Anyone replaced 24-105 with 3 primes?

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #16749666
Still, now that you're shooting with an A7r (aren't you?) wouldn't it be nice to have the smaller native lenses with it instead of your bulkier DSLR equipment?

Sure it would, but I have no problems taking my existing gear with me when I travel to spots where photography will be prominent. That's just the price you pay if you want to bring back great images.

Hogloff wrote in post #16749974
Sure it would, but I have no problems taking my existing gear with me when I travel to spots where photography will be prominent. That's just the price you pay if you want to bring back great images.

Great images don't come from big and bulky gear

It's the photographer that takes great image, not the camera.

Fact is today's top mirrorless offering gives you indistinguishable result compared to a full blown ff setup unless you pixel peep at 200%, minus the bulk.

kin2son wrote in post #16749997
Great images don't come from big and bulky gear

It's the photographer that takes great image, not the camera.

Fact is today's top mirrorless offering gives you indistinguishable result compared to a full blown ff setup unless you pixel peep at 200%.

Sorry...that is not fact at all unless all you do is look at tiny jpegs on your screen. If you print your images to any size or at the very least make 11x17 photo books, you sure as hell see a difference in the images.

I have a mirrorless camera X100 which has one of the best sensors in mirrorless systems and even though the images look nice when viewed on the screen, there is no way they print as well as what I get from a 5d2 image, let alone the images I got from a D800e sensor.

For some, the mirrorless quality is just fine as they never print and just post onto things like FB...but when you do print large prints, the FF cameras like the 5d2 and the newer Sony sensor based cameras are much better, sharper and better tonal values.

I do the same thing. ( unfortunately, I've done little travel as of late ) I do have many of the lenses in question ( 24L/50L/135L and I also have similar zooms 17-40, 24-105 and 70-300L.

Seems like your really debating 24/50 vs 35. I've actually considered going to the 35 just to simplify things as I find 35 to be very practical but I would not want 35 to be my widest lens and the 24 is excellent ( IMO better than the 35L ) The 50L has a look that I really like and I find 50 to be a great FL for me. I could easily live without the 24-105 but considering what it goes for used I haven't bothered to sell it and it does come in handy when I want to keep it really simply or for studio portraits.

I use mine as a general purpose lens and street lens. I love the photos I get with it but many people seem to have issues with it.

Hogloff wrote in post #16750020
Sorry...that is not fact at all unless all you do is look at tiny jpegs on your screen. If you print your images to any size or at the very least make 11x17 photo books, you sure as hell see a difference in the images.

I have a mirrorless camera X100 which has one of the best sensors in mirrorless systems and even though the images look nice when viewed on the screen, there is no way they print as well as what I get from a 5d2 image, let alone the images I got from a D800e sensor.

For some, the mirrorless quality is just fine as they never print and just post onto things like FB...but when you do print large prints, the FF cameras like the 5d2 and the newer Sony sensor based cameras are much better, sharper and better tonal values.

I make prints fairly frequently. Even prints from my old 20D come out great. To each their own though.

VirtualRain wrote in post #16749815
Can you effectively use the 50L as a general purpose lens... Or is it more of a portrait lens given how soft it is off center?

yes, if I'm only bringing one lens, I take the 50L. youre a step in either direction away from 24 or 85. sharpness isn't an issue for me.

the 35 is cool. but like tommy said, it's not wide enough. it's also not special enough to get it. the 50L is special. and the 24 is wide. so it's a perfect combo, to me.

good luck.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #16750501
I make prints fairly frequently. Even prints from my old 20D come out great. To each their own though.

Depends on the size of the prints and subject matter. I typically print large up to 24x36 on glossy / matte paper and quite a bit larger on canvas. If you just make 8x10 or so...then yeh, there will be very little difference.

There still is a difference no matter how large you print in the tonal values between a crop sensor and a FF sensor. You can see this is things like blue skies. Much smoother with FF than with crop.

Tommydigi wrote in post #16750386
I do the same thing. ( unfortunately, I've done little travel as of late ) I do have many of the lenses in question ( 24L/50L/135L and I also have similar zooms 17-40, 24-105 and 70-300L.

Seems like your really debating 24/50 vs 35. I've actually considered going to the 35 just to simplify things as I find 35 to be very practical but I would not want 35 to be my widest lens and the 24 is excellent ( IMO better than the 35L ) The 50L has a look that I really like and I find 50 to be a great FL for me. I could easily live without the 24-105 but considering what it goes for used I haven't bothered to sell it and it does come in handy when I want to keep it really simply or for studio portraits.

I use mine as a general purpose lens and street lens. I love the photos I get with it but many people seem to have issues with it.

I think if I switch to primarily using primes, 24L becomes essential. I use that focal length a lot on my 24-105. The next logical step is 50L which has been a classic focal length forever. And then I have the 85L for portraits.

Although I love my 35L dearly, I loved it more on my 7D and that means I should also love the 50L on my 5D.

As you say, the 24-105 is not going to net me much by selling it, so I'll still keep it. And my copy seems particularly good, so I may still use it, even if I collect the unholy trinity.

Dj R wrote in post #16750647
yes, if I'm only bringing one lens, I take the 50L. youre a step in either direction away from 24 or 85. sharpness isn't an issue for me.

the 35 is cool. but like tommy said, it's not wide enough. it's also not special enough to get it. the 50L is special. and the 24 is wide. so it's a perfect combo, to me.

good luck.

Thanks for your insights. I read through your unholy trinity prime thread (that you linked to earlier)... I thought it was interesting that you went from zoom to primes to zoom and back to primes. It either confirms your schizophrenia or that primes are a solid solution to photography at these focal lengths.

That was my feeling exactly. They are a great combo where the 35 is a sort of practical 1 lens that does it all.

If you do get a 50L remember these 2 important points. Do not focus and recompose and do not pixel peep to much

VirtualRain wrote in post #16750855
Thanks for your insights. I read through your unholy trinity prime thread (that you linked to earlier)... I thought it was interesting that you went from zoom to primes to zoom and back to primes. It either confirms your schizophrenia or that primes are a solid solution to photography at these focal lengths.

really funny dude.
it confirms that I am willing to sacrifice convenience of a zoom to get unparalleled results that these L primes produce.
my feet work (for now).

Dj R wrote in post #16750985
really funny dude.
it confirms that I am willing to sacrifice convenience of a zoom to get unparalleled results that these L primes produce.
my feet work (for now).

Yeah, that describes the direction I want to go as well.

So even though I might mix up my prime collection, having gone through some of my fav travel locations, there are situations where I'm probably leaving the 24-105 on the camera...

Consider this shot at 105mm wandering through the alleys of Venice... the lighting and gondola position on this probably wouldn't have waited for a lens change...

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Yup. The 24-105 is fantastic for vacation or walkabout.

Dj R wrote in post #16752168
Yup. The 24-105 is fantastic for vacation or walkabout.

Any advice on bags? I'd want one that can carry the camera with one lens attached with ready access to two others... Without having to dig or fight the bag when making a lens switch that's also not bulky (not asking for much)

VirtualRain wrote in post #16746589
I'm legitimately wondering if anyone who once shot with a 24-105 was able to effectively replace that with a few prime lenses... Or alternatively hear that it's a crazy idea.

I don't think it's crazy. I had the 24-105L as I bought it with my 5D2 new in 2010. I used it for a few months, then fell in love with 50mm on FF [I didn't like it on crop] it sat unused then I wanted wider so I traded it for a 17-40L end of 2011 I think - Don't miss it a single bit. Then again, I'm not your 'typical' photographer it seems as I don't take many images when I go out & about. I've done two week family Spanish beach holidays with just the 5D2, 50/1.4 & a CPL - If I can't get wide or close enough then I do without. Simple as that. But as I said, that's just me.

Probably the reason I get by with a 17-40L, 50/1.4 & a 135L The 17-40L is dedicated for landscape/coastal use which I could use a 24L I suppose IF I had the spare cash. The 50mm general walkabout, kids at the park, days out etc & the 135L sometimes tags along with the 50mm or gets used specifically.