Im thinking out loud about my setup

I've been struggling for a while now. I finally reached my ideal setup 6 months ago and now I'm thinking I'd rather have primes; So I'm trying to figure out if I should sell all/some and go for it.

Im calculating in $ for now, although I think it would be more profitable to sell in europe and buy in the us (is totally feasible for me).

Line up now & how much i could sell them for:
5D 1200
500D 530 (refund, not adding to total)

16-35 II 1300
24-70 1200
70-200 2.8 900
50 1.8 80
--------------- +
3480

Primes Id consider (add a couple if you feel im missing an essential)
24 1000
35 1250
50 1 250
50 2 1225
85 1 1250
85 2 1650
100 425
135 820
200 650

24 50 85 1 100 = 2925


Mostly my setup is getting a bit too heavy and big for me to even want to carry around (95lbs small female). Like the other day when I went out with my friends I got there and I was like "Oh yeah why didn't i think to bring my camera?".. because i had the 24-70 with hood attached to the 5d sitting on my desk and probably didn't even want to try to stuff in into my handbag.

The rebel is broken (sd card sensor doesn't work anymore) so Im waiting to get to the us to get a refund on it (next week) and I dont think I will replace it because I really dont need two camera bodies at the moment.

So keep the 5D and sell the zooms and buy the primes? Id end up making money. I love the weight of the rebel but I LOOOOOOVE the FF. I've been trying so hard to convince myself not to buy the 5D2 but recently I've been giving into the craving. (They're actually a lot cheaper in Europe - used - so maybe Ill pick up one soon, even-though I got a killer deal on my 5D.) Although I really did want to wait until the 5D3 came out to pick up a cheaper 5D2, so I think I will stick with my 5D for now.


I guess this is just a thread for someone to think out loud with me with things I havent considered yet I have a flash and tripod so thats beside the point. I'm not interested in the 7D so dont even suggest it.

I thought only men had this disease. You have an ideal setup and want to change it. I can relate to that.

jb1911 wrote in post #10594178
I thought only men had this disease. You have an ideal setup and want to change it. I can relate to that.

I know! I feel like such a douche, because I've been working towards this setup for 2+years and now Im like "ef this i want something else" :')

But then again women do have a reputation for not being able to make up their mind, combine that with this hobby and you've got something worse than men. lol

So what kind of shooting do you do? I can see a set of primes if you do studio work. But if you are out in the wilds shooting landscapes and wildlife, high end zooms such 24-77, 70-200, and 100-400 may give you the range you need and still have size and weight you can handle in a backpack.

So much has to do with what you want to shoot.

MCAsan wrote in post #10594202
So what kind of shooting do you do? I can see a set of primes if you do studio work. But if you are out in the wilds shooting landscapes and wildlife, high end zooms such 24-77, 70-200, and 100-400 may give you the range you need and still have size and weight you can handle in a backpack.

So much has to do with what you want to shoot.

Ah yes forgot to include that, well I NEED a macro (something better than the 24-70 at least) because I'm really getting into that. Other than that I dont really have specific things I shoot, mostly landscapes, night skylines and architecture when I can. Therefore I'm more of a wide angle person but I do love zoos also but that's not really very urgent. Check out my flickr for more examples.
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/emmarosemc/

So i guess most importantly macro, wide angle (24 on ff should be enough) and maybe portraits (50)

EmmaRose wrote in post #10594214
Ah yes forgot to include that, well I NEED a macro (something better than the 24-70 at least) because I'm really getting into that. Other than that I dont really have specific things I shoot, mostly landscapes, night skylines and architecture when I can. Therefore I'm more of a wide angle person but I do love zoos also but that's not really very urgent. Check out my flickr for more examples.
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/emmarosemc/

So i guess most importantly macro, wide angle (24 on ff should be enough) and maybe portraits (50)

I don't see anything in what you shoot that will be better served with primes. I see someone who is going to spend a lot of additional money getting enough primes to cover the ranges the zooms had down, and then spend a lot of time changing lenses to gain just about nothing.

I preferentially use my zooms as much as possible. My primes are basically for when I really need apertures faster than f/2.8.

JeffreyG wrote in post #10594221
I don't see anything in what you shoot that will be better served with primes. I see someone who is going to spend a lot of additional money getting enough primes to cover the ranges the zooms had down, and then spend a lot of time changing lenses to gain just about nothing.

I preferentially use my zooms as much as possible. My primes are basically for when I really need apertures faster than f/2.8.

I agree with the fact that it wont serve me better in terms of usage. What I'm most concerned about is weight. (Specifically weight on the camera, what i carry around doesn't bother me that much.)

Just realized i was calculating the 1,2 m1 of the 85 instead of the 1,8, so: 24 50 85 100 = 2025
which makes me switching free up money which is good news

Why the 100 compared to 135?

Here's my take on the setup you want

24L II / 35L + 50 1.4/ 50 1.2 + 85 1.2 + 135L.

Keep in mind your computer if you are going to go for the 5d. I have a latest-generation 17" macbook pro and my old 50d used to bring it to it's knees often. If you're doing a lot of importing, batch editing, pretty much anything in RAW, you better have a very nice machine.

By the time you pack enough primes to cover the focal lengths of your zooms, you'll be schlepping around more weight than ever. If weight is a concern, use your tripod more often; let it bear the burden for you. And when you go out with your friends, just bring your phone--surely it has a camera, and that one should be good enough for snapshots of friends. Seriously, no dedicated camera will ever be small enough for those kinds of outings; people with the tiniest little PnS cameras still leave them at home because they're taking up too much pocket space.

Use the great gear you have to take photographs, not happy snaps of the friends. For what it's worth, I'm also a rather gracile female with a lot of hefty camera gear. I take it out when photography is my primary activity, and when that's the case, I'll carry the weight of the world on my back. Otherwise, I use my phone camera--or just hold up my hands in a rectangular frame shape and say, "CLICK!"...

Omaru wrote in post #10600614
Why the 100 compared to 135?

Here's my take on the setup you want

24L II / 35L + 50 1.4/ 50 1.2 + 85 1.2 + 135L.

macro dude

I think the 85 1,2 is a little to steep for me, ive read a lot about it recently and i think id be a little too frustrated with it.
and the 24 -35 - 50 - 85-list i dont think id use the 35 very much, but i could add that later on.
The 50 1,2 has a lot of issues too, i think i might just non L it for a while, we kinda need the money.

Why not add the desired prime lenses to your zoom lenses? This will allow you to still use a zoom when it best fits the situation. Maybe sell the 24-70 and replace it with a Sigma 50 1.4 and 100mm macro. Primes are nice but there are times when foot zooming is not an option. Just a thought...

Omaru wrote in post #10600614
Why the 100 compared to 135?

Here's my take on the setup you want

24L II / 35L + 50 1.4/ 50 1.2 + 85 1.2 + 135L.

kevinmcdade wrote in post #10600721
Why not add the desired prime lenses to your zoom lenses? This will allow you to still use a zoom when it best fits the situation. Maybe sell the 24-70 and replace it with a Sigma 50 1.4 and 100mm macro. Primes are nice but there are times when foot zooming is not an option. Just a thought...

Lol I dont have that kind of money, nor do I want that much equipment simply because I wouldn't be able to carry that kind of weight

EmmaRose wrote in post #10601136
Lol I dont have that kind of money, nor do I want that much equipment simply because I wouldn't be able to carry that kind of weight

You're not carrying all of your gear with you every time you take your DSLR out, are you? That could get EXTREMELY heavy. I've got several lenses and bodies but unless I'm shooting a paid event, I have 1 body and 2-3 lenses at a time. Usually my 16-35, 50 1.4, and 100 f/2. I like small bags to force myself to make careful selections about what gear I bring with me for casual photography.

Part of the fun in photography is picking out and getting new gear. Good luck in your decision!!!