First fast prime

Hello guys, and girls,

After I finally managed to complete my 3 zoom lens setup (16-35, 24-70, 70-200),
I am now thinking of getting a fast prime, for those really shallow dof shots, and extreme low light photography.

To be honest I am NOT often doing such things (or not yet), so I am unsure what lens should it be.

I am shooting mainly portraits, sometimes indoors, sometimes night pictures in the city, but for that I use the 16-35.

So I am thinking about a 35mm, 50mm or a 85mm, dut can't decide, as I do not have any experience with prime lenseson a FF body.

So the question is:
If you guys would have already all the f/2.8 zooms you need, and could only have 1 prime, what would it be?
Or would you get all 3 "Ultrasonic" (golden ring) versions, to be on the safe side?

50mm never wide enough and never long enough.
85mm for portraiture mainly and I don't do portraits.
So that leaves the 35mm given the choices
Like you I rarely use it (I went Sigma considering that) but when I do the DOF is a lot of fun.
My first fast prime was a 300mm and it's on the camera almost daily.

Well, I think you have the 35mm length well covered by an optically nice lens.
Your zoom lenses can take nice portraits with creamy backgrounds already.
You are seeking the ability to get photos your current lenses cannot do.

I will assume the primary reason for the prime is to shoot open open,
for the thin DOF and low-light shooting ability.
Therefore I would actually recommend the 50L or the 24L II lenses.

The 50L will give you a general focal length that can be used indoor for low light without flash and it can be a great environmental portrait lens, that could be cropped to a tight portrait with low distortion.
I find it can be great for thin DOF, it is long enough to draw you attention to the subject,
while not completely removing the background when stepped down.

The 24L II lenses would give you the ability to take environmental portraits with wide AND creamy background.
This can result in some very interesting, and otherwise unattainable images.
With an ND4 or ND8 filter it is a truly FUN walkaround lens for a day or afternoon of shooting.
It is also my go to lens for everything tight indoors. I would never go to a museum without it.
They are happy to allow cameras, but never allow flash.

I believe that the zoom lenses you have do a very good job of blurring background of portraiture.
These are my opinions based on how I use my lens and why I would not trade them for others.
I also don't have any zoom lenses either, as your current lenses cover all those prime FL's already.

Which focal length(es) is or are your favorites ? The response should be easy then.

Personaly I really like the 35mm + 85mm combo (all in f/1.4, Samyang/Rokinon). But it's just my subjective point of view...

Titi

Loving my 50L so for me its an obvious choice

none of those combos. 85/1.8 and 135/2; 35/1.4 for portraiture isn't going to get a really narrow depth of field so your zooms are just as good there.

It all depends how much background you want.

35 has most background (no real portrait lens) but nice for model + environment
50 is for half body
85 is for tighter head/shoulder portraits

I couldn't decide either, all are great, that's why I opted for all 3 and sold 24-70's.
Zoom is versatile, but I (and you) have 16-35 & 70-200 2.8 allready, so no worry

Thank you guys, you are really helpful.

My issue is actually, I am looking for something that my lensen cannot do, but I am unsure about the focal lenght.
There are reasons a 355mm would be great, and other reasons, it won't, and so for the 50mm, and the 85mm.

So since i won't be able to afford all 3 (now), onyl one of them, I am wondering wich one to choose.

For portraits I find the 70-200 to be great, so I am looking more for a very low light, and model + enviorement like lens.

None of the above.

Go for a 135L. There's always something 'magical' about the 135.

I have a similar zoom lineup, except I prefer overlapping ranges so my mid zoom is the 24-105. I have a 135 as my sole prime. I had the 85 f1.8 for a while and 200 2.8L ii as well, but due to lack of use, sold 'em.

I picked the 28, 50 and 85 setup. Primarily because I'm cheap. My current prime line-up is: 28 1.8, 35 IS, 50 1.4 and 100 f/2. I bought my 6D about a year ago and have taken a shine to shooting primes. I do not think the cost/IQ ratio for any of Canon's L-primes in this range is worth the money. (I've never shot any of them, either. I just can't afford them.)

I had the 85 1.8 and traded it for the 100 2. I like the 100 2 more. I wish I could afford the 24L II, instead of the 28 1.8.

You have the zoom lenses in all the focal lengths covered, so just try your 24-70 and 70-200 at specific focal lengths -- 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 135mm -- and see which focal length(s) works best for the situations you shoot.

This question on which focal length prime to get comes up quite often, and the answer is quite simple.

Scott M wrote in post #17230673
You have the zoom lenses in all the focal lengths covered, so just try your 24-70 and 70-200 at specific focal lengths -- 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 135mm -- and see which focal length(s) works best for the situations you shoot.

This question on which focal length prime to get comes up quite often, and the answer is quite simple.

If it is that simple, why do so many people struggle with the difference between shooting fast primes and very expensive, comparatively huge, and relatively slow zooms like the 24-70L II?

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17230816
If it is that simple, why do so many people struggle with the difference between shooting fast primes and very expensive, comparatively huge, and relatively slow zooms like the 24-70L II?

I have no idea. When I started looking at primes, I did the logical thing and tried my zooms at different focal lengths to see which lengths worked best for what I intended to shoot, and then went from there. Also, looking at the EXIF info from shots in my catalog also provided insight. The single most important item to decide when selecting prime lenses is which focal length you need, and nobody on this forum can answer that for a poster. It's all downhill from there.

Dont buy anything just to have it. When a need appears buy the lens that fills it. I'd love to say 135L because its indispensable to me, but might be useless to you.

Scott M wrote in post #17230835
I have no idea. When I started looking at primes, I did the logical thing and tried my zooms at different focal lengths to see which lengths worked best for what I intended to shoot, and then went from there. Also, looking at the EXIF info from shots in my catalog also provided insight. The single most important item to decide when selecting prime lenses is which focal length you need, and nobody on this forum can answer that for a poster. It's all downhill from there.

Granted, focal length is THE prime (no pun intended) consideration when buying a lens. It is far from the only consideration, though. My latest acquisition was the 28 f/1.8. I knew I wanted something wider than my 35 IS. The initial candidates were: Sigma 24 & 28 f/1.8, which don't review well. The Canon 24L II, too much money. The 24IS or 28IS, not fast enough. Ditto the old Canon 24 & 28 2.8s, and wide open IQ suffers. The 24-70 f/4, too expensive, too slow. The 24-70L II, too big, too expensive, too slow. The 24-105, too slow, too much distortion at the wide end.

Notice that after I selected the focal length I wanted, I still had 11 lenses to choose from, all of which fit my desired focal length. I selected the 28mm f/1.8 as best meeting my needs. None of the reasons I used to eliminate 10 of those choices would have been apparent by shooting one of my zooms at some specific focal length, or by reviewing my LR library. I already knew which focal length I wanted. If focal length were the only criterion, I'd still be juggling 11 different options. And that discounts all the other available lenses in the 24-28mm range.