... it's a fantastic lens, but just sits at home most of the time.

The 16-35IIL is the most versatile lens in my bag. Want interesting full body shots? Zoom out to 16 and get in close. Landscapes? Not a problem.. group shots? full body at 35mm? Indoor? Outdoor?... This lens does it all. It's a great lens and almost never leaves my bag.

The 50L did pretty much the thing as the 50 1.4 and no where near as good as the 85L. The 35L was sharp and fast but not as versatile as the 24-70 or 16-35. I would need to swap out lenses constantly when using primes. Kinda of a pain since I'm a fast moving guy.

The 24-70 is a great lens, but kind of boring. It does it's job well but doesn't give you any pop when it comes to creating anything interesting. My go to lens when I'm traveling.

if you mostly do portraits, the primes will suit you well and give you some cash to play with. if you want versatility, then the zooms are the way to go.

Mr_Smith4852 wrote in post #16153008
Ok guys I'm finally down to these two factor's. Sell my 50 l and buy a 24-70mk ii to go along with my 70-200 Mk ii, or sell both the 50l and 70-200 for 3k. Buy the 35l and 135 to go along with my 85 1.8 and I have about 1500 buck to go back to school with or w/e. My main focus is fashion photography, portraits. ( might do senior portraits on campus). Which line up is the best one? I'm more focused about quality of pics than anything els,because which fashion I will be setting up most of my shots anyway. I also do some video work as well

me. the two II zooms would be the foundation of my kit (16-35L II also).

The 70-200 ii is a fantastic choice that covers both the 85L and 135L. Yes, its not as fast, but overall the versatility is phenomenal and the bokeh is still ridiculously good. I prefer primes under 70mm though

I have 24-70 I and 35L

Wasn't the 24-70L the reference for years for marriages ... ?
It's versatile but no nice popup at 70mm?
You say it's a travel lens but the brick is heavy, I could just as well use 35L, one step backwards and you have 24mm, 2 forward and 70mm

I bought it back as a studio lens for future as iets more handy and in studio you use larger apertures anyway. But i could as well use my 70-200 II

First I though reselling it for a 85L II
The fact is i didnt use my old 85L I at f1.2 for modelling, dof too narrow, only 1 eye sharp, more 2.8 so I dont see the advantage over the 85 1.8 and they both have CA, only a little pp and same contrast colours but i pp anyway.

Thats why I consider most keeping 35l and 24-70l both and buying a cheap 85 1.8 back...
35L and 135L are perfect IQ and AF, keep them!!!

I just ordered some fashion photography books also