Selling 3 zooms to buy prime.. Help!

Hi all, need some advice on a lens purchase.

I currently have 3 zooms and a prime. Canon 50 1.4, Sig 50-150 2.8 II, Tam 17-50 2.8 non-vc and Tok 11-16 2.8 I

I find myself using my 50 most because I do a lot of modeling and portrait stuff with my girlfriend and anyone willing to pose for me. That is my main area of concentration. I purchased the 3 zooms thinking I'd be getting involved in doing event work and landscapes but I have found I really don't do much landscapes (I haven't done any in the last year since I bought the lens) and I'm definitely not into doing events since I tried it and did not enjoy myself at all.

The only 3 of the zooms I use most is the Sigma 50-150 2.8 II which is produces amazing results and I've been very happy with it BUT, I find myself pushed to 150 shooting animals, etc. or sitting at 50 doing portraits. I also find that I hate having the option to zoom (I know it sounds crazy) but it seems like I'm always worried about if I'm at the right focal length or not instead of composing my scene/focus etc. I enjoy primes and moving myself around to compose, and love their speed and quality.

So I've decided to sell the zooms since I don't use 2 out of 3 of them ever and the 1 I do use I push to 1 end or the other and rarely use the middle range.

I want a telephoto prime and was looking at the Canon 200 f2.8L II to shoot wildlife. I was also thinking of getting the Canon 35 f2 as well for a more normal prime.

My goal is to be able to sell the 3 zooms and get new lens without having to put up any extra cash.

Thoughts?

I would sell it all. Camera included and buy a 6D and 70-200 2.8 MK2

That would rock portraits and shoot wild life better than what you have, get you into full frame at thye same time. Whats not to love

After selling the three zooms as well as adding some cash, what do you expect your budget to be?

If your prime goal (no pun inteneded!) is to shoot wildlife, I think the 200 isn't going to supply as much "reach" as what you are hoping for. You may want to check out the Canon 300MM f/4 - I think it runs for around $1400 or so - plus it can take the 1.4x teleconverter too.

lens pirate wrote in post #16513839
I would cell it all. Camera included and buy a 6D and 70-200 2.8 MK2

That would rock portraits and shoot wild life better than what you have, get you into full frame at thye same time. Whats not to love

I thought about starting over and moving to full frame. But I don't think I could afford that setup on a ~$2,200 budget?

kevinstinks wrote in post #16513840
After selling the three zooms as well as adding some cash, what do you expect your budget to be?

Around $1,100 without adding any cash. I could probably afford to throw up $200-300 if something intrigued me.

Maybe consider one of these:
- Canon 70-200L F4 IS
- Canon 100-400L
- Canon 70-300L
- Canon 300L F4

And hold onto your 50mm.

Scud49 wrote in post #16513847
If your prime goal (no pun inteneded!) is to shoot wildlife, I think the 200 isn't going to supply as much "reach" as what you are hoping for. You may want to check out the Canon 300MM f/4 - I think it runs for around $1400 or so - plus it can take the 1.4x teleconverter too.

This is true. Good point, I'll look in to that one.

I would think that's doable. Your 17-50 and 11-16 should both bring about $250 or so. Not sure what the 50-150 would bring, but let's just say $250 also. That's $750 to work with.

For that, I'd recommend you look for a good used 35 or 30mm and maybe a 300/4 (non IS). Another long lens I can recommend is the Tamron 200-500. I just got one for under $500 and love it for wildlife.

Loxley wrote in post #16513824
I find myself pushed to 150 shooting animals...

200 won't be much better. Look at the 400/5.6 if it must be a prime, but...

Selection of the correct focal length is a vital part of composition as it establishes framing once perspective has been determined by subject distance. This is why zoom lenses exist. Forcing yourself to move just to accommodate an essentially randomly chosen focal length, to achieve framing at the expense of perspective reduces your control over the images you make.

So, that said, also consider the 100-400L, if you feel a zoom could work for you. There is also, I believe, a Sigma 150-500 of good repute. It could dovetail nicely with the 50-150 that you have now, and give you even greater reach.

xarqi wrote in post #16514027
200 won't be much better. Look at the 400/5.6 if it must be a prime, but...


Selection of the correct focal length is a vital part of composition as it establishes framing once perspective has been determined by subject distance. This is why zoom lenses exist. Forcing yourself to move just to accommodate an essentially randomly chosen focal length, to achieve framing at the expense of perspective reduces your control over the images you make.

So, that said, also consider the 100-400L, if you feel a zoom could work for you. There is also, I believe, a Sigma 150-500 of good repute. It could dovetail nicely with the 50-150 that you have now, and give you even greater reach.

I understand what you are saying but I don't agree with "Forcing yourself to move just to accommodate an essentially randomly chosen focal length, to achieve framing at the expense of perspective" because with a fixed focal length I will not be moving to accommodate a random focal length, it will be a chosen focal length that I decided on before I went out shooting. With the zooms I find my self zooming to a "random focal" length to accommodate for my position thus sacrificing many other aspects that can be fixed by taking a few steps back or forward - and while this may make me a bad photographer, I just prefer to have a fixed focal length and focus on the rest of the image at the length I've chosen rather than be busy zooming in and out frantically (that's what I find myself doing). I feel much more comfortable with primes and I am able to achieve much better results in a more timely fashion.

Loxley wrote in post #16514332
I understand what you are saying but I don't agree with "Forcing yourself to move just to accommodate an essentially randomly chosen focal length, to achieve framing at the expense of perspective" because with a fixed focal length I will not be moving to accommodate a random focal length, it will be a chosen focal length that I decided on before I went out shooting.

But what was the basis for that decision? Why would focal length be the primary concern?

Well, if it is to accommodate your position, it is not random. What you describe is exactly the way, in my view, it should be. Pick your position based on composition and perspective, then select focal length to frame. Nothing random there.

...thereby sacrificing control of perspective just to accommodate a focal length choice you made before you left the house.

Whatever works best for you is obviously best for you, and I can't possibly call that wrong. I just wanted to point out a different 'perspective'.

Zooms are better than primes in all respects but absolute Image quality and wide open f-stop.

Recently with the advent of the 24-79MK11, 70-200MK2 and to a lesser degree the the ef-s 17-55 and stm series lenses this last bastion of the prime is fading fast.

If I had started with the Canon MK2 zooms I may never have bought a prime. My lens evolution would be very different.

Thanks everyone for all the great replies.

Since the 2 things I do most are portraits and animals. What if I picked up a used 5Dc for use with my 50 1.4 and then got either a 70-200 f4 + 1.4x or a 300 f4 IS for use with my 7D... that would keep things simple and make me happy since I've been wanting to move to FF for my portrait work anyways. All the bells and whistles are on my 7D where I need them, the only thing I care about for my portrait work is the IQ/DOF and ability to use OCF which I think would be covered.

Thoughts?

5Dc + 50 1.4 will give you a much different FOV than 7D + 50. Get the 5Dc, and you will see what I mean, and if that doesnt work for you, 85mm F1.8 will do the job and get you similar FOV.

Charlie wrote in post #16518852
5Dc + 50 1.4 will give you a much different FOV than 7D + 50. Get the 5Dc, and you will see what I mean, and if that doesnt work for you, 85mm F1.8 will do the job and get you similar FOV.

I've always felt like the 50 1.4 on my 7D was just a tad to long.. for the last year I wished I had bought a Sig 30, Canon 28 or 35/2 instead of the 50... so it just may end up being perfect!