another "should I sell my zoom for prime" thread

Thinking of hocking the 24-70 and getting the 28 1.8 (and maybe a midrange prime).

just wanted to hear what your opinions would be on this. Zoom is very convenient, but not a necessity. I want a prime, as they are smaller, lighter, faster, and sharper. I guess speed is the most important thing to me. I LOVE the result from my 85. And to be honest, the 85 is sharper than my 24-70.

What do you all think? Or any other recommendations other than the 28 1.8?
Thanks.

Dont do it!

If your gonna do such a silly thing buy a 35L

haha I think the wider 28 is a better FL though. I was also hoping to having a few spare $$ and get the sig 50. the 35L is almost same price as the 24-70! OUCH!

Livinthalife wrote in post #9008434
haha I think the wider 28 is a better FL though. I was also hoping to having a few spare $$ and get the sig 50. the 35L is almost same price as the 24-70! OUCH!

If you're comfortable using primes only then fair enough, but the loss of flexibility and versatility of a zoom should not be taken lightly.

That being said, the Sigma 30 might be a better option than the 28. I just picked one up and am very impressed!

Yeah, it really depends upon what you shoot and what you expect.

I'm a fan of primes, but there are times and places zooms are near essential.

Other times, a prime is more useful.

I'm quite happy with the 28/1.8. It's very compact, even with it's lens hood, and has good image/build quality.

35L

I have both the 35L and the 24-70. Love them both, but the 35L is my b*tch

splitslim wrote in post #9008583
35L

I have both the 35L and the 24-70. Love them both, but the 35L is my b*tch

first time I heard the L being called that!

I would sell the 24-70 for a 35L.

Just got my first prime - Sigma 30 1.4 off ebay and it's a great addition to my zooms, adding lower light capability and great short DOF shots, but them zooms are here to stay. I'm now hankering after a Sigma 50mm 1.4. (I have 500D body).

have you considered the Canon EF 24mm f/1.4 L II USM? It's faster and wider then the 28. If you are selling the 24-70 you won't be losing any of wide angle and you shouldn't have to come up with too much more $$

according to TDP:
"My conclusion was the first line in this review. The Canon EF 24mm f/1.4 L II USM Lens is, without question, Canon's best-performing (optically and physically) and best-built autofocus 24mm lens. If you want the best Canon 24mm AF lens, look no longer. This is it. "

If you get the 28mm 1.8, be advised that it's kind of soft until you get to 2.8. I usually never go larger than 2.8 because it's not as sharp.

I sorta did the opposite. I shot with the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and 85/1.8 on two bodies. IQ was impeccable. I've since purchased the 24-70L, and it's a lot easier to shoot events with the 24-70 on one body (and I often also use the 70-200 on my other body)

That said, I still do use the primes on occasion.

Image quality wise, the primes easily equal (if not totally slaughter) the L zoom lens. And they're faster! And lighter!

For what its worth, I went from the 24-70 to the 35L. I found that for me, the flexibility of a zoom was more important than speed and switched back. If you can live without that flexibility then go for it.

I would keep the 24-70L. You can always use a zoom, but you can't always use a prime. Add a prime to compliment your tool set rather than replace something.

zone555 wrote in post #9008911
I would keep the 24-70L. You can always use a zoom, but you can't always use a prime.

That makes no sense. You can't use a zoom if shutterspeeds require faster than f2.8, can you? Both are handy, but a fast prime is flexible for light levels, where a zoom is not. Yes you lose framing flexibility by not being able to zoom, but that's the compromise.

As for the OP's question, Personally, I would MUCH rather have a two fast prime setup than one overpriced f2.8 zoom. I don't think you will need to cover 50, though. I would definitely also put the Sigma 30mm 1.4 on your short list since you shoot crop.