I'm thinking of going all prime lenses... reccomendations?

JaGWiRE wrote in post #2064361
Does the 70-200 F4L do decent in stadiums and stuff for professional games?

this is 3 stops slower! how're you going to freeze the action?

Jaetie wrote in post #2064830
this is 3 stops slower! how're you going to freeze the action?

Easy! Bump it up to ISO 800 or so...

braduardo wrote in post #2063773
You should really buy your lenses based on what you will be using them for. For example, if you will be shooting 90% of the time in good light, you really don't need FAST.

absolutely.

for me, fast primes make sense for the amount of concerts i shoot. for a walkabout lens, i can't imagine i'd need to be under 2.8 for much of the time, so i am thinking of ditching the kit lens for something a bit more flexible (say the sigma or toki competitor to the 24-70L).

jr_senator wrote in post #2064175
There once was a time (30-35 years ago) when I could justify having only primes because zooms back then really were not very good opticly and/or speed wise. But many of the zooms are so good now that I use one as my walk-around lens (24-70L). My other lenses are primes though (15mm, 100mm macro, 135L and 1.4x TC).

This was me too - 5 film bodies for all the different film types, and 16 primes from 16mm to 1100mm. Changing was a pain (should I use the 24? 28? 35?). Now I cover all those, and the 17mm, with my 17-40L, which is plenty sharp enough, unlike the zooms of old. I always hated old zooms for lens flare, but the 17-40 is very highly resistant (when not fitted with a filter).

I used to carry a mountain of gear - now I just have a very good camera and two very good zooms. I'll add a wider zoom and a macro, but I won't need much more than that (ok, famous last words!).

Choose primes when you have a specific need that they fulfil - not as a dogma. The sharper a lens is, the better technique is required to get the most from it. Just like the old days of 25ASA Kodachrome or Ektar, if you weren't using a tripod, it wasn't worth taking the picture.

braduardo wrote in post #2065257
Easy! Bump it up to ISO 800 or so...

As good as this image is, it's not really saleable, in my opinion. You would have to be close enough to identify the player, and thus you would need a much longer lens.

When I was shooting a minor-league baseball game several years ago, I used my 70-200/4L with a 1.4 teleconverter on my 10D. That's the equivalent of about 450mm in 35mm photography. And it wasn't long enough for the far-side outfielder. At f/5.6 (effective), the lens was too slow. Even at ISO 800, the stadium lights were not enough to permit a sufficiently fast shutter speed. I had a monopod, but that wasn't enough.

A pro would have been down by the dugout instead of up in the stands like I was, and the pro would have had a 400/2.8 IS, which is two stops faster in addition to the extra two stops of camera shake reduction from the IS. That would have made all the difference in the world. There's a reason why the pros use that expensive stuff.

To the OP:

As to my favorite primes, I favor those lenses that do things zoom lenses can't do, no matter how good they are. No zoom lens can do what the 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 lenses can do--they are too slow by a stop or two. Let alone the 85/1.2L.

But I think Canon's wide zooms are at least as good as their wide primes, so I'm not tempted by anything shorter than the 35 (which is slightly longer than normal on my 10D). If I win the Lottery, I'll find an adapted 21mm Distagon.

If you do long-range portraits, even with a 24x36 sensor, there is no zoom that can do what the 135/2L does. I'm not as impressed with the 135/2.8SF lens, which I own and never use because it is not faster than my medium zoom and the rendition is not as good as my adapted Zeiss Jena 135/3.5 Sonnar.

The 300/4 looks like a good deal if you need a lens that long. I can adapt medium-format primes that length to my Canon (such as the Zeiss Jena 300/4 Sonnar), and that's what I will use if I ever need it. I haven't yet.

I also have the 50/2.5 macro instead of the 100, but I bought it for copy work and my copy stand isn't tall enough even for the 50 (when used with a small sensor).

Rick "occasionally tempted by the Sigma 30/1.4" Denney

Madweasel wrote in post #2067412
The sharper a lens is, the better technique is required to get the most from it.

That should be carved into the forehead of every novice equipment freak.

Rick "who has learned this the hard way" Denney

rdenney wrote in post #2067689
As good as this image is, it's not really saleable, in my opinion. You would have to be close enough to identify the player, and thus you would need a much longer lens.

It was never intended to be sold. I was little more than a snapshot really. I was talking with my buddy, heard the crack of the bat, turned and brought up the camera just in time to snap off one shot. The quality is nothing to rave about, and I didn't have nearly the reach I would have liked, but the motion is frozen quite well, at 1/320 second and ISO 800.

Not a great shot, but a pretty good example of freezing motion. Just wanted to show that it can be done...

I prefer to use my primes over my zooms - I feel like I spend less time thinking about the shot/compisition and more time just zooming in and out. That said, zooms have their place and I wouldn't mind having a single lens to cover a nice walkaround range (24-70, maybe?) to go along with my 10-22 and 70-200.

You already have capabilities from 18-210mm, so you should know what focal lengths you use the most just by checking the exif data of you photos.

You also know you want a fast lens since you're thinking of replacing your 50mm/1.8 with a 50mm/1.4.

I would suggest getting a wide angle in the 20mm range for at least one of your primes. I bought the 35mm/f2.0 and haven't used my kit lens since(18-55). My only regret is not being able to take wide angle shots on vacation, in botanical gardens, landscapes, etc. So I'm looking for a 20mm prime now.

My problem with zooms is that they're too slow for and too unreliable for:
Manual focusing (and autofocusing too)
low light conditions
manual electronic flash use (varying guide#'s with varying focal lenghts).

So my advice for me is that I should have started with a 20mm f2 or faster and used it until I needed something else. Maybe thats useful to you. Good luck.