Liking less my 24-70mm f2.8 II and 70-200mm f2.8 IS II

Compared to Sigma 35mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.2L, I am not liking my zooms. Way back when at first 70-200mmf 2.8 IS II was released, I bought it and fell in love and sold my 135L after a week. But now I feel that my prime shots looks much better. I was mainly a zoom guy, and maybe I am turning into a prime guy? Maybe I should sell the zooms and pick up 135L.

Just some thoughts I wanted to share.

I have gone through the same "phases"... Selling off all my zooms and going to all primes, then back again. I then had a nice mix and currently just have 3 zooms and 1 prime (planning to add the 35L back soon).

I prefer zooms to primes, although I like a balanced mix

I think if I wasn't shooting weddings and events, I'd probably go all prime myself. Both of these lenses are just too versatile for what I shoot right now.

bobbyz wrote in post #17131396
Compared to Sigma 35mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.2L, I am not liking my zooms. Way back when at first 70-200mmf 2.8 IS II was released, I bought it and fell in love and sold my 135L after a week. But now I feel that my prime shots looks much better. I was mainly a zoom guy, and maybe I am turning into a prime guy? Maybe I should sell the zooms and pick up 135L.

Just some thoughts I wanted to share.

Heya,

The only difference is aperture basically in realistic terms without getting into pixel peeping measurements. If you're shooting more environmental with spacious backgrounds, you probably do favor the primes. But in a settings where you're stopping down to F2.8 and F4, or more, you probably will see no difference other than focal length. Your zooms couldn't do F1.2, F1.4 and F2. You probably just are currently enamored once more with thin depth of field?

Nothing wrong with wanting primes over a zoom. As long as it's the tool that provides what you're looking to do, you've got the right one.

Very best,

bobbyz wrote in post #17131396
Compared to Sigma 35mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.2L, I am not liking my zooms. Way back when at first 70-200mmf 2.8 IS II was released, I bought it and fell in love and sold my 135L after a week. But now I feel that my prime shots looks much better. I was mainly a zoom guy, and maybe I am turning into a prime guy? Maybe I should sell the zooms and pick up 135L.

Just some thoughts I wanted to share.

I'm not gonna beat you up like everyone does me about being indecisive with my gear and such. I look at my gear as tools to create what "I want".

I've done the zooms.... I've done the primes. The images I enjoy the most are typically with the primes. I've turned into a prime guy myself. I sold off the 70-200 but in turn traded it in for a 120-300. I even had a 300 2.8L IS also.... but the sigma proves to be very versatile.

My problem with the 70-200 2.8s is that 2.8 from 70~120mm simply does not produce the same look as an 85 1.2L does. So I tend to grab my 85 over the 70-200 for the times I needed the shorter side of the zoom. For the longer size I was typically in the 170-200mm range and was always begging for more. The 120-300 has served me perfectly and I only have the 135 as a lighter alternative for when I don't want to haul a 6lb lens.

I'm always evolving in my photography as I grow and learn and I encounter different events or areas or anything that I would of been better off with something else. My gear list now is a result of me growing and learning.

But I agree. The 35/85 is a dangerous combo that when shot wide open nothing can match the look it generates. Nothing wrong with it. Those two zooms are worth quite a bit of money too to just sit around.

Talley wrote in post #17131468
Those two zooms are worth quite a bit of money too to just sit around.

That is what I am thinking. I just picked Fuji XT1 with 35mm f1.4 to try this mirrorless thing. I was thinking Sony but was hesitant as I don't see much fast primes from them with AF.

Aperture wise I am mainly f2 kind of person. With f1.4/f1.2 glass f2 gives quite sharp results and looks better than f2.8 zoom look. When I use my 70-200mm f2.8 I am mainly on the long end.

sportmode wrote in post #17131427
I think if I wasn't shooting weddings and events, I'd probably go all prime myself. Both of these lenses are just too versatile for what I shoot right now.

IMO this sums it up. If you shoot events a 2.8 zoom is a must but generally speaking primes are more fun and interesting.

I prefer the 135 to the 70-200 2.8 but if I was shooting weddings I would probably have the zoom

ya when my 70-200 didn't get picked up for 3 months straight after I got your 85 and picked up a 135 that told me the 70-200 had to go. It was easier for me to get rid of it for the 120-300.

Another thing for me is the fact I don't do this for a living, I don't do events... I just take photos of my kids and whatever. This gives me the freedom to change lenses and not worry about missing anything.

The way I look at it, you get a better degree of flexibility with a zoom in the field in acquiring a pic... but you give up some quality.

With a prime, it can be a hassle getting the right position to take a shot (or later having to crop).... but the resulting image is the best you can get.

I've been a prime guy from the start, but added the nifty-250 for walk-around flexibility.

Now, I've just bought an SX700 with 30x zoom for walk-around - waiting for it to arrive.

Talley wrote in post #17131532
Another thing for me is the fact I don't do this for a living, I don't do events... I just take photos of my kids and whatever. This gives me the freedom to change lenses and not worry about missing anything.

Same here. Not going to make money in photography so mostly as a hobby now.

I have a mixture of both, just the inexpensive variety.... and I struggle with this issue myself. For people photography, primes just kick too much butt. For landscapes, zooms are so damn fast and convenient.

Damn GAS......

I guess if I shot for a living, the 24-200 F2.8 zooms make a lot of sense.... but I hardly do events, and frankly, not interested in that type of work.

I love primes, but I prefer a fast zoom on the wide end. In the end, do what makes you happy.

You have some good gear for a hobbyist. what do you like to shoot and can you get away with not having the zooms? I have primes and zooms and there's a time and place for both of them IMO. Do you need duplicates of the 35 and 85 range?

madhatter04 wrote in post #17131621
I love primes, but I prefer a fast zoom on the wide end. In the end, do what makes you happy.

My thing is I really love 14mm on wide end. There is no zoom to cover that that is a constant aperture L style.

If sigma were to release the rumored 14-24 F4 OS then I would ditch my 14 for that and get rid of the 17-40

I think people buy zooms for convenience, and they can be practically a necessity for certain types of pro photogs like those who do events. I think zooms tend to be a compromise between aperture and a range of focal lengths. There are of course very excellent zooms like your two 2.8 zooms, but I'd always prefer the fast aperture of a prime. I think having a lens that goes open to 2, 1.4, or 1.2 even offers much more flexibility for someone like me who doesn't need to "make the shot" to put food on my table. As a hobbyist, I'd pretty much stick with primes. Just my 2 cents.