2 Non-L Primes Vs. 1 L Prime?

Ok, so I'm starting to want to learn to use prime lenses, to learn to frame better without the aid of a zoom lens etc...

I have the 5D Mark II, and I'm leaning towards getting the 85mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.4, so I can play around with those two focal lengths and try to learn using the primes without spending $1300 - $1500 for a L series prime.

Or should I just get the 35mm 1.4 L and learn on that one bad mofo?

The 85 1.8 and 50 1.4 would cost me around $700 total for used copies.
The 35 1.4 L would cost me around $1200 - $1350 total for a used copy.

Do I need the two different focal lengths, or just the one? I have the nifty fifty too, but it just never feels right on my camera with how its build quality is.

I've seen some shots from the 85 1.8 and 50 1.4 on the 5D Mark II, and I wouldn't have thought they were non-L glass, they were that good...but then the shots I've seen from the 35 1.4 L on the 5D Mark II were pretty amazing as well. I shoot mainly portraits, lifestyle, family type shots, a lot of kids, especially my one year old son.

So should I got two non-L primes vs. one L prime?

To me the answer depends on what the future purchase path is. What is your budget over say, the next 6-12 months? I know personally I often make the mistake of feeling like I can't "afford" L glass but then I look back and realize that I spent $1200 on photography stuff over the last three months and have another $300 in savings so obviously I COULD have afforded an L lens if that's what I wanted to buy.

Well, budget wise, I can probably afford the 35 1.4, but I did just buy a 70-200 2.8 L IS lens, so I was going to try to stay cheaper to get some decent glass in the bag, all while learning how to use the primes. That was my initial idea, but then I started thinking, for another $700 or so I could get the 35L.

I've rented the 35L, loved how it felt on the camera, got some decent shots, but ended up using the 70-200 more during that trip, so the 35L rental kind of was a waste, I wished I could have used it more or dedicated more time to it.

The thing is I have all the focal lengths, 35, 50 and 85 with my current zooms. But I'm wanting to learn to shoot with primes, so thats why I'm here today asking this question. So I don't want to get caught up in the money, per say, although it does matter, but maybe what if any more value I get out of 2 non L primes vs. one L prime?

I want to own the 35L eventually, and thought I could get the two non L's, learn to use them and get some great shots, and then sell them at a later date, and put that money towards the 35L, once I get used to using primes...or should I just get used to using a lens I want in the bag eventually anyway, that is what I'm kind of asking?

I say get those two primes, personally. That way, you can see which way you want to bend on primes and their focal lengths. Like you said, you can always sell them down the road once you know where you're going with primes. As an aside, why not get one prime (non-L) and rent the other and go somewhere for the weekend? Doing something in OKC with the two primes? Instead of buying them at least.

Once upon a time, I felt the same way as you do. Why bother with a prime if my zoom will fill in some of the requirements. But, DOF and faster speeds are a definite plus. What I'm doing now is just letting my 24-70L sit there while the only thing on my camera is the 30/1.4. And, even if my shooting style hasn't changed much (I think) I have had the same amount of fun with that lens as I did going from 17-50/2.8 to 24-70/2.8. Probably more, since I don't have to bump up ISO as much.

If you only want them to "learn", why don't you just set your zooms at those focal lengths and go shoot with them for a while. As far as "framing" goes, it's the same thing.

You could save yourself all that money, find out what length(s) you like best in primes, and then buy. That would seem the most logical.

The little difference in aperture speed is not going to affect your learning.

I would just get the 35L. Just go for it, you will love it - trust me. Start with what you really want - the 35L. Why mess around?

I'd say the 35L. It's just the most perfect lens on this camera. If Canon didn't have to provide a zoom as a kit lens, the would have included the 35L instead of the 24-105.

It's an ideal, all-around lens on this camera.

An alternative would be to get the 35f2 and the 85f1.8. This would let you experiment with the focal lengths and fast apertures. Both are very good lenses. If you really like the 35 and want to upgrade later, you can.

If you really want the speed, image quality at large apertures, and weight of the 35f1.4 - you can do that now.

ChrisMc73 wrote in post #10527011
Ok, so I'm starting to want to learn to use prime lenses, to learn to frame better without the aid of a zoom lens etc...

I have the 5D Mark II, and I'm leaning towards getting the 85mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.4, so I can play around with those two focal lengths and try to learn using the primes without spending $1300 - $1500 for a L series prime.

Or should I just get the 35mm 1.4 L and learn on that one bad mofo?

The 85 1.8 and 50 1.4 would cost me around $700 total for used copies.
The 35 1.4 L would cost me around $1200 - $1350 total for a used copy.

Do I need the two different focal lengths, or just the one? I have the nifty fifty too, but it just never feels right on my camera with how its build quality is.

I've seen some shots from the 85 1.8 and 50 1.4 on the 5D Mark II, and I wouldn't have thought they were non-L glass, they were that good...but then the shots I've seen from the 35 1.4 L on the 5D Mark II were pretty amazing as well. I shoot mainly portraits, lifestyle, family type shots, a lot of kids, especially my one year old son.

So should I got two non-L primes vs. one L prime?

I'd say just start with 85 1.8 which is amazing on FF.

Well, my favorite local photographer, Carl Zoch of Carl Zoch Photography uses these lenses:

If I'm going to draw inspiration from his work, I should maybe have some of his same tools...?

ChrisMc73 wrote in post #10527011
Ok, so I'm starting to want to learn to use prime lenses, to learn to frame better without the aid of a zoom lens etc...

Tape the zoom ring down...

ChrisMc73 wrote in post #10527347
Well, my favorite local photographer, Carl Zoch of Carl Zoch Photography uses these lenses:

If I'm going to draw inspiration from his work, I should maybe have some of his same tools...?

Silly thought process. It's not the lenses that make you like his work.

cdifoto wrote in post #10527358
Silly thought process. It's not the lenses that make you like his work.

Not totally true, some of his shots are clearly using the TS lenses, and I don't know that I can get "looks" like his without one? Not that I even know how to use one, lol...

ChrisMc73 wrote in post #10527011
Ok, so I'm starting to want to learn to use prime lenses, to learn to frame better without the aid of a zoom lens etc...

I have the 5D Mark II, and I'm leaning towards getting the 85mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.4, so I can play around with those two focal lengths and try to learn using the primes without spending $1300 - $1500 for a L series prime.

Or should I just get the 35mm 1.4 L and learn on that one bad mofo?

The 85 1.8 and 50 1.4 would cost me around $700 total for used copies.
The 35 1.4 L would cost me around $1200 - $1350 total for a used copy.

Do I need the two different focal lengths, or just the one? I have the nifty fifty too, but it just never feels right on my camera with how its build quality is.

I've seen some shots from the 85 1.8 and 50 1.4 on the 5D Mark II, and I wouldn't have thought they were non-L glass, they were that good...but then the shots I've seen from the 35 1.4 L on the 5D Mark II were pretty amazing as well. I shoot mainly portraits, lifestyle, family type shots, a lot of kids, especially my one year old son.

So should I got two non-L primes vs. one L prime?

That's definitely a good start. The 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 were the first two primes that I purchased. This route buys you time to save up funds to jump to the 35L.

If you have the dough to start at the 35L, I don't think you'll be disappointed at all.

I'm really torn right now...lol...everyones input has been great, but it hasn't helped me lean one way or another...such is life...
The whole idea of setting my zooms to 24, 35, 50, 85 bla bla bla, doesn't work well, tried it. I still grab it to zoom, besides the extra sharpness I get from a prime is what I'm after in the primes, not just the manual framing techniques.

What would be the costs of the 24, 35, 50, 85 NON-L versions combined? Are there NON-L for all those?