Prime vs. L Zoom

I like prime lenses for their little bit better IQ and usually a a bit faster, too.

So, I was happily planning on adding a EF 20/2.8, 50/1.4 and 200/2.8 L to my arsenal.

HOWEVER....
I've been talking to a few people at work and one suggested that, for a few bucks more I could add an EF 17-40/4 L [COLOR=black]and a 70-200/4 L and have an entire range of a bit slower lenses, but far better quality and more variety.

I'd like to get opinions, please.

Would it really be wise to go the L route and have a little slower lenses but IQ is better? Is IQ of the slower L really that much better than the 20 or 50 prime??

Your thoughts please.

Than the 20 prime? Maybe. The 17-40 could be just as good if not a bit better than the 20mm. The 20mm isn't one of Canon's best primes (it's not terrible, but it's not their best.)

The 50mm will trounce any L zoom at identical apertures. Most non-L primes will beat L zooms at identical apertures and focal lengths. Of course, wide open vs wide open...the zoom might be better, but you've usually got one to two stops before they're at equal apertures, and that DOES mean something...especially since the L zoom can't compete at f/1.4

Now, the 70-200 f/4L IS is probably just about as good as the 200L in sharpness, as the 70-200 f/4L IS is the best zoom Canon has ever made. The non IS f/4 won't be as good, and neither can do f/2.8.

i would say 17-40 and the 70-200 2.8 faster lens and IQ is very nice on both 70-200 2.8 is vary fast great AF

Naturalist wrote in post #3916872
I like prime lenses for their little bit better IQ and usually a a bit faster, too.

So, I was happily planning on adding a EF 20/2.8, 50/1.4 and 200/2.8 L to my arsenal.

HOWEVER....
I've been talking to a few people at work and one suggested that, for a few bucks more I could add an EF 17-40/4 L [COLOR=black]and a 70-200/4 L and have an entire range of a bit slower lenses, but far better quality and more variety.

I'd like to get opinions, please.

Would it really be wise to go the L route and have a little slower lenses but IQ is better? Is IQ of the slower L really that much better than the 20 or 50 prime??

Your thoughts please.

i like a mixture of zooms and primes but my mainstay lenses are my zooms -- 24-70L, 70-200L f4 IS & 100-400L .

ed rader

I'd get a 17-40, 50 1.4, and 135L.

If I'm not mistaken, the 20, 50, and 200 you mentioned would run you about 1200. The 17-40, 50, and 135L would run you around 1500. More money, but more quality as well. I like the 135 as opposed to the 200 for its faster aperture, faster AF speed, smaller size, and superior sharpness.