24-70 or two primes?

I have a digital rebel xt right now. I'm trying to decide between getting a 24-70 f/2.8 L or getting three prime lenses; probably the 35 f/1.4, the 50 f/1.8 and the 85 f/1.8. Both set ups would probably be around the same price. I like the idea of versatility with the 24-70L but I'm worried that it won't be enough to shoot at night. I do plan on getting a tripod so I should be able to shoot at night without too many problems.

Another concern of mine is the background blur. Will the 24-70 still give me a nice background blur? I've heard that primes are better for this because they force you to back up to fit the subject in the frame instead of just zooming out. I know I could still back up with the 24-70 but it seems kind of silly to have a zooming lens if all I do is back up so I can use it at 70mm. This is what is making my decision difficult. It's hard to make up my mind which would be better.

In the US (I realize you're in Canada) these are not the same price -- it's probably $200-300 more for the second combo.

a 24-70L has fine bokeh, and it is very sharp. But you're right that 2.8 isn't always fast enough for dark environments without a flash -- but when and why are you planning on using the other lenses wider than f2.8, and would the use of a flast be possible/better? If you want night city pictures, then often times you're need a tripod anyway because you won't want to be wide open for DOF issues, depending on how far away the subject is. If you want night people pictures (or indoor people pictures), then the primes would help out.

Also, a 85 1.8 doesn't have "great" bokeh either, so it's background blur, at the same aperture, is no better than a 24-70.

Personally, I use primes and zooms (and have had all the lenses you list), and perhaps use primes more. But I still find zooms very useful, and I wouldn't want to give up the ability to frame the picture with the zoom, because it's not always possible to zoom with your feet, and the perspective can change.

All three will give you better low light capabilities as well. If you don't mind the foot zoom I think your better off.

I find that sooner or later I am in the 'dark' and I just put my camera down! How low can we go before you get a beautiful photo of the colour (I am from Canada too) black! If you want closer to perfection and better light suckin ability...then you may always be wishing for those super-fast primes. They are excellent! But...and this is where I stand, the excellent IQ of the Canon L zooms is readily apparent to me. That said, I find the zooms so convenient for all the reasons we all know and I look at a zoom like the first step in Photoshop...cropping! Often I can omit a cropping step out of my workflow (a small but interesting thought). The good L fast zooms tend to be heavy though and that is sometimes a consideration albeit a personal one. If you can nail the shot, it's rewarding but which type of lens you use depends on your situation and style of shooting. Good hunting.

buckwheat wrote in post #2057521
I find that sooner or later I am in the 'dark' and I just put my camera down! How low can we go before you get a beautiful photo of the colour (I am from Canada too) black! If you want closer to perfection and better light suckin ability...then you may always be wishing for those super-fast primes. They are excellent! But...and this is where I stand, the excellent IQ of the Canon L zooms is readily apparent to me. That said, I find the zooms so convenient for all the reasons we all know and I look at a zoom like the first step in Photoshop...cropping! Often I can omit a cropping step out of my workflow (a small but interesting thought). The good L fast zooms tend to be heavy though and that is sometimes a consideration albeit a personal one. If you can nail the shot, it's rewarding but which type of lens you use depends on your situation and style of shooting. Good hunting.

i agree. i cover my range with zooms and own a couple of primes for low light. the zooms get used waaay more than the primes.

if you get a good copy of the 24-70L you'll see what i mean .

ed rader

How do you know if you get a good copy or not?
Do you check the focus, and see if it is back focusing?

surfologist wrote in post #2057551
How do you know if you get a good copy or not?
Do you check the focus, and see if it is back focusing?

Good question. I just bought a new 24-105L. I shot a variety of subjects inside, outside, sunny, cloudy etc. I looked at the photos and saw that they were razor sharp, contrasty, and vivid like I hoped for. Done...I got a good copy! By now (2,649 lenses later.... LOL) I should be able to tell pretty fast.

surfologist wrote in post #2057551
How do you know if you get a good copy or not?
Do you check the focus, and see if it is back focusing?

i just go out a take pictures. if you have front or backfocussing issues your shots will look OOF or soft.

my testing is very unscientific but i have taken the pictures of some things (like in my yard) so many times with many different lenses that i can usually tell pretty quickly if i like a lens.

my 24-70L is excellent at F2.8. i've rented one other 24-70L and it was not as good but it was acceptable.

ed rader

ed rader wrote in post #2057570
i just go out a take pictures. if you have front or backfocussing issues your shots will look OOF or soft.

my testing is very unscientific but i have taken the pictures of some things (like in my yard) so many times with many different lenses that i can usually tell pretty quickly if i like a lens.

ed rader

I do exactly the same thing. In addition to this, I use a garbage can container outside my camera store which is plastered with tiny natural coloured stones about 1/8 inch in diameter. I have looked at sharpness using the same can for about 4 years. For focusing issues I use my bedroom tabletop at different f-stops with centre-only focus point and check which of the many objects are focused! Voila... that's as complicated as I now get. Experience can be used to your advantage, but only once you have enough of it!

breakdown wrote in post #2056436
I have a digital rebel xt right now. I'm trying to decide between getting a 24-70 f/2.8 L or getting three prime lenses; probably the 35 f/1.4, the 50 f/1.8 and the 85 f/1.8. Both set ups would probably be around the same price. I like the idea of versatility with the 24-70L but I'm worried that it won't be enough to shoot at night. I do plan on getting a tripod so I should be able to shoot at night without too many problems.

Another concern of mine is the background blur. Will the 24-70 still give me a nice background blur? I've heard that primes are better for this because they force you to back up to fit the subject in the frame instead of just zooming out. I know I could still back up with the 24-70 but it seems kind of silly to have a zooming lens if all I do is back up so I can use it at 70mm. This is what is making my decision difficult. It's hard to make up my mind which would be better.

I'll leave this personal choice up to you, but please get the 50/1.4 if you do the primes, the 35 and 85, will make you regret that 50/1.8 build. Also the 28mm USM may be a better fit for coverage then the 35mm, though you give up some speed.

Also if you don't own much other glass you may want to look at the 100/2.0 inplace of the 85/1.8 for some great telephoto reach. Both are equally good lenses however.

ed rader wrote in post #2057570
i just go out a take pictures. if you have front or backfocussing issues your shots will look OOF or soft.

my testing is very unscientific but i have taken the pictures of some things (like in my yard) so many times with many different lenses that i can usually tell pretty quickly if i like a lens.

my 24-70L is excellent at F2.8. i've rented one other 24-70L and it was not as good but it was acceptable.

ed rader

I think that the unscientific way is the better way. Afterall, how may times are you going to take photos of test patterns or rows of batteries?

Thanks guys,

I think the best choice will be to start with one or two good zooms then compliment them with primes as time goes on. I think, as an amature photographer, I will benefit more from the ease of use that zooms will offer.

I think a range from 24mm (or 35) to 200mm will cover everything that I need. There are so many options that it's hard to decide!

1. 24-70 + 70-200

2. 24-70 + primes covering up to 200mm

3. primes covering up to 70mm + 70-200

I've heard such good things about the 70-200 lens; I really want to get one. It seems like such a useful focal range and I've seen some stunning pictures produced from them. Because of this lens, options 1 and 3 are looking the best to me.

Which option would you guys recommend and why?

I would choose option # 3 since I love primes more than any zoom lenses

I favor zooms for their versatility. Would I like some nice primes? - Sure.
It will probably 5 years before I have all of the lenses I fancy. I decided to start with zooms and I carry 16-200mm at f2.8 every day.
Now I'm saving for primes!

Hi,

I like your option #3. Also, take a look at the Sigma 30MM f/1.4. Very fast and very sharp.

Here is a review:

http://www.photodo.com​/topic_20.html