Which Non-L prime would pair well with 24-70 ii?

FEChariot wrote in post #17246176
If I am going to have a prime in addition to a zoom, for me personally I want at least two stops of advantage.

yep, assuming the same range. The thing with the 35/2 and 24-70 is that they will conflict a lot. I shot with the 50 1.2 and 24-70F2.8VC for years and there was definitely conflict between the two. Nothing wrong with having both really, but you should fill missing gaps before you start building conflicting lenses. A 135/2, 70-200 should be on your list.

The 24-70 range is really disposable to me. 40/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.8, 24-105, 24-70mk1, 16-35, either of those, I would be comfortable replacing the zoom, however for events, the ooooh and aaaaaahs come from a short telephoto of sorts that can really isolate people. The wider zoom is for technical captures, nothing really inspiring there, really serving the purpose of grabbing the incidental environmental portraits and boring group shots.

70-200F2.8 of some sort is golden. Nice and simple. 135L, even simpler, but requires a bit of experience. I've seen many give up on it, but I'de say it's phenomenal. If I want some mind blowing portraits/candids, that's the goto lens.

I would think something either f/1.4, or something wider would be a good compliment. There really only seem to be a few options that fit your bill.

- Canon 20mm f/2.8
- Sigma 30mm f/1.4
- Sigma or Canon 50mm f/1.4 (old one)
- Canon 85mm 1.8

Unless you are willing to go manual focus or macro.

I would go with the 50 or the 20.

aduda wrote in post #17246354
I would think something either f/1.4, or something wider would be a good compliment. There really only seem to be a few options that fit your bill.

- Canon 20mm f/2.8
- Sigma 30mm f/1.4
- Sigma or Canon 50mm f/1.4 (old one)
- Canon 85mm 1.8

Unless you are willing to go manual focus or macro.

I would go with the 50 or the 20.

Recommending a crop only lens to a FF shooter is a good way to be completely ignored.

FEChariot wrote in post #17246462
Recommending a crop only lens to a FF shooter is a good way to be completely ignored.

Which one of those is crop only?

edit: I didn't realize the 30mm was ef-s. No reason to be a chode about it. And...looks like you didn't ignore me.

SO....scratch the 30mm from the list.

aduda wrote in post #17246478
edit: I didn't realize the 30mm was ef-s. No reason to be a chode about it.

Don't think of it as a 'chode' thing, think of it as friendly advice on how to improve your reputation.

timbop wrote in post #17245485
If you are looking for a lens to complement the 24-70II, then something longer or wider would make more sense. With the 6d's great high ISO and the 24-70's great IQ I don't think a prime that is only 1 stop faster is going to be particularly useful; you've already said for lightweight you don't use your SLR. If you just want a security blanket in case the 24-70 breaks that's a different story.

Non-L primes that are great values: 35/2IS, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 100/2

I think you are right. I'll probably keep my 85 1.8 and 50 1.8 since the first gives me a focal length the 24-70 does not cover, and the 50 is too cheap to be worth selling.

And then as I replenish my budget, I'll look into high quality L or Sigma Art primes.

Thanks everyone!

The Dark Knight wrote in post #17247852
I think you are right. I'll probably keep my 85 1.8 and 50 1.8 since the first gives me a focal length the 24-70 does not cover, and the 50 is too cheap to be worth selling.

And then as I replenish my budget, I'll look into high quality L or Sigma Art primes.

Thanks everyone!

Nice choice. f1.8 may only be 1 1/3 stops faster than 2.8, the longer FL makes it seem more like 1 2/3 stops.

Also; 70 on FF is a bit short for portraits so the 85 gets you into the sweet range.

Also #2; despite good lens resale values, it's tough not to loose out on reselling stuff (paypal fees, shipping, risk, etc).

I'd sugest may personal pair of primes: 35mm F2 IS for general use and 100mm F2 for portraits.
They're still good choices for cropped cameras. I usually photograph some bike races, and when I get my arms tired of the 70-200 2.8 + FF, I put the 100mm F2 on my 60D and get similar results in such smaller and lighter kit.

35 f2 IS and 15mm sigma FE are the two primes I use. the former is barely ever used but that latter is used frequently. I only use fast primes to get more light. I'm more of an f8 guy than a bokey guy.

Charlie wrote in post #17246242
Nothing wrong with having both really, but you should fill missing gaps before you start building conflicting lenses. A 135/2, 70-200 should be on your list.

I realize that this comment is three weeks old, but this is just something that I disagree with. When new to the hobby, the "need" to cover a specific FL range seemed to be the prevailing sentiment on POTN, so I followed it and bought a 70-200L (and a 135L, because it's a part of the Trinity, right?). It took some time, but I finally stopped deceiving myself and admitted that neither fit very well within my shooting habits ('specially for the two or three thousand dollars that they represented) and I sold them off.

I now take the same approach to photography equipment as I would with any other tool -- I won't buy anything unless I regularly find myself needing/wanting a specific tool for a specific task. The more frequently I need a tool, though, the more inclined I am to buy the best tool that I can afford for the task -- done are the days of buying X tool just because of the "every 'shop should have one" mentality.

WhyFi wrote in post #17288791
I realize that this comment is three weeks old, but this is just something that I disagree with. When new to the hobby, the "need" to cover a specific FL range seemed to be the prevailing sentiment on POTN, so I followed it and bought a 70-200L (and a 135L, because it's a part of the Trinity, right?). It took some time, but I finally stopped deceiving myself and admitted that neither fit very well within my shooting habits ('specially for the two or three thousand dollars that they represented) and I sold them off.

I now take the same approach to photography equipment as I would with any other tool -- I won't buy anything unless I regularly find myself needing/wanting a specific tool for a specific task. The more frequently I need a tool, though, the more inclined I am to buy the best tool that I can afford for the task -- done are the days of buying X tool just because of the "every 'shop should have one" mentality.

My sentiments exactly. I am not a pro, I just enjoy shooting and can afford to buy decent gear. I have a 50 f1.8 and 40 f2.8 that sit in my bag unused. I plan to sell both. My 24-70L f2.8 is my most used lens. I use the 85 f1.8 and 70-200L f4 once in a while; those I pan to keep.

I've bought and sold other items trying to find the "right balance" and think I've found the right "toys" for my needs. I have long since stopped trying to buy the latest and greatest. Although, if not for fear of divorce, I'd buy the Mark 1Dx, 70-200L f2.8, and 16-35L f4

If you are looking at non-L prime lenses outside the range of your new 24-70mm zoom, I have to heartily recommend the 100mm f/2. It's a superb, yet inexpensive telephoto prime lens.

timbop wrote in post #17245485
If you are looking for a lens to complement the 24-70II, then something longer or wider would make more sense. With the 6d's great high ISO and the 24-70's great IQ I don't think a prime that is only 1 stop faster is going to be particularly useful; you've already said for lightweight you don't use your SLR. If you just want a security blanket in case the 24-70 breaks that's a different story.

Non-L primes that are great values: 35/2IS, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 100/2

Or even the old and trusted EF 35/2 (non-IS)

WhyFi wrote in post #17288791
I realize that this comment is three weeks old, but this is just something that I disagree with. When new to the hobby, the "need" to cover a specific FL range seemed to be the prevailing sentiment on POTN, so I followed it and bought a 70-200L (and a 135L, because it's a part of the Trinity, right?). It took some time, but I finally stopped deceiving myself and admitted that neither fit very well within my shooting habits ('specially for the two or three thousand dollars that they represented) and I sold them off.

I now take the same approach to photography equipment as I would with any other tool -- I won't buy anything unless I regularly find myself needing/wanting a specific tool for a specific task. The more frequently I need a tool, though, the more inclined I am to buy the best tool that I can afford for the task -- done are the days of buying X tool just because of the "every 'shop should have one" mentality.

unfortunately photography isnt cheap, and you've got to experience these "missing gaps", while theres no indication TS has. Experiences matter, they're the progression of photography, and while the experience didnt work for you, TS yes yet to experience. It's kinda like the 35 vs 50 debates. You really cant say which side you belong to till you try both for a while. TS has expressed shooting events in the past, and I can say with great confidence, that a fast telephoto is the right tool for the job.

"Should have one" is like having the 40mm pancake because it's small, or 50mm nifty because it's cheap. Sometimes "should have one", not that bad of an idea if you can afford it. Can be a nice backup.

Charlie wrote in post #17290155
unfortunately photography isnt cheap, and you've got to experience these "missing gaps"

Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting this, but you seem to be suggesting that the absence of a need doesn't sufficiently prove the absence of a need.

If I have a fundamental understanding of a tool and a fundamental understanding of the task at hand, I can make an educated guess on what's appropriate - there's a myriad of hand saws out there, but I don't need to try them all out if I understand the impact of things like tooth count, push/pull, kerf, blade thickness, etc. I obviously feel the same way about lenses and FL, aperture, IS, etc.

I respect that different people learn in different ways and that everyone has different priorities, which is why I'm suggesting an alternative to the "focal length coverage" trial and error approach that's commonly espoused here.