Shooting nothing but primes, any regrets?

my first L 24-70(sold) really not satisfied and that was 4 years ago in replacement i got 17-40 w/c i keep till this day, got my 2nd L 70-200 2.8 IS(sold) after a year of use and got me straight primes(100 macro, 85 1.8, 50 1.4) and some light. right now my 17-40 is my only zoom 4 yrs tested and still rocking. but for my style i prefer primes, im planning to grab 35L and 135L later this year in replacement for the primes i have, its sharpness and quick response is an addiction to me.

Five Zooms and 2 primes. I've made my choice and no regrets.

realmike15 wrote in post #11571207
If I really want to get creative with Focus, I'd sooner pick up a TS-E than a Prime.

When did TS-Es stop being primes?

realmike15 wrote in post #11571207
I did the prime only thing for a while, I couldn't find enough benefits to stick with it though. I'm so impressed by my 24-70 that to shoot with only primes seems insane now. Looking at the 24-70 samples thread was what got me to try the Zoom route. If I need really Low Light performance or an extremely shallow DOF, I'll grab a prime. But for 90% of my shots, I find f/2.8 to be more than adequate... and the colors/bokeh to be as good as the best primes out there. If I really want to get creative with Focus, I'd sooner pick up a TS-E than a Prime. To me Primes are great for non-flash low light photography... but all the other advantages were kind of a moot point.

Just my opinion

Now thats not quite true, but I get what your saying.

I love my Canon 17-55 2.8 and wont give it up for the world. Its great at 2.8, especially around 35mm-55mm in terms of bokeh. But its not completely stunning like the Sigma 50mm 1.4 shot at lower aperatures (1.4 to 2.5). There is a big bokelishish difference.

BUT, i get what your saying. I feel my 2.8 is good enoough, but when I want dazzeling bokeh, primes are what I grab.

WhyFi wrote in post #11573975
When did TS-Es stop being primes?

You got me there, technically TS-E's are Primes... but they're Primes with attitude.

I want them all. Ask a mechanic if he uses a cresent wrench for every application?

More tools the better IMO

24Lmk2, 50L, 100 f/2.8IS macro, 135L and swap my 17-40L with a 16-35Lmk2.... then I'm done

mdgrwl wrote in post #11574315
Now thats not quite true, but I get what your saying.

I love my Canon 17-55 2.8 and wont give it up for the world. Its great at 2.8, especially around 35mm-55mm in terms of bokeh. But its not completely stunning like the Sigma 50mm 1.4 shot at lower aperatures (1.4 to 2.5). There is a big bokelishish difference.

BUT, i get what your saying. I feel my 2.8 is good enoough, but when I want dazzeling bokeh, primes are what I grab.

Remember I'm just talking about the quality of the Blur, not the Depth of Field. The blur from the 24-70L is just as nicely rendered as any of the L Primes, I stand by that statement. Same with the color rendition.

But not worth arguing over. Tomato Tomäto

If I intend to shoot ambient no flash I'll throw on a prime. I'll use a zoom whenever I feel like it. I like them all and no prime/zoom debate. I just hate getting with my pants down with a prime at an event unless I use 2 bodies.

My once "ok" 24-70L is now killer sharp at all apertures. I love the bokeh from that zoom.

messed up the exposure a bit but fixed it. 5dc with 24-70L certainly is a great walk around combo in good light. I'm use to a 1d3 with 24-70L so the 5d combo is light

Guess I'm "in the process" of leaning toward primes, though I can't see ever getting rid of my zooms.

The Nifty Fifty hooked me. Now I've added an 85 1.8 that I really love for so many situations.

My daily walk-around bag is a Kata D-16 which always seems to hold my 40D, 580 EX II, a couple of homemade foam sheet velcro-ed snoots and bounce cards that store flat in the back pocket and are ready to modify light in an instant, the Nifty Fifty, 85 1.8 and Tamron 17-35 2.8. The Tamron is simply amazing and I really think of it as a prime in terms of IQ, with a bit of zoom flexibility. I rarely use my other zooms, but they're available if I need them.

Like most, I prefer natural light when I can make it work for what I want, but I use flash a lot, actually, on and off camera -- both subtly for fill and "natural" light effects and also more dramatically.

I might upgrade and add another prime or two someday, but I'm really pleased with the range and versatility -- and results I get -- with what's in my walk-around bag right now. (For more extensive shoots or longer travel, I can carry EVERYTHING in my Kata 3N1-22.)

I'm covered from 17mm-85mm, or 27mm-136mm field of view on my crop, for everything I do -- from street shooting to landscapes, low light, clubs, performers, action, indoor sports, groups, portraits, children, families, events -- all in one comfortable and compact holster.

Two of those three daily lenses are primes -- and the third works and feels like one. Frankly, given the IQ of the Tamron, I'm fine with its small zoom and versatility at the wide end (yes, it's a great portrait lens as well), rather than a prime.

But if I only had room or a budget for one lens, for what I shoot and the way I like to work it would be the 85 1.8. Hands down.

I chose the same setup you have 16-35L, 24-70L, 70-200L, And chose one fast prime for my favorite FL 35..