35/85/135 vs. 24/50/100 -- prime FL progressions

Do you have have any preference for prime FL progression? I read a post somewhere that suggested that you're either a 35/85//135 person or a 24/50/100 person. Each progression has its own mathematical pattern: the former adding 50mm for every FL, the latter simply doubles up every step.

Of course, the 'holy trinity of primes' only comes in one of these variations.


One could argue that you could simply use a 50mm for normal FOV and then the 85mm for portraits and something else altogether for tele. For those of you who mainly use primes, what is 'your' way of progressing?

Depends... On full frame, I'd be more of a 24/50/100 person. On my 1DII, I really like 35/85. I don't really have a need for a very wide fast prime (at least, not often), so for me on full frame, I'm more of a 50/100 (or 135) type guy. I liked my Sigma 30 + 85L on 1.6x, but I'm finding I like the 35L + 85L on 1.3x even better, which is like 44, 106 on full frame. In fact, it's just about perfect. It is actually something that may prevent me from moving to full frame, since there's not a 50mm prime that is as good as the 35L, and I'd probably sell my 85L (I know...blasphemy, but I really don't like the 85mm focal length on full frame. It's OK, but not something I'd use that often, so I'd probably sell the 85L and go with the 85 1.8 + 135L).

I'm partial to the 24, 50, 85, 135 increments.

I'm a 24/50/100 person on full frame

...but the 85mm F/1.8 is also in my bag, and I love it!

85/135 is a deam on a 1.3/FF bodies IMO.

35/85/135 on a crop, for me.

I shoot mostly people. The 35 for full body, 85 for head shoulder shots indoors, 85/135 outdoors, 35 for "other" shooting.

The second option. I'd probably never use the 50. I never use that focal length now, for anything. The 24 would be usefull indoors and outdoors, the 100 would also work for me indoors and outdoors but it would be a little longer than I would like indoors.

Use overides any potential difference in IQ, imo.

I have two bodies, one with a 35 on it full time. The other body has 50 on it if the 35 is too wide or 24 on it if the 35 is not wide enough

I shoot landscape/cityscape/st​reet/walkabout.

For this 35mm is perfect most of the time.

I'm a 35/85/135 guy on full frame.

I would add another set to the list . . . this one for the croppers.

28/1.8 - 60/2.8 Macro - 100/2 (- 200/2.8L optional)

All three have great color and contrast, are resistant to flare, and use ring USM.

Even though I'm on a crop body, I seem to like the 35/85/135 more than the 24/50/100 set. No real rhyme or reason though; just my personal preference.

TaDa wrote in post #7358571
I fall into the first category

Ditto... I'm a prime traditionalist by nature

- airbutchie

I'm in a mix between those 2 camps, 24mm, 50mm (1.4) and 135... Why? Because I also had the 85mm (1.8) and found the 50, 85 and 135 too close so I either went with the 50 or 135. I could swap down to a 100 I suppose, but the 135's length makes for a nice small light tele when traveling if I want and works well with the TC. Yes the 100 is smaller, but the added reach is nice, and I prefer the larger gap between 135 and 50 -vs- 100 and 50.

d) None of the above? But close to Tim.

For me it'd be:
24/28
50
85
200

Wide angle, normal, short tele, tele.

If there were a 28L I'd be stoked.

timnosenzo wrote in post #7358301
I'm partial to the 24, 50, 85, 135 increments.

you find the last three different enough you use all 3? When/how do you know when to switch? I'm just curious because I always went from the 50 to the 135 or vice versa and never landed on 85 when I had all 3 and I'd love to hear another perspective.

oh, and give the 15mm some love!

Ya, what happened to foot zooming... which is part of the prime only mantra