Do I need my fixed focal lengths if I now have "L" lenses in that range?

I am wondering if I have since purchased "L" series lenses that cover the same range as my fixed focal length lenses.. do I still need the fixed focal lengths.

I ask as the thing with "L" is that it is supposed to have Edge-to-Edge IQ that is equal to a fixed focal length.

I admit yes the my fixed focal lengths are still faster than the "L"s, but if IQ is the number one thing and a little speed you are willing to sacrifice.. the question still is.. "Do I need the fixed focal length lenses?"

Have others simplied their gear setup and just gone to "L" lenses?

Christopher

only you can decide what you need to keep. I'm sure it will be hard, but time will tell. Good luck

I have 2 great primes that cover the same as two of my L lenses and I can tell you, they do much different things. If I'm doing formal portraits of any kind and I have more time to spend with the clients, I will use my primes. They are so wonderful. If flexibility is the issue, I will use my L zooms. And of course, the 17-40 is a must fo landscapes, but I would love the 35L sometime. So, keep them! You may never know when you will need just that lens.

Personally, I think primes will give you a better image most of the time (Technically.) Maybe not by much, and of course it varies from lens to lens. I am personally not a pixel peeper, so I would just stick to my zooms if I were in your position. Speed, however, is important to me; so having a couple of primes is essential to my collection... next for me: the 24mm 1.4L!!!! Anyone got a few bucks they can give me?

I would love the L primes some year, but I would probably not use them as much as I use the zooms I have. I think that is the OP's question.

Difficult sort of question to answer. Like, should I be selling my Chevy Cavalier since I got Malibu as well ?
One suggestion I can make: keep that 100 f/2.0, if you've got a normally good copy ......IMO, other than the 135L and 85 f/1.8 there are not too many other lenses which can match its performance, L or non L.

Two different tools for different jobs/situations in my opinion. However, if you don't need the speed of the primes and the zooms are delivering the sharpness that satisfies you and you're NOT carrying your primes then dump them and just keep what actually gets used. This goes for L and non-L lenses...

A prime is almost always sharper than an equivalent zoom, L or not. It's also lighter in weight, brighter in aperture. But you give up the nice thing about zooms - that is, being able to zoom!

Depends on what you shoot and in what lighting conditions, mostly. You don't "need" the equivalent fixed focal length lens.

But having one or two is nice if you prefer ultra-portability, maximum image quality and shoot in low(er) light. You don't always want to carry around a behemoth lens (like when shooting street candids, etc.)

Simply, an L zoom is not a replacement for a good quality prime.

My 135L f2 is a discreet, high quality performer. It goes where a 70-200f2.8 IS can't. If you have both and don't use one, then you should sell it. All your lenses should earn their place in your camera bag. If you find it sitting there, it has made it's own decision.

I have owned and sold two excellent lenses. If I find myself with a lens that I never use, I will sell very quickly and buy something I will use.

Currently I have a wide-angle zoom and a mid-range zoom. I also have a mid-range prime and telephoto prime with extenders. That works very well for me.

I do try to not buy more lenses than I can (un)comfortably carry with me on a trip.

Graham

Set up a typical shooting situation you'd come across. Take photos with both lenses under the exact same conditions.

See which you like better....

I've got two great zooms and one good zoom, still I find myself to take a lot of my pictures with the L prime. Especially when I need the speed. But of course it depends on the type of pictures you want to take.

Your 70-200s sharpness is on par with many primes. Of course not with real stellar primes like the 200 f/1.8 or the 85 f/1.2 or the 35 f/1.4, but close.

P.

In additiion, not with real "stellar" primes which are not all L and which can be all had for less than $1,000: 50 f/2.5, 60 f/2.8, 85 f/1.8, 100 f.2.0, 100 f/2.8, 135L, 200 f/2.8.
The 70-200's are excellent zooms as zooms go, however, Canon has quite a few primes that will kick their butts in the IQ dept.

lensview wrote:
In additiion, not with real "stellar" primes which are not all L and which can be all had for less than $1,000: 50 f/2.5, 60 f/2.8, 85 f/1.8, 100 f.2.0, 100 f/2.8, 135L, 200 f/2.8.
The 70-200's are excellent zooms as zooms go, however, Canon has quite a few primes that will kick their butts in the IQ dept.

Thanks everyone for your opinions... that all helped. I actually really love my 100 f2.0 for example Other than it is a bit too much of a zoom for my small space and just got my F2.8 70-200 so haven't had a chance to do a side by side.

My main motivation I guess for the question was really reducing the number of lenses that I don't use as often but not giving up image quality... plus there is a lense or two I want to pick up but need to come up with some cash to fund them.

Christopher

I own both primes and zooms, but prefer primes for their sharpness and IQ. I don't find it particularly inconvenient to use one, since I carry two bodies with me at any given time. If anything, I use primes much more often than zoom lenses.

They really have such different uses...I have both and for the primes...they are sharper in their mm than any of the L zooms I have in that particular range...I wouldn't part with either if I could help it.