Should I get a 35 prime if I already have a 24 and 50?
p.2 #1Should I get a 35 prime if I already have a 24 and 50?
Kevner wrote:
This is a good point, Jack, although I don't think it's always the case. I far and away prefer primes and own way more than I would ever try to carry at once. I do like to make up a "kit" before heading out for a day or trip based on what I want to do. I do own a couple general purpose zooms (24-70 GMII and 24-50G) and usually use those for travel when I want my camera with me, but it's not a photography trip. The 24-50 gets more use than the GMII since it appears far less...Show more →
I understand that philosophy totally and appreciate the je ne sais quois of it, so no argument or debate needed! But I know from my experience leading landscape and travel workshops that many of our initial prime adherents migrated to at least one do-it-all zoom for convenience. Hard to frame perfectly by zooming your feet when you’re shooting from the edge of a cliff or dealing with the varied subject sizes and shooting distances in say a city square.
Edit: To be clear, I am sort of a hybrid shooter in this regard. When I travel there is usually the zoom on the camera around my neck and 3 feather-weight primes in a small bag I carry across-the-shoulder. At night, I tend to grab one prime and head out with only the cam and focus on capturing images that work with that particular focal.
Jack Flesher wrote
Honestly, I think going primes is a phase a lot of photographers go through only to eventually end up carrying so many lenses they go back to a zoom.I understand that philosophy totally and appreciate the je ne sais quois of it, so no argument or debate needed! But I know from my experience leading landscape and travel workshops that many of our initial prime adherents migrated to at least one do-it-all zoom for convenience. Hard to frame perfectly by zooming your feet when you’re shooting from the edge of a cliff or dealing with the varied subject sizes and shooting distances in say a city square.
Edit: To be clear, I am sort of a hybrid shooter in this regard. When I travel there is usually the zoom on the camera around my neck and 3 feather-weight primes in a small bag I carry across-the-shoulder. At night, I tend to grab one prime and head out with only the cam and focus on capturing images that work with that particular focal.
Jun 22, 2026 at 11:55 AM
p.2 #2Should I get a 35 prime if I already have a 24 and 50?
Kevner wrote:
This is a good point, Jack, although I don't think it's always the case. I far and away prefer primes and own way more than I would ever try to carry at once. I do like to make up a "kit" before heading out for a day or trip based on what I want to do. I do own a couple general purpose zooms (24-70 GMII and 24-50G) and usually use those for travel when I want my camera with me, but it's not a photography trip. The 24-50 gets more use than the GMII since it appears far less...Show more →
Exactly how I feel about primes. For me a single focal length totally changes how I approach looking for my subjects. I look at the world through that focal length and feel totally immersed doing so. With a zoom, my vision wanders everywhere resulting in weaker compositions. The convenience of a zoom with its range of focal length detracts my observation resulting in weaker images.
Jack Flesher wrote
Honestly, I think going primes is a phase a lot of photographers go through only to eventually end up carrying so many lenses they go back to a zoom.Exactly how I feel about primes. For me a single focal length totally changes how I approach looking for my subjects. I look at the world through that focal length and feel totally immersed doing so. With a zoom, my vision wanders everywhere resulting in weaker compositions. The convenience of a zoom with its range of focal length detracts my observation resulting in weaker images.
Jun 22, 2026 at 12:29 PM
p.2 #3Should I get a 35 prime if I already have a 24 and 50?
Jack Flesher wrote:
First of all, no matter how hard I tried, I simply cannot make images with zooms of the same qualitiy as with primes. It's a mental thing, but a prime forces me to see in one or two FOVs which makes my vision "deeper" if you will, i.e. I spot opportunities better and compose better. I know, this is not universal, but some of us are just wired for primes.
For this to work, you **must** have the full view (or framelines) in the viewfinder. Simply cropping later doesn't work.Interestingly, those of us that learned to shoot in the heydays of interchangeable film cameras where primes ruled the day and zooms were limited to a few 80-200’s initially which were optically slow and garishly expensive in comparison, we almost always lived by the axiom, “shoot a little loose and crop later.” Because of that, I still do that today with primes and digital. An advantage is it also allows for things like horizon leveling and perspective corrections before a minor compositional crop. I’ll also point out that with my current 33mp A7CII cropped to aps-c, I still net...Show more →
Jack, you must have misunderstood me here. I did not say that cropping by itself is bad, in fact it wasn't about cropping at all. I said that for me, in order to leverage the "deep vision" through the FOV of a prime, it is important to have visual guides, like the framelines or an auto-cropping EVF, to be able to see the final image while framing. I cannot walk around with a 24mm and compose through it as if it was a 35, promising myself to crop later.
Thank you for referencing the good old film days. Back then, if shooting with a 645 back, I'd paint 645 framelines on my 6x6 focusing screen. To see better. Same thing. Now there are apps for that, I have "Viewfinder Mark II" on my phone. Sometimes it's easier to frame on a phone while hiking, no need to mess with the camera+backpack just to evaluate a composition.
old-gregg wrote
@mudlake@@@ gave you an excellent advice. I only want to add a few subjective points from my experience:First of all, no matter how hard I tried, I simply cannot make images with zooms of the same qualitiy as with primes. It's a mental thing, but a prime forces me to see in one or two FOVs which makes my vision "deeper" if you will, i.e. I spot opportunities better and compose better. I know, this is not universal, but some of us are just wired for primes.
For this to work, you **must** have the full view (or framelines) in the viewfinder. Simply cropping later doesn't work.
Jack, you must have misunderstood me here. I did not say that cropping by itself is bad, in fact it wasn't about cropping at all. I said that for me, in order to leverage the "deep vision" through the FOV of a prime, it is important to have visual guides, like the framelines or an auto-cropping EVF, to be able to see the final image while framing. I cannot walk around with a 24mm and compose through it as if it was a 35, promising myself to crop later.
Thank you for referencing the good old film days. Back then, if shooting with a 645 back, I'd paint 645 framelines on my 6x6 focusing screen. To see better. Same thing. Now there are apps for that, I have "Viewfinder Mark II" on my phone. Sometimes it's easier to frame on a phone while hiking, no need to mess with the camera+backpack just to evaluate a composition.
Jun 22, 2026 at 01:07 PM
p.2 #4Should I get a 35 prime if I already have a 24 and 50?
old-gregg wrote:
First of all, no matter how hard I tried, I simply cannot make images with zooms of the same qualitiy as with primes. It's a mental thing, but a prime forces me to see in one or two FOVs which makes my vision "deeper" if you will, i.e. I spot opportunities better and compose better. I know, this is not universal, but some of us are just wired for primes.
For this to work, you **must** have the full view (or framelines) in the viewfinder. Simply cropping later doesn't work.Interestingly, those of us that learned to shoot in the heydays of interchangeable film cameras where primes ruled the day and zooms were limited to a few 80-200’s initially which were optically slow and garishly expensive in comparison, we almost always lived by the axiom, “shoot a little loose and crop later.” Because of that, I still do that today with primes and digital. An advantage is it also allows for things like horizon leveling and perspective corrections before a minor compositional crop. I’ll also point out that with my current 33mp A7CII cropped to aps-c, I still net out at a very usable 24mp. Yes net DoF is diminished with that crop, but the ability to do it on the occasions a bit tighter view needed is a definite advantage.
Not saying your method is wrong, just pointing out that there is an alternative logic available when shooting primes, especially so with higher resolution digital.Jack, you must have misunderstood me here. I did not say that cropping by itself is bad, in fact it wasn't about cropping at all. I said that for me, in order to leverage the "deep vision" through the FOV of a prime, it is important to have visual guides, like the framelines or an auto-cropping EVF, to be able to see the final image while framing. I cannot walk around with a 24mm and compose through it as if it was a 35, promising myself to crop later.
Thank you for referencing the good old film days. Back then,...Show more →
All good, was just waxing nostalgic!
>>Back then, if shooting with a 645 back, I'd paint 645 framelines on my 6x6 focusing screen. <<
Absolutely! The Mamiya TLR I used actually had those framelines pre-etched into the GG. I had to shoot level of course, and compose those lines depending if I wanted a portrait or landscape 8x10 final.
Jack Flesher wrote
old-gregg wrote
@mudlake@@@@ gave you an excellent advice. I only want to add a few subjective points from my experience:First of all, no matter how hard I tried, I simply cannot make images with zooms of the same qualitiy as with primes. It's a mental thing, but a prime forces me to see in one or two FOVs which makes my vision "deeper" if you will, i.e. I spot opportunities better and compose better. I know, this is not universal, but some of us are just wired for primes.
For this to work, you **must** have the full view (or framelines) in the viewfinder. Simply cropping later doesn't work.
Not saying your method is wrong, just pointing out that there is an alternative logic available when shooting primes, especially so with higher resolution digital.
Thank you for referencing the good old film days. Back then,...Show more →
All good, was just waxing nostalgic!
>>Back then, if shooting with a 645 back, I'd paint 645 framelines on my 6x6 focusing screen. <<
Absolutely! The Mamiya TLR I used actually had those framelines pre-etched into the GG. I had to shoot level of course, and compose those lines depending if I wanted a portrait or landscape 8x10 final.
Jun 22, 2026 at 01:32 PM
p.2 #5Should I get a 35 prime if I already have a 24 and 50?
Zayne12 wrote:
Wow do u appreciate all the insight everyone has provided me. I'm landscape photographer and I see quiet a few answers that were geared towards a portrait photographer setup. For lenses all mines are the Sony gm promes being 14 f1.8 24 f1.4 50 f1.2 and the GM ii of the 70-200 and the 90 being a macro. Last time I shot out I thought I'd need a 35 for a specific scene but the 24 ended up being the better choice. I appreciate all the input and I think I'm going to hold off for now on getting a...Show more →
If you have the 90G, like to shoot macro and are undecided about a 35mm prime, I would wholeheartedly recommend putting your money towards the 100GM. It's ability to take teleconverters, super fast focusing, better build quality and amazing ability to track moving subjects with a stacked sensor body make it a fantastic piece of glass. I can't recommend it enough.
Wow do u appreciate all the insight everyone has provided me. I'm landscape photographer and I see quiet a few answers that were geared towards a portrait photographer setup. For lenses all mines are the Sony gm promes being 14 f1.8 24 f1.4 50 f1.2 and the GM ii of the 70-200 and the 90 being a macro. Last time I shot out I thought I'd need a 35 for a specific scene but the 24 ended up being the better choice. I appreciate all the input and I think I'm going to hold off for now on getting a...Show more →
If you have the 90G, like to shoot macro and are undecided about a 35mm prime, I would wholeheartedly recommend putting your money towards the 100GM. It's ability to take teleconverters, super fast focusing, better build quality and amazing ability to track moving subjects with a stacked sensor body make it a fantastic piece of glass. I can't recommend it enough.
Jun 22, 2026 at 04:17 PM
p.2 #6Should I get a 35 prime if I already have a 24 and 50?
Newenglandrocks wrote:
Zayne12 wrote
Wow do u appreciate all the insight everyone has provided me. I'm landscape photographer and I see quiet a few answers that were geared towards a portrait photographer setup. For lenses all mines are the Sony gm promes being 14 f1.8 24 f1.4 50 f1.2 and the GM ii of the 70-200 and the 90 being a macro. Last time I shot out I thought I'd need a 35 for a specific scene but the 24 ended up being the better choice. I appreciate all the input and I think I'm going to hold off for now on getting a 35 and inste6put that money in the 100mm macro gm and start saving up for the 300 gm. Indo feel promes provide that extra level of sharpness that I'm missing in zooms and as I said they help me to compose a lot better than a zoom would. Again thanks for all you're amazing inputs!I had the 100 gm and sold it. While I slightly regret it I'm planning on picking it up again and selling off the 90 instead of getting the 35 as you suggested. I'll see how this goes. My final move is selling off the 70-200 GM ii and getting the 300 gm. I'm so on fence but at the same time excited about the combo.
Jun 22, 2026 at 04:20 PM
RoamingScott
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.2 #7Should I get a 35 prime if I already have a 24 and 50?
This thread is a good reminder that 28/40/75 is the god-tier gapping.
Jun 22, 2026 at 04:41 PM
p.2 #8Should I get a 35 prime if I already have a 24 and 50?
A 28mm can stand as a quasi-35mm much more readily than a 24mm can. Very few street photgraphers use a 24mm, many or most love 28mm. Those four mms make a very large difference, akin to the gap between a 40mm and a 50mm. We often see 28/35 bracketed together because they can behave similar tasks.
It's one reason why the industry went to sleep on 28s for so long, the other big one being that they wanted to sell literally tens of millions of mid-range zooms (the 'cash cow') that began at 24mm.
'The vast majority—approximately 80% to 90% of standard full-frame mid-range zooms (such as the ubiquitous 24-70mm, 24-105mm, and 24-120mm lines) — begin at 24mm. This focal length has become the industry-standard baseline for wide-angle versatility.'
We don't see many 75s from the majors for similar reasons.
On your gap: 24mm is undoubtedly very wide (and obviously so) and 50mm is a long normal lens, even before factoring in focus breathing that takes many our to close to 55mm. So you are leaving a lot of territory in-between.
You won't encounter any prime lens range in cine or stills that lacks a 35mm. Whole projects are shot on lenses in this focal length region. (see below) Another reason: you can separate your work not just by focal length scenarios (landscape-people-birds etc) by also by genre, by photographic intent. You might consider getting a 35mm for artistic and evocative work - to broaden your horizons in a different direction, with less of a mechanistic approach.
The huge advantage primes have over zoom lenses is that they can offer such different experiences, wildly different image renderings - as well as speed of operation, ease of carry, discreet usage, etc.
Don't forget that each 'vario' (German for 'zooms') is still the SAME lens from its widest focal length to its longest focal length. Same render, same color, same bokeh presentation, color palette, etc. In imaging terms, they are still just one lens. And they are compromises by their nature (lens speed, dimensional load, carry issues, price, R&D, lens hood coverage, rings, and more) so they are hemmed in by these factors.
It's why so many photographers move into a few cherished and carefully selected primes in the later more mature phases of their involvement in photography. They want the nuance, the exploring of different directions, the very different images. Zooms center markets, primes expand them.
Adolescence shot on Cooke 32mm
..
It's one reason why the industry went to sleep on 28s for so long, the other big one being that they wanted to sell literally tens of millions of mid-range zooms (the 'cash cow') that began at 24mm.
'The vast majority—approximately 80% to 90% of standard full-frame mid-range zooms (such as the ubiquitous 24-70mm, 24-105mm, and 24-120mm lines) — begin at 24mm. This focal length has become the industry-standard baseline for wide-angle versatility.'
We don't see many 75s from the majors for similar reasons.
On your gap: 24mm is undoubtedly very wide (and obviously so) and 50mm is a long normal lens, even before factoring in focus breathing that takes many our to close to 55mm. So you are leaving a lot of territory in-between.
You won't encounter any prime lens range in cine or stills that lacks a 35mm. Whole projects are shot on lenses in this focal length region. (see below) Another reason: you can separate your work not just by focal length scenarios (landscape-people-birds etc) by also by genre, by photographic intent. You might consider getting a 35mm for artistic and evocative work - to broaden your horizons in a different direction, with less of a mechanistic approach.
The huge advantage primes have over zoom lenses is that they can offer such different experiences, wildly different image renderings - as well as speed of operation, ease of carry, discreet usage, etc.
Don't forget that each 'vario' (German for 'zooms') is still the SAME lens from its widest focal length to its longest focal length. Same render, same color, same bokeh presentation, color palette, etc. In imaging terms, they are still just one lens. And they are compromises by their nature (lens speed, dimensional load, carry issues, price, R&D, lens hood coverage, rings, and more) so they are hemmed in by these factors.
It's why so many photographers move into a few cherished and carefully selected primes in the later more mature phases of their involvement in photography. They want the nuance, the exploring of different directions, the very different images. Zooms center markets, primes expand them.
Adolescence shot on Cooke 32mm
..
Jun 22, 2026 at 04:59 PM
p.2 #9Should I get a 35 prime if I already have a 24 and 50?
There's always room for another FL or another lens at the same FL. My name is Rico and I am a gear whore. 35mm competes with 50mm for the one-and-done FL. Besides a bunch of zooms that can hit 35mm, I have six 35mm lenses in various mounts and speeds, plus 4 film cameras with fixed 35mm. But only as a matter of taste, I'm more likely to use neighboring FLs like 28/45/50.
Jun 22, 2026 at 05:18 PM
p.2 #10Should I get a 35 prime if I already have a 24 and 50?
I try to balance size and performance when buying primes. I try to avoid buying large primes because I tend to leave them at home and take the smaller/lighter alternatives.
I have a great copy of a Samyang FE 35mm f2.8 for occasional street photography, and a Sirui FE 35mm f1.4 for when I want something a bit faster, but TBH the Sirui fits the bill nicely being compact and light as well. It punches well above it's weight in the 35mm class.
I also have a Voigtlander FE 28mm f2 APO, a focal length I prefer if I want to just carry one prime. It produces crisp clean photos (better micro-contrast?). It's just an enjoyable manual focus lens to use with excellent performance.
J
I have a great copy of a Samyang FE 35mm f2.8 for occasional street photography, and a Sirui FE 35mm f1.4 for when I want something a bit faster, but TBH the Sirui fits the bill nicely being compact and light as well. It punches well above it's weight in the 35mm class.
I also have a Voigtlander FE 28mm f2 APO, a focal length I prefer if I want to just carry one prime. It produces crisp clean photos (better micro-contrast?). It's just an enjoyable manual focus lens to use with excellent performance.
J
Jun 22, 2026 at 05:51 PM
|
p.2 #11Should I get a 35 prime if I already have a 24 and 50?
35mm and 50mm were too close for me to enjoy from the same system.
Jun 22, 2026 at 06:00 PM
p.2 #12Should I get a 35 prime if I already have a 24 and 50?
Interestingly I just added a cheap (but sharp) Rokinon 35mm 1.8 for an upcoming trip to Maui. Daughter wants portraits done around the island and planned to use my 24G...but just wasn't feeling the working distance for portrait work, and am not hauling my 50GM, so I settled on a small/light/inexpensive 35mm to solve my issue with minimal effort.
Jun 22, 2026 at 06:51 PM
p.2 #13Should I get a 35 prime if I already have a 24 and 50?
Sell the 24mm. Get the 20mm and the 35mm. (I know its an odd answer), but its a great combo.
Hope you find the good combo.
Hope you find the good combo.
Jun 22, 2026 at 07:16 PM
p.2 #14Should I get a 35 prime if I already have a 24 and 50?
We cant answer this for you, buy the focal lengths that you will use. If you use it its worth it.
Personally I use 24 + 35mm... 24 has the vfov of a 35mm for videos
I have owned 3 different 50/55mm primes, but utilization has always been a bit low for me.
Personally I use 24 + 35mm... 24 has the vfov of a 35mm for videos
I have owned 3 different 50/55mm primes, but utilization has always been a bit low for me.
Jun 22, 2026 at 08:37 PM
p.2 #15Should I get a 35 prime if I already have a 24 and 50?
sonofjesse2010 wrote:
Sell the 24mm. Get the 20mm and the 35mm. (I know its an odd answer), but its a great combo.
Hope you find the good combo.
In can't say this is wrong, but it *could* be wrong for the OP.
The FOV of the 20G is quite different. It might be too wide. Supposedly its measured FOV is more like 19mm. At the wide end, this makes a difference.
The rendering of the 24GM is quite special. The 20G has nice rendering, but IMHO it is quite different and not as pretty.
I say this as owner of both the 20G and 24GM. I don't think I could wholeheartedly endorse doing this for the OP if they don't even know if they like 35mm. Since the OP has the 90G and is thinking of upgrading to the 100GM macro, that seems to make more sense than going with a new focal length. They can get the 35 f/2.0 by punching in with APS-C mode on the 24GM
Sell the 24mm. Get the 20mm and the 35mm. (I know its an odd answer), but its a great combo.
Hope you find the good combo.
In can't say this is wrong, but it *could* be wrong for the OP.
The FOV of the 20G is quite different. It might be too wide. Supposedly its measured FOV is more like 19mm. At the wide end, this makes a difference.
The rendering of the 24GM is quite special. The 20G has nice rendering, but IMHO it is quite different and not as pretty.
I say this as owner of both the 20G and 24GM. I don't think I could wholeheartedly endorse doing this for the OP if they don't even know if they like 35mm. Since the OP has the 90G and is thinking of upgrading to the 100GM macro, that seems to make more sense than going with a new focal length. They can get the 35 f/2.0 by punching in with APS-C mode on the 24GM
Jun 22, 2026 at 09:31 PM
p.2 #16Should I get a 35 prime if I already have a 24 and 50?
The funny thing about saying how close or not close the FL spread are. I've actually taken a 24, 35, 40 and 55 on the same trip to Japan. Along with with a 85. And I bought a 28 and 16 when I was there. You just pick 3 in your bag for the day and shoot with them. Its a fun way to use different lens. Its not like this is my job and I have a deliverable to meet at the end of the day. It's a hobby and how you enjoy it is totally up to you.
Jun 22, 2026 at 10:26 PM
p.2 #17Should I get a 35 prime if I already have a 24 and 50?
I don't think you need it, but rules are rules. Buy one, or they will come for you. And it won't be pretty.
Jun 23, 2026 at 12:03 AM
p.2 #18Should I get a 35 prime if I already have a 24 and 50?
If I was shooting land/city-scape I would rather have the best possible 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200/4 over fast primes. net/net: I don't think you need or would benefit by a 35GM. If I was buying a 35 prime for Sony today, I would either get the Viltrox 35/1.8 EVO or the Sigma ART II 35/1.4.
Jun 23, 2026 at 01:35 AM
p.2 #19Should I get a 35 prime if I already have a 24 and 50?
I only own two zoom lenses for travel convenience, the Tamron FE 17-28 f2.8 and 28-200 f2.8-5.6
The rest are all primes because I just prefer using them when not travelling.
My primes are 8mm fisheye, 15mm, 21mm, 24mm, 28mm, 2 x 35mm, 50mm, 55mm 75mm, 85mm, 100mm STF
Having all these primes enables me to learn and appreciate the unique character of each lens, and get the most out of my passion for photography.
J
The rest are all primes because I just prefer using them when not travelling.
My primes are 8mm fisheye, 15mm, 21mm, 24mm, 28mm, 2 x 35mm, 50mm, 55mm 75mm, 85mm, 100mm STF
Having all these primes enables me to learn and appreciate the unique character of each lens, and get the most out of my passion for photography.
J
Jun 23, 2026 at 06:22 PM
p.2 #20Should I get a 35 prime if I already have a 24 and 50?
Why do we so frequently read the words 'travel' and 'convenience' in the same sentence? Unless there are other reasons compelling you to travel to unattractive places, most of us choose to visit extraordinary locations for their great physical beauty or significance. The things memories are made of.
A few prime lenses and two bodies are not hard to carry, and you can have custom chosen results of the sights encountered.
I am guessing it is due most commonly to travel companions who don't share your interests in photographing the expensive trip you are taking. And that is unfortunate because most of the best trips are best re-experienced in detail later on, at home, noticing all the things that could not be fully appreciated at shot-time.
Here is a current analysis of the zoom vs prime issue, many of the comments go some way to restore faith of common sense and common experiences.
..
A few prime lenses and two bodies are not hard to carry, and you can have custom chosen results of the sights encountered.
I am guessing it is due most commonly to travel companions who don't share your interests in photographing the expensive trip you are taking. And that is unfortunate because most of the best trips are best re-experienced in detail later on, at home, noticing all the things that could not be fully appreciated at shot-time.
Here is a current analysis of the zoom vs prime issue, many of the comments go some way to restore faith of common sense and common experiences.
..
Jun 23, 2026 at 08:35 PM