p.1 #1 · Anyone ditch their primes for the 24-70II?
Greetings all!
I shoot weddings and family stuff and have used primes for the past 6 years (24L, 35L, 85L, 135L). At first, I was enamored by the ultra shallow DOF that a prime would yield. My style evolved and I started to shoot more documentary type images where I didnt want shallow DOF. So I started shooting my primes starting at f/2.8. I also acquired the 5d3 which allows me to shoot at higher ISOs than I normally would.
So my plan is to get rid of my 24L and 85L and replace that with the 24-70II and 85 1.8. That would give me a lens lineup of 24-70II, 35L, 85 1.8, 135L.
I'm curious if any of you have done anything similar already? What have your impressions been? Would you do it again? Am I talking crazy talk?
p.1 #3 · Anyone ditch their primes for the 24-70II?
I don't think it is crazy talk at all. I had the same prime lens line up as you have and I sold them and now use the 24-70 II. I no longer needed the wider apertures and wanted the convenience of a zoom. While I think the $2,100 I paid for it last year is quite steep, I'm happy that I could consolidate the FL range into two lenses (24-70/70-200). IQ-wise, I cannot see any difference in final output. Given the decision to make again, I'd go for the 24-70 again. With the Mark II zooms, Canon has really given us the ability to enjoy the convenience of a zoom without sacrificing IQ compared to primes.
There have been several threads discussing this same topic, and if I recall correctly, several others have made similar changes in their lens lineups.
p.1 #4 · Anyone ditch their primes for the 24-70II?
I still have the primes, but I use them less often since getting the 24-70/2.8L II, 70-200/2.8L IS II, and 1DX. For example, now I rarely use a fast prime to get higher shutter speeds in low light, because the 1DX high ISO capability is so good. In most circumstances, it's easy to increase ISO by two stops and get the same shutter speed at f/2.8 as you would by keeping ISO constant and using an f/1.4 lens. I still often use the 50/1.2L and 85/1.2L II for shallow DOF effects. The 135/2L usually hangs around nearby as a backup for the 70-200/2.8L IS II, and I guess so do the 24L and 35L, as backups for the 24-70L II.
p.1 #8 · Anyone ditch their primes for the 24-70II?
I have definitely used my primes less, esp. the 35L and 50L. Being able to shoot the mk2 wide open without any hesitation, unlike its predecessor, is a huge simplification of my camera bag. But giving up the 24L and 85L is simply something that I can't fathom. The 85L is so unique, and I have some special love for the 24L (it's my favorite lens, and I know I am fairly alone with that).
p.1 #9 · Anyone ditch their primes for the 24-70II?
I have been shooting the 24-70II since October (added the 5DIII in December) and my primes get much less use unless it is low light or special effect needed. I am seriously considering going down to a 3 lens kit (24-70II, 70-200II and 50L). It will probably be 4 lenses since I may need my Tokina 16-28. The 24-70 II is really really good and combined with clean ISO 6400 there is a solid case. Sometimes it is just too dark and you have to have a good prime.
p.1 #10 · Anyone ditch their primes for the 24-70II?
You are not alone in your love of the 24L II Stan! I still like the 50L better, but the 24 is really special. All of the DPs that I work with love it as well!
p.1 #12 · Anyone ditch their primes for the 24-70II?
stanj wrote:
I have definitely used my primes less, esp. the 35L and 50L. Being able to shoot the mk2 wide open without any hesitation, unlike its predecessor, is a huge simplification of my camera bag. But giving up the 24L and 85L is simply something that I can't fathom. The 85L is so unique, and I have some special love for the 24L (it's my favorite lens, and I know I am fairly alone with that).
p.1 #14 · Anyone ditch their primes for the 24-70II?
I have the 35L but use it on special occasions where I need the speed. For me it is a special use lens and fills a niche. I hope when my 24-70L iI returns it will fill all prime needs, though speed will go to the 35L.
p.1 #15 · Anyone ditch their primes for the 24-70II?
Have the 70-200 II and 24-70 I. Have entertained getting the 24-70 II.
However, for candid shots of people such as gamblers in a Vegas casino
the 135L is superb. Small, black, and inconspicuous. Telescopic
enough to get close-ups of subjects who never what "hit" them.
Part of the fun of visiting Vegas 2 or 3 times a year. We drive from LA.
It's our easy vacation mode. NO planes, foreign exchange fees, etc.,
which we encounter on our yearly trip abroad.
p.1 #16 · Anyone ditch their primes for the 24-70II?
I am taking the opposite path myself... recently I started rebuilding my lens lineup and I only have primes now. I realized that most of the time I used a narrow range of focal lengths, so I decided to invest in nice primes as I do not take profit on the versatility of a zoom.
p.1 #18 · Anyone ditch their primes for the 24-70II?
A few weeks ago I was just zooms... 24-70 II and 70-200 II and 17-40L.
I recently did a change that will be complete when the UPS man drops off my 135L and 400L today Selling the 70-200 II and going to the two primes instead.
I was also thinking about *maybe* unloading the 24-70 II and going with the 24L II instead. I would be messing out in the 24-135 range, so I thought about adding the 85 1.8 to fill in that void.
My last conversion would be my 17-40L, but that may just stay or go with the 16-35 II.
Not sure why, but I am realizing that I just have more fun with primes, even if they are less convenient. I like the challenge to make them work, versus just turning the zoom ring. Plus the fast apertures and such are also very nice.
p.1 #20 · Anyone ditch their primes for the 24-70II?
garydavidjones wrote:
Have the 70-200 II and 24-70 I. Have entertained getting the 24-70 II.
However, for candid shots of people such as gamblers in a Vegas casino
the 135L is superb. Small, black, and inconspicuous. Telescopic
enough to get close-ups of subjects who never what "hit" them.
Part of the fun of visiting Vegas 2 or 3 times a year. We drive from LA.
It's our easy vacation mode. NO planes, foreign exchange fees, etc.,
which we encounter on our yearly trip abroad.
No way the Vegas casino's will let you shoot candids of the people gambling in their casino with your DSLR and 135 lens.
Selling the 70-200 II and going to the two primes instead.