24-70 to Primes

Hello All,

First of all, Happy Holidays!

Secondly, and I must say, mainly, I'm considering selling my 24-70 f/2.8 (version one) and buying a couple-three primes with the funds.

The lens is primarily used for Theatre Photography where it's been quite useful but increasingly not really long enough now I work in larger theatres. I don't particularly like using it for my other photographic interests - travel, street and I'm keen to do more portraiture. Much happier with the 40mm Pancake I bought over the summer - 24-70 only comes out when I'm working, and with some more, better quality, primes I'd be able to use those in its place. I've done Theatre work before with primes, I got the job done. I'm liking the idea more and more. Worried it's the gear acquisition stage of a creative slump though ...

I'd be looking at:

* A 50mm f/1.4 ... Canon would be in the frame as well as Sigma.

* 85mm f/1.8 ... Owned one before. Another thing about the 24-70 is that when I end up using 70mm, it just feels like an odd focal length. Probably why there are no 70mm primes out there.

* Something wider than 40mm. I rarely shoot very wide, so a 35mm makes sense although that's very close to my 40mm so I'd be tempted to go to 28 or so.

Budget is basically limited to funds from the 24-70 at the moment, so suggestions for a trinity of fast L primes would be misplaced. Good, working primes on a budget are the order of the day.

Opinions and suggestions welcome.

Thanks,

Owain.

I would suggest the 135L. Used they go for around $800 used. Maybe sell the 24-70 and 40 pancake and get a 35 2.0 or 50 1.4 or just try out the pancake with the 135.

Tommydigi wrote in post #17341661
I would suggest the 135L. Used they go for around $800 used. Maybe sell the 24-70 and 40 pancake and get a 35 2.0 or 50 1.4 or just try out the pancake with the 135.

135 would be an option for an expansion of my current range, but I'm looking to replace the 24-70ish range with a few primes, one of them almost certainly a fast fifty.

Thanks.

I think you'll miss the zoom. I have three primes in that focal length and still find the zoom useful at times.

Maybe start with the cheaper 50 1.8 and add more primes slowly, that way you might get to have both.

EDIT

Just saw your gear sig. Why don't you get the two primes you've leant to your mates back, buy the 85mm and be done with it? You've owned the 85 before and got rid of it and gave two other primes to your friends, do you really want to ditch your zoom?

El Pedro wrote in post #17341734
I think you'll miss the zoom. I have three primes in that focal length and still find the zoom useful at times.

Maybe start with the cheaper 50 1.8 and add more primes slowly, that way you might get to have both.

Technically already own a 50 f/1.8 but it's on loan to a friend who needed a lens just after I had bought the zoom. I don't want to leave a friend lenseless and ask for it back, but I don't particularly want a second 1.8 either. Second hand 1.4 could be an option.

What didn't you like about the 1.8? Popular opinion suggests the 1.8 is better than the 1.4 at everything except build quality and 1.4.

I have the 1.4 and must admit I don't use it much, I'm much more likely to use 35 or 85 primes.

El Pedro wrote in post #17341768
What didn't you like about the 1.8? Popular opinion suggests the 1.8 is better than the 1.4 at everything except build quality and 1.4.

I have the 1.4 and must admit I don't use it much, I'm much more likely to use 35 or 85 primes.

I sold the 85 when I was still using a 20D so the 50mm was essentially that focal length.

The build quality is definitely one thing that makes me more inclined to buy a 1.4 over another 1.8 ... mine is on loan to a good friend with no other lenses, it means she can keep taking photos. Until she decides to send it back, I won't ask for it.

20mm 1.8 on full frame doesn't appeal to me too much. A 50 certainly does, an 85 could be good too as I always liked 50 on the crop body.

Thanks for your posts, it may not seem like it but they are making me think and really helping.

You said you like the 24-70 but its not long enough, that is why I suggested the 135. I don't think 85 is really going to make much of a difference with reach. Why not just keep it and look for a longer option for this particular application. Personally I find 35 and 135 can cover a wide range of photography.

Tommydigi wrote in post #17341857
You said you like the 24-70 but its not long enough, that is why I suggested the 135. I don't think 85 is really going to make much of a difference with reach. Why not just keep it and look for a longer option for this particular application. Personally I find 35 and 135 can cover a wide range of photography.

85 would indeed be pretty similar to the 70mm for Theatre working, it'd be quite different with extra reach and a smaller aperture for portraits but I need to find my feet with those anyway, not experienced enough yet by far.

If I keep the 24-70 for now and add second hand primes, 135 would be a good expansion option. Not in budget for now to buy one outright but if the zoom stays for now but goes later, it could be a good choice.

El Pedro wrote in post #17341768
What didn't you like about the 1.8? Popular opinion suggests the 1.8 is better than the 1.4 at everything except build quality and 1.4.

I have the 1.4 and must admit I don't use it much, I'm much more likely to use 35 or 85 primes.

Really, what popular opinion is that? Now if you would have said price to performance I would agree, but you said the 1.8 is just better in everything but build. IMO that is definitely not so. The consensus I'm familiar with says the 1.4 is better than the 1.8 in everything but price.

The "better than" of the 1.4 over the 1.8 =
Obviously 1.4 over 1.8.
AF speed, noise (or lack there of), accuracy (especially in lower light).
Bokeh and OOF highlights are way better on the 1.4 (this is IMO not even close).
IMO build quality is better here (but almost a tie due to the potential, and semi-frequent, AF failure of the 1.4).
Some say sharpness, I think it is a draw. They are good, but with neither being exceptional.

"Better than" of the 1.8 (II) over the 1.4 =
Cost only.

The "better than" of the 1.8 (I) over the 1.4 =
Build and cost.

By the way I own a 1.8 (I) not the 1.4 because of the price I payed ($30), plus my current main prime setup is 35L, 85 f.1.8, and 135L. If I were to get a 50mm f/1.4, I think it would be the Sigma. I don't like the Canon 1.4 nor 1.8 50s all that much (except price on the 50mm f/1.8).

To the OP, I also think the 85mm f/1.8 might be a good choice for you.

Read my post agin mate and then rethink what you wrote and come back to me.

El Pedro wrote in post #17342025
Read my post agin mate and then rethink what you wrote and come back to me.

I had a mistake in my second line, I had 1.4, when it should have been 1.8 (fixed now). But if you read everything else, you could have figure my error. The rest I believe is fine.

Wide Aperture - 1.4
IQ - Same
AF - 1.4 but prone to breaking so not really better
Price - 1.8
Size - 1.8
Build Quality - 1.4
Bokeh - This is very eye of the beholder type stuff here. I don't think either stand out as great.

So like I said 1.8 is better aside from build quality and 1.4.

Like you I think the Sigma Art is the pick of the 50s but I think its outside of the OPs budget.

El Pedro wrote in post #17342109
Wide Aperture - 1.4
IQ - Same
AF - 1.4 but prone to breaking so not really better
Price - 1.8
Size - 1.8
Build Quality - 1.4
Bokeh - This is very eye of the beholder type stuff here. I don't think either stand out as great.

So like I said 1.8 is better aside from build quality and 1.4.

Like you I think the Sigma Art is the pick of the 50s but I think its outside of the OPs budget.

-I said IQ was close. Tie!
-*Sorry, but the 50mm f/1.8 has fallen apart (literally) for many (so it is prone to breaking just as much). On the 1.4 the AF is more accurate, plus doesn't sound like a can of bees. I still give AF to the 1.4 for build. (1.4!)
-I gave it (the 1.8) price. (1.8!)
-Your size is very subjective too. The 1.4 (2.0 in. x 2.9 in) is less than a half inch longer than the 1.8 (1.6 in. x 2.7 in.). Yes it is heavier by 5.6 oz, but at a total weight of 10.2 ounces it doesn't weigh much. Some will say the 1.8 is too small and doesn't balance out on a camera bigger than a Rebel. Some like the smaller size. So we'll call this a tie!
-*Build quality was addressed above with AF capability. Edge (1.4!)
-Bokeh - I will agree it is "in the eyes of the beholder" sort of except for this (the 1.8) and a few other lenses. (In general) Very few people like the pentagram OOF highlights of the 1.8 caused by the five blades of the lenses diaphragm (at least most of the time). Just as few like the doughnut shaped OOF highlights of mirror lenses. I would link to a site showing this, but with the new changes I don't know how. If you care you can look it u.p (1.4!)
--You forgot the 1.4 is a 1.4. (1.4!)

* If one gets the hood for the 1.4, and always uses the hood, it close to eliminates the possible AF failure problem. There is nothing that can prevent the possible falling apart of the 1.8 (II) - short of not using it. Many people have had both with no problems. So looking at it this way, big edge in AF & build to the 1.4 wins

So to me it looks like the 1.4 is the winner. except for price Everybody gets a right to their own opinions. Though it is hard to beat the price for performance of the 1.8.

So except for not being able to do 1.4, sounding like a can of bees, and somewhat less accurate in low light for AF-ing, (IMO) my 50mm f/1.8 MK1 is better than the two lenses we are discussing. It will work until I want the Sigma 50.

I too think it is out of the OPs budget, that is why I suggested the 85mm f/1.8. Which i think is a much better lens in all ways to the 3 50s we've mentioned. (Except price)

Sigma Art (or Canon L) would be out of budget, sadly.

Am I right in thinking the original Sigma 1.4 had build quality/quality control issues?

My 1.8 had some issues before I loaned it - the AF had always been noisy but was prone to not engaging and needed switching to Manual, a little twist, and switching back again. It was useable not ideal ... it was a good lens I got some great shots with, it got the job done. I'm not against the 1.8, it's an excellent lens for the price.

Useful to know the 1.4 also has its issues with these things, though it doesn't make the decision any easier.