CoolToolGuy wrote:
The question that was addressed was price. And there IS more to a lens purchase than price. But ring-type USM focusing has not risen to the top of my priority list as of yet. A nicety, yes, but USM focusing in the Drebel kit lens (available in Japan) doesn't turn it into serious competition with the 50mm f1.4 in the image-quality department.
I realize that the issue was price, but I was pointing out that price ought not be the only consideration. And I'll also point out that the USM on my 24-70 routinely focuses faster and more accurately than that of my 50/1.4. Image-wise, the 1.4 has an edge, at least at wide apertures, but it isn't that significant for my purposes most of the time. YMMV, of course.
I originally got my 85 f.18 at the same time as my 24-70 L to do some theater work. My original vision was to use the 24-70 most of the time, and use the 85 for portraits. I started out moving around, shooting the early blocking, tech and rehearsals, and the zoom was very flexible, as zooms are.
Then I started shooting from a seat during dress rehearsals (and ultimately the performances) and I had the opportunity to change lenses and do some tests. The 85 really started to show its stuff - I kept the ISO at 200, which gave me much better image quality than the 400 and 800 ISOs I was using with the 24-70. And although I kept using the monopod that I had to use with the 24-70, I was able to use better shutter speeds (1/60 and above) to capture the cast during those short periods when they are not moving.
The other thing I always notice and mention about the 24-70 L is its size and weight. That puppy is very big (takes a 77mm filter), long (with the hood on, it looks like some 70-200s), and heavy (2.1 pounds). It is a lot to handle, and in low light levels a monopod is a necessity to eliminate shake - I think Canon should consider IS for it like they do for the 70-200.
So zoom if you must, but there certainly is a place for primes today, and if you have specific needs (like low light settings), a series of primes may be the right choice.
I guess that it all depends on the situation - I can see the usefullness of very fast lenses in your kind of work, but for most of what I do, f/2.8 is fast enough. As long as you are able to work out the position/focal length issues and have the ability to switch lenses when needed, then primes are at an advantage.
For me, the zoom does well, and its convenient, quick and portable compared to primes. But I don't shoot the same situations that you do. And that's probably the most important factor in the ongoing prime-vs-zoom debate.
