best prime lens combination?

I currently have a Sigma 50 f/1.4 and Canon 100mm f/2. I like them both a lot and will add a Canon 35mm f/2 (non-IS) as a lightweight walkaround lens as I often feel that the Sigma 50 is a bit too long and heavy for walkaround although I absolutely love the picture it takes.

I like this combination, 35-50-100 but occasionally I am tempted to get a Sigma 85mm f/1.4 to replace the 100mm f/2. I like the lightweight , fast AF and PQ of the 100mm but every once in a while I kinda want one more stop of light and a bit more blur. The Sigma 85 seems to fit the bill. The downside is that its bigger, heavier and the focal length isn't that much different to 50.

What do you guys think?

Cheers!

35mm, 85mm, simple.

Weight what weight. 6d is like a rebel IMHO.

bobbyz wrote in post #16233770
35mm, 85mm, simple.

Weight what weight. 6d is like a rebel IMHO.

+1

My favorite combo! and on naughty days, 35mm & 135mm.

35 and 50 are too close IMO. Try to buy primes in half or double FL multiples.

These are the combinations that I'd endorse:

If you want 2 lenses: 35mm, and 85mm
If you want 3 lenses: 24mm, 50mm, 100mm
If you want 3 lenses: 35mm, 85mm, 135mm
If you want 3 lenses: 17mm(17-40), 35mm, 85mm
If you want 4 lenses: 14mm (or fisheye), 24mm, 50mm, 100mm
If you want 4 lenses: 24mm, 50mm, 100mm, 200mm
If you want 4 lenses: 17mm, 35mm, 85mm, 135mm
If you want 4 lenses: 35mm, 85mm, 135mm, 300mm
If you want 5 lenses: 14mm (or fisheye), 24mm, 50mm, 100mm,200mm
If you want 5 lenses: 24mm, 50mm, 100mm,200mm, 400mm
If you want 5 lenses: 17mm, 35mm, 85mm, 135mm, 300mm

The only primes I own are the 24 2.8 IS USM and the 85 1.8. I don't have a use for more. Well maybe an 800 f/5.6, if I ever win the Powerball lottery.

NotBlake wrote in post #16234519
35 and 50 are too close IMO. Try to buy primes in half or double FL multiples.

These are the combinations that I'd endorse:

If you want 2 lenses: 35mm, and 85mm
If you want 3 lenses: 24mm, 50mm, 100mm
If you want 3 lenses: 35mm, 85mm, 135mm
If you want 3 lenses: 17mm(17-40), 35mm, 85mm
If you want 4 lenses: 14mm (or fisheye), 24mm, 50mm, 100mm
If you want 4 lenses: 24mm, 50mm, 100mm, 200mm
If you want 4 lenses: 17mm, 35mm, 85mm, 135mm
If you want 4 lenses: 35mm, 85mm, 135mm, 300mm
If you want 5 lenses: 14mm (or fisheye), 24mm, 50mm, 100mm,200mm
If you want 5 lenses: 24mm, 50mm, 100mm,200mm, 400mm
If you want 5 lenses: 17mm, 35mm, 85mm, 135mm, 300mm

That is by far the most definitive, yet vague response I've ever seen.

I used to shoot Leica M film cameras. So I was used to 35mm, 50mm, 90mm (85mm), and 135mm combo. I still use that setup a lot. Not the most extreme at both ends, but works for 85% + of what is out there. The rest of the situations call for wider than 35mm and longer than 135mm. 40mm turns out to be a good all arounder for full frame since it is close to the "dead" normal FL of the format. Experience will point the rest of the way.

I really like using 24mm, 40mm, and 200mm. I could probably live with that combo if I had to, well, I'd have to have my 8-15L also, but as far as primes go....... If I want more reach then I go with the 200mm plus 2x or 300mm.

kawi_200 wrote in post #16235221
I really like using 24mm, 40mm, and 200mm. I could probably live with that combo if I had to, well, I'd have to have my 8-15L also, but as far as primes go....... If I want more reach then I go with the 200mm plus 2x or 300mm.

Lot of "if's"

Easy 35L + 135L

mannetti21 wrote in post #16235018
That is by far the most definitive, yet vague response I've ever seen.

Meh, it's a vague question. The best prime lens combination entirely depends on the shooter and budget.

If we're in the realm of hypothetical, I'll take every prime lens for the EF mount.

I just sold the 50/1.2L because it was just too close to my Sigma 35/1.4 (and by that, I mean I grabbed both lenses for much the same purpose). I have 100/2.8L Macro to go with my 35 and that combo serves me well because I like the macro aspects of the 100L, but it also serves as a good portrait lens. If I was going to add one more lens, I'd get a wider angle (e.g., perhaps 24 or even a Voigtlander 20 Color Skopar).

If you want a cheap light prime to compliment the ones you have I'd go for the EF 28/1.8 (Not that light though) or the old 24mm f/2.8. I love my 35/2, but it's too close to 50mm and I prefer 50mm... if it weren't so useful as a standard lens on my M I'd probably sell it.

I own:

14, 24, 35, 50, 85

I started out with 35 and 85 but found that 35 was often too long/not wide enough and 85 was often too long

So then I got a 24 and 50

But instead of those 2 replacing the 35 and 85, now I just carry all of them and curse

So personally I think the "Grass is always greener on the other side" - no matter what combo you get, you'll wanted what you don't have

genjurok wrote in post #16233719
I currently have a Sigma 50 f/1.4 and Canon 100mm f/2. I like them both a lot and will add a Canon 35mm f/2 (non-IS) as a lightweight walkaround lens as I often feel that the Sigma 50 is a bit too long and heavy for walkaround although I absolutely love the picture it takes.

I like this combination, 35-50-100 but occasionally I am tempted to get a Sigma 85mm f/1.4 to replace the 100mm f/2. I like the lightweight , fast AF and PQ of the 100mm but every once in a while I kinda want one more stop of light and a bit more blur. The Sigma 85 seems to fit the bill. The downside is that its bigger, heavier and the focal length isn't that much different to 50.

What do you guys think?

Cheers!

The Canon 100/2 is nicely small, despite its age. After going full frame with a 5D2, I went with Canon 35/2, 50/1.8, and 100/2. As others have mentioned, the 50mm and 35mm are too close together. As a cross between a wide angle and standard angle prime, I found I preferred the 35mm over 50mm and so when I upgraded to L glass, I went 35L and 85L.

85mm and 100mm are too close together. I don't consider the 50mm and 85mm too close together (i.e., 24/50/85 or 50/85/135 works as 3 prime combos).