How did *you* choose your primes?

It goes without saying that your choice of lenses partly depends on your subjects, shooting style, etc. But for those who have gone all-prime, how did you go about selecting your primes? Did you go on raw speed (aperture)? Image quality? Price? Whether it has a red "L" on the barrel? Is the 35/85/135 combo simply popular or is it the definitive one true lens setup for anyone who goes all primes? Other thoughts?

Price , I'm poor , and image quality at wider apertures.

^ uhm...not very becoming of your name there hehehe

I'm still working out my primes by trial.
I'm a bang for the buck kind of guy, so not a lot of L lenses end up in my hands (although some do) and since I am about %99 hobby and %1 paid I love my primes.

I buy used what I want to try and sell what I don't like or am no longer using. So financial loss is minimal and I get to personally use the lens I am interested in.
Right now I have a Canon 50mm f/1.8, Canon 50mm f/1.4, Canon 85mm f/1.8, and a Sigma 150mm f/2.8 with plans to buy a 300mm f/4.0 IS and something in the 28-35mm range, just not sure what.

Two things comes to mind when I think of primes: fast, IQ

primes are known for these two things. 35/85/135 combo is popular for full frame because these three evenly cover the focal length range that is used for a wide range of photography. Some people switch around between 24mm/35mm and 50mm/85mm and 100mm/135mm depending on style of shooting and whether they have a cropped or ff sensor.

ccp900 wrote in post #10882701
^ uhm...not very becoming of your name there hehehe

well you have to understand, when he first registered here he got that name. It probably fit.

Now that he has been here a while you know how that story goes

I go for the best quality I can get, no matter the price. I will save for what I want. I won't settle.

Blindfolded myself, threw a dagger at a dartboard, and chose from there.

All kidding aside, 35mm because it's wide and fast but not too wide, 85mm because it's tele enough for my uses, fast, and cheap!

Picked up the 135L as my first prime. I wanted a longer tele lens for shooting my kid and some indoor sports.

Next on the list, 35L.

they each have a use for me, 50mm and 15mm fish. i could get others but i dont need them - i have an 85 and sold it for the 50.

It really depends on what you shoot and your shooting style. I love super thin DOF and I want to get into portraits so naturally the 135L was a solid choice to start with. Now, I find myself in need of something in the shorter range like a 50mm or a 35mm. I like the rendering of the Zeiss glass so I think I'll be ordering a Zeiss 35/2 because you can get that 3D look that I want.

Raw Reach Power...

Started with the 300 f/2.8 + TCs and while the 300 +1.4X is ok, the 300 +2X took too much of an IQ hit.

Simply put: Nothing beats native reach so I popped for the 500mm f/4L IS as well.

Focal lengths that I find myself enjoying.

Whatever comes up second hand at a good price. Obviously you have a 'wish' list, but beggars can't be choosers.

Don't think I have ever bought a lens new and I've had getting on for 20 or so.

But I have ended up with some very nice glass in my bag. Three cheers for photo forums.

Graham

I choose based on what feels natural to me. 35 and 50mm are the most popular (on a 35mm camera), I happen to like 50 better.