sell the primes?

I want to sell my primes. my kids are all grown and I no longer have to deal with low light gymnasium sports, or night time high school football. It's just me shooting what i want to now, and thats wildlife and scenery. slower zooms with L quality build is what i need now.
so the 50 1.4, the 85, the 135 and the 200 will all go away and be replaced by a 17-40 and a 70-200, probably the 2.8 non IS, just to have some fast glass left in the collection. Along with a 24-105 and a 100-400 I already own, I should be covered. I am keeping my 100 macro, and it will make the outdoor kit complete with 5 lenses.
I have almost got myself convinced- any opinions?

Sell all but the 50 1.4 because that's a great walkabout with 5D for stuff like family outings. Get the 70-200 2.8IS instead of 2.8L non IS-- the increase in versatility is great, especially since you seem to be quite used to high apertures.

17-40L + 24-105 + 70-200 f/2.8IS + 50 f/1.4 justincase will be great for a switch to zooms.

And since you're getting the 70-200 already, would you want the 100-400L, or would you want a sharper 300mm f/4IS or 400mm f/5.6L prime? Go read up on that.

Definitely go for the IS version of the 70-200.

Is that the 85 1.8 or 85L?

philthejuggler wrote in post #7621367
Definitely go for the IS version of the 70-200.

+1 You'll be glad you bought that one, it's simply amazing!

Are any grandkids in the future? All that kid stuff might be popping right back up again!

I think you would be making a huge mistake selling all your primes. If I had your stash, I'd still keep them and save for a 17-40. I may sell the 50 1.4 and 85 1.2 because you have a 100. But the 135 & 200 are nice lenses. I do have kids and I don't have the 135 or the 200, but the 70-200 2.8 IS. You are doing what I'm doing backwards. How interesting.

SuzyView wrote in post #7622246
I think you would be making a huge mistake selling all your primes. If I had your stash, I'd still keep them and save for a 17-40. I may sell the 50 1.4 and 85 1.2 because you have a 100. But the 135 & 200 are nice lenses. I do have kids and I don't have the 135 or the 200, but the 70-200 2.8 IS. You are doing what I'm doing backwards. How interesting.

I think you two should buy a plane ticket and meet up for trades. really!

thanks everyone. Its interesting that the 50 is considered a walkaround lens, I guess I am just used to shooting at greater distances, cause my walkaround has always been the 24 105. with the economy the way it is, I expect rebates on some of the more expensive lenses soon, the 70-200 IS is in that league for sure. Maybe that will happen without selling the primes, but I have a feeling that if Suzyview showed up at the airport we would be doing some business. Grandkids will be along in the next half dozen years or so I am sure, but maybe the budget will be better then and I could rebuy the primes in the L series next time ( the 185 is the non L version, a great lens but not a critter gawker) Thanks to all, I appreciate all the opinions shared. I think I might be even more torn now, more options to consider, more reasons to hold onto what I have, more lenses to dream about.

Headshotzx wrote in post #7621216
Sell all but the 50 1.4 because that's a great walkabout with 5D for stuff like family outings. Get the 70-200 2.8IS instead of 2.8L non IS-- the increase in versatility is great, especially since you seem to be quite used to high apertures.

17-40L + 24-105 + 70-200 f/2.8IS + 50 f/1.4 justincase will be great for a switch to zooms.

And since you're getting the 70-200 already, would you want the 100-400L, or would you want a sharper 300mm f/4IS or 400mm f/5.6L prime? Go read up on that.

that's the only short prime i own so that must be good advice .

ed rader

I'd keep the 135. Essentially the same thing as a 70-200, especially for the use you want (fast telephoto).

50mm has always been considered a walkaround focal length, but some prefer a little longer or wider, like 35 or 85mm. You obviously prefer longer.

I know I'd be unhappy if my fastest glass from 17-70 were both f/4 lenses, although you did say "slower zooms" suit you.

I had mad desire for a prime lineup, but in real-world shooting, a good normal zoom (your 24-105) should be f/2.8 IMO, giving versatility that primes can't offer, albeit at a speed cost. I'm finding that for many situations, I can leave the house with my 5D and 28-75 2.8, and cover the majority of what I want to shoot without lugging a bag at all.

I can't trade any of my glass, sorry. I use them for my work. But I like borrowing and lending out some to friends here. They usually treat my stuff well. I even let Maureen have my 70-200 2.8 IS today.

thanks anyway... this thread has provoked some thought, thats what I was after. I am pretty well covered outdoors now, better would be , well, better....but where do the improvements really need to be made? I am still thinking about trading the primes for the fast handling but slow apertured L quality zooms, but I picked all of my glass for reasons, and those reasons aren't going away forever. good trustworthy lenses should stay in the bag as long as possible, shouldn't they?

You know, fast glass may incidently go for low light, but where it shines is in fast shutter speeds, low ISO, IQ and sharpness outdoors. To your arsenal I would add the 1.4x and 2x TCs, a good tripod and monopod and call you fixed.