Full frame with primes, want wider than 50mm

I use full frame and I shoot everything as a hobbyist -- people, travel, events, etc.

I recently sold my medium and wide zooms (17-40, 28-75) because I rarely used them anymore and I favor my two primes most of the time. I'm down to 50mm f/1.4, 100mm f/2.8 Macro, and 70-200mm f/4L.

I want primes and I want to be able to go wider than 50mm. I think 24/50/100 could be a nice prime lineup if I'm basing it around the lenses I currently own. However the 24mm f/2.8 isn't that fast for a prime, and I can't justify the 24L since I don't anticipate using that focal length enough to warrant the expenditure.

After looking around a bit, the Canon 28mm f/1.8 or Sigma 24mm f/1.8 seem like appealing options since they are both relatively fast for under $500. But are there other options I should be considering? What else have I missed?

Should I consider simply trading 50mm f/1.4 for a 35L, rather than complementing it with a 24 or 28? Would the gap between 35 and 100 be too great?

Surely someone will suggest 35/85/135, but truth be told I would prefer to avoid a "sell everything and start over" approach.

Thanks in advance for your input!

just get the 24...2.8 is fast enough for most purposes, it just seems u want a very fast good quality prime without spending the money...you get what you pay for

RL. wrote in post #11285937
just get the 24...2.8 is fast enough for most purposes, it just seems u want a very fast good quality prime without spending the money...you get what you pay for

I understand the sentiment but what gives me pause is that Canon doesn't seem to have an midrange option at 24mm. It's either $300 or $1300 as far as Canon goes. But maybe the Sigma is that in-between option I'm looking for. The $300 option may be just fine, but I want to make sure I look at all the alternatives before I jump in.

The sigma 24mm f/1.8 looks like a great lens. I'd go for that if you can't justify the 24LII

24L MKII is a amazing lens if you want to go wide on FF.

Ever consider the 35 f/2? Very inexpensive and very nice.

Go on make the splash. The 24/50/100 is a wonderful lens lineup

versedmb wrote in post #11286520
Ever consider the 35 f/2? Very inexpensive and very nice.

Other than some pretty bad vignetting and softness in the corners wide open, I agree with this. It's got a bang-for-the-buck that rivals the nifty fifty IMHO. Had one for a while and loved it, just never used that focal length all that much.

Thanks everyone for the input so far.

versedmb wrote in post #11286520
Ever consider the 35 f/2? Very inexpensive and very nice.

Short of switching up my entire lineup, I had somewhat written off 35mm because it seems so close to my existing 50. However the price is right on that 35mm f/2.

I use it - the 35f2- on a crop and it is very good on my T2i. Personally, when I shot film years ago, the 28f2.8 just sat in a bag. If I needed a wide lens for travel, I'd use a zoom. If you want a fast prime, the 35f1.4 would be the sharpest on full frame at large apertures. If you want to save some money, the Canon 35f2 or Canon 28f1.8 would be useful.

The 24/2.8 is a very good lens. Why not get a used one and see how often you use it. Later you could resell it to get something else without losing much money. And, maybe it is all you need.

i would recommend the canon 28 over the sigma 24 simply because the canon has USM. The sigma wider primes that are FF compatible don't have HSM (USM equiv) so there is no full time manual focusing.

dmnelson wrote in post #11285920
I use full frame and I shoot everything as a hobbyist -- people, travel, events, etc.

I recently sold my medium and wide zooms (17-40, 28-75) because I rarely used them anymore and I favor my two primes most of the time. I'm down to 50mm f/1.4, 100mm f/2.8 Macro, and 70-200mm f/4L.

I want primes and I want to be able to go wider than 50mm. I think 24/50/100 could be a nice prime lineup if I'm basing it around the lenses I currently own. However the 24mm f/2.8 isn't that fast for a prime, and I can't justify the 24L since I don't anticipate using that focal length enough to warrant the expenditure.

After looking around a bit, the Canon 28mm f/1.8 or Sigma 24mm f/1.8 seem like appealing options since they are both relatively fast for under $500. But are there other options I should be considering? What else have I missed?

Should I consider simply trading 50mm f/1.4 for a 35L, rather than complementing it with a 24 or 28? Would the gap between 35 and 100 be too great?

Surely someone will suggest 35/85/135, but truth be told I would prefer to avoid a "sell everything and start over" approach.

Thanks in advance for your input!

A lot of people swear by the 35/85/135 route. Since you said you don't really think you'd get enough use out of something really wide to justify the 24L, I think the 35L is a logical choice. It's wide enough for group shots but still close enough for close ups. I think it's a great compromise between the 24 and 50.

Thanks for your thoughts on the different 24/28mm options everyone!

realmike15 wrote in post #11287600
A lot of people swear by the 35/85/135 route. Since you said you don't really think you'd get enough use out of something really wide to justify the 24L, I think the 35L is a logical choice. It's wide enough for group shots but still close enough for close ups. I think it's a great compromise between the 24 and 50.

Are you suggesting replacing the 50 1.4 with the 35L as opposed to adding to it?

I like the spacing of 24/50/100 or 35/85/135, but other groupings seem too bunched up on one end. For example I don't know that I'd be excited about the idea of 35/50/100 or 35/85/100. So I find myself faced with the question of whether I should get one wide lens to complement what I currently have, or reconfigure the entire lineup.

dmnelson wrote in post #11287847
Thanks for your thoughts on the different 24/28mm options everyone!

Are you suggesting replacing the 50 1.4 with the 35L as opposed to adding to it?

I like the spacing of 24/50/100 or 35/85/135, but other groupings seem too bunched up on one end. For example I don't know that I'd be excited about the idea of 35/50/100 or 35/85/100. So I find myself faced with the question of whether I should get one wide lens to complement what I currently have, or reconfigure the entire lineup.

I only suggested the 35/85/135 because it is a popular combo that a lot of people swear by. You sounded like you didn't want to spend money on a 24L because you didn't think you'd use it enough. Most people find the 35L very useful as a walk around all purpose Wide/Standard lens. So yes, I do think the 35L is capable of being a replacement to the 50. The 35L is nice because it can usually fulfill the role of both a 24mm and 50mm in a lot of situations.

As for the other choices. I've never been impressed with the 28mm from Canon, it gets better stopped down but it's still disappointing in most aspects. Sigma I'm just not a fan of anymore, after owning two different model lenses that both exhibited focus issues.

To me there are a few great choices in the UWA market. Canon 14L/24L, Zeiss 21mm, or Samyang 14mm. Unforunately, most of those are quite expensive.