Prime sets

Having tried a lot of zooms in my earlier days, I am thinking of more primes to replace the heavier zooms or get a super zoom to replace a few of the heavier ones.

Without compromising quality, what primes would be a good buy to replace the traditional 16-35, 24-70, 70-200 f2.8L? For those who use primes mostly, what would be a good choice to cover most of your work. I'm doing almost only travel photography so a range of focal length will be great.

TIA

14L, 24L, 35L, 50L, 85L, 135L, 200 F2.8L<<<< those would be your BEST options out there. You just need to pick a combination of them that works for you and your bank account, lol!

I personally would get the 14L, 35L, 85L, 135L and 200 F2.8L if money were no object.

JayStar86 wrote in post #10225212
I personally would get the 14L, 35L, 85L, 135L and 200 F2.8L if money were no object.

replace 200 f2.8l with 200 f2.0 if $ were no object

soundwave888 wrote in post #10225240
replace 200 f2.8l with 200 f2.0 if $ were no object

aint that truth. I stand corrected good sir.

To duplicate a f4 zoom line-up (17-40+24-105+70-200), the holy trinity is my choice (35L-85L-135L). Their some of the best primes lenses, but regarding to them, I would finally love to have all canon L primes !

cherrymoon wrote in post #10225483
To duplicate a f4 zoom line-up (17-40+24-105+70-200), the holy trinity is my choice (35L-85L-135L). Their some of the best primes lenses, but regarding to them

If you shoot mostly FF, I'd go this route and add a 1.4 converter for the 135L.

I work with 14L, 24L, 35L, 50L, 85/1.8, 135L.

I was just wondering how much you actually gain in weight for a typical setup.

Using a 35L + 85L + 135L

vs

24-70 + 70-200 2.8L IS II (both pretty heavy zooms)


ZOOMS
70-200 2.8L IS II = 1490g
24-70 = 950g
_________
2440g


PRIMES
35L = 580g
85L = 1,025g
135L = 750g
_________
2355g

So weight wise it's pretty simular isn't it. I guess it's speed vs convenience.

Of course if you add in a 16-35 and a 24L or 14L into the mix...

16-35 II = 640g

14L = 645g
24L II = 650g

So a 16-35 + 24-70 + 70-200 2.8L IS II is about the same weight as a 14L + 35L + 85L + 135L

Of course you could get a 85 1.8 instead and the weight difference might be bigger.


NOW, personally I will probably have the following primes (eventually):
35L + 100L + 400L

Maybe chuck in a 17 TS-E or a 24 TS-E just for giggles.

*for reference only.

I've really enjoyed my 35, 85, 135 primes. So much so that I don't even use my zooms, and I'm looking to sell both of those in the near future to gain a 24 TSE mk2.

Convenience is overrated. For a serious hobbyist like myself, anyway.

.. depends a bit of what your are going to do ...
As a walkaround daytime I use 24L1.4II 85L1.2II and zuiko 500F/8 (candids or far subjects unreachable by walking)
As a sport event (cars dog quadbike) 24L1.4II + 135L2.0 + 300L2.8 (+TC2X)
As evening or night outdoor or indoor 24L1.4II+85L1.2II

24mm is the only one to be sure to go out ..

24L + 50L + 85L
or
35L + 85L + 135L
these seem to be the most often mentioned combos but then again it all depends on your personal preferences.

Are you going to be adding $$ to the budget, or is your budget limited to the proceeds of selling those zooms?

If $$ is no object, JayStar86 is definitely spot on, haha.

Join the Cult of the 50mm only user and be merry!

or the 30mm sigma f1.4 for crop cameras

Thks for the input pals! At least I'm sure what are the definite primes to go for!

Ninja, thks for the weight calculation! Indeed it was a struggle for me coz if I get all the L primes, it just doesn't make sense about the weight considering now there are more lenses it defeat my intention.

So this 14L + 35L + 85L + 135L is prob out for me.

I will be referencing from my 100 IS macro and prob get a 35L or 50L to take over the standard zoom and 17 TS-E or a 15mm fisheye for the really occasional ultra wide. On the super tele side, I probably be keeping my 300 f4 or sold it for a EF200mm f/2L IS USM or EF200mm f/2.8L II USM add a 1.4 TC. I saw one of the photos taken by a owner in this forum and really fall in love with the bokeh! But I prob end up with the 2.8L version instead.

So weight wise....

TS-E17mm - 820g
50mm f/1.4 - 290g
35mm f/1.4L - 580g
100 IS macro - 625g
200 f2.8L - 765g

16-35, 24-70, 70-200 = 3080g
vs
17 + 35 + 100 + 200 = 2790g
17 + 50 + 100 + 200 = 2497g

That's half a kg of difference and some cost savings as well Anyone using this combi can comment on it?