Would you ever trade your 24-70L for ...

the Canon 28 f1.8, 50 f1.4, and the 85 f1.8. has anybody? and have you regretted it?

Depends what you want.
1 excellent zoom lens for 3 mid level primes.
What are your reasons for considering this trade?

I never would, the versatility of the zooms are too valuable... I'd buy them over time to compliment your current line-up of lenses!

if you need the extra light there is no way around it. f/2.8 is simply not fast enough in all situations. If i needed the extra light then I would. I would rather have the sigma 50mm f/1.4 over the canon

I actually had those 3 primes and I eventually sold the 28 1.8 and got the 24-70 ( I still have the 50 and 85 ). But as primes go those 3 make a great setup that I just suggested to someone who prefers smaller setups.

At the time I was using those 3 and a 24-105 and while it sounded like a good idea I got really tired of changing lenses so often, I also noticed I shot at around 2.8 most often to the choice was pretty easy.

Do I regret it? no because the 28 was probably my least used lens and the 24-70 is so much more versatile but I may someday ad a 24 1.4 to my setup.

Hell no!
I got rid of the 50 1.4 and Sig30 1.4 when I got my 24-70. Although I do miss the Sig30, I'll never get rid of the 24-70 for any lens!

thanks for the comments people. i get into this groove sometimes that primes are the way to go.
im also finding that i use my ultra wide and telephoto more than i use my medium tele (at least for the artsy-fartsy shots).

i do agree that you cant beat the 24-70 for its versatility -- specially for candid portraits.

i think ill keep the brick and buy the primes later in life. thanks again for the comments.

SMP_Homer wrote in post #11672926
Hell no!
I got rid of the 50 1.4 and Sig30 1.4 when I got my 24-70. Although I do miss the Sig30, I'll never get rid of the 24-70 for any lens!

"Never say never, for if you live long enough, chances are you will not be able to abide by its restrictions. Never is a long, undependable time, and life is too full of rich possibilities to have restrictions placed upon it."

Gloria Swanson
US actress (1899 - 1983)

Ha...no. None of them are L lenses... I will keep my 24-70L because the lens has been serviced and recalibrated by Canon. Is tack sharp. I have a Sigma 50 1.4 already. Second, I shoot the lens with a film body and so 24mm is wide enough. If not, I have a Carl Zeiss 21mm.

I have and use all three of those primes and the 24-70... they serve different purposes.

I'll make a deal with you. I will trade mine for a 50L and an 85L.

Sure, I would. Nice trio of lenses.

i sold my 24-70L for a 35L...

no regret at all doing that

Seeing that you have a 17-40 and a 70-200, I would probably sell the 24-70 and buy a 50L. Other than that, yes I would also prefer the 3 primes you named.

booja wrote in post #11674475
i sold my 24-70L for a 35L...

no regret at all doing that

I traded my 24-70 for a 35L. Very happy with the trade.

OP, it really depends on what you shoot. Zoom is very versatile if what you shoot is very fluid (i.e. kids, sports, etc). Prime works really well if your shooting environment is more static (i.e. portrait).