I can understand wanting these primes, but I don't understand the question if you've already set your mind. But sure, he's the best judge on what he wants and why.
And of course I don't want to disuade him from anything. Love these primes, 35-85-135-200L, and use them most of the time. Next to that I am impressed by the 24-70 and 70-200/2.8IS when primes are not flexible enough.
Whatever he does, he'll end up with good gear. The question if said gear is indeed the best choice, well ... its not up to us to answer.
Please don't take offense, but I really wonder whether you'll ever see the value of such expensive and specialized lenses in the photographs you described and in the circumstances you describe.
There is no doubt that those are fine lenses, but as one who owns "fine lenses" and photographs my family and kids (along with my more typical subjects) I have to say that I would much prefer to use one decent zoom covering more or less that range. I know that I'd do better with the 24-105mm f/4 than with those three primes, and the process of shooting would be a lot more pleasant as well.
Dan
Peter M wrote:
Hello All, hoping you could take a look at my lens plan and see if I am headed in the right direction. Currently own a 5D and at this time -- do not have any plans on making any changes in the camera department.
First, my lens choices (want to stick with 3)
35L
85L
135L
Now, what I shoot. For the most part (90% of my pictures), it is of my two girls (7 and 2 years old). I really don't take portraits in the 'technical' sense. I would call them advanced snapshots. Most often, I take pictures of my girls on vacations, walking around town, etc. I do need a little reach as I will also be taking pics of them during recitals, etc. I also want the lens versatility to shoot in low light - restaurants and the like.
Of the three lenses above, I only own one (135). We recently came back from a vacation and that lens stayed on my camera 80% of the time - when outdoors.
Everyone's different, of course, so there's no right answer. I myself have been all these lenses at one point or another. What I've ended up with is a standard 24-70L and 70-200/2.8L IS combo. For nearly all of my shooting these two lenses are good enough. They are lenses renowned for image quality at most FL's. Occasionally I pine for the very narrow DOF of the 85L, e.g., when my subject, at some distance, is in front of a busy background; but overall I found the lens to be too specialized for narrow DOF. The 35L was lovely for low light interior portraits, but I used it rarely. The 135 bokeh really is wonderful, but, again, the 70-200 is, for me, "good enough" even for quite high quality, large prints, at 135mm. I actually liked the non-IS 70-200/2.8 better near 200mm, but the IS is nice to have, and I'm finding that I end up with more keepers in low light due to IS (no longer having to drag around a tripod.) I find the 24mm wide enough for most of my own shots. I had a 16-35 Mk I but it was so blurry in the corners that I had ditched it. It's also a tough lens to use for people due to the high perspective distortion. When I want to go a bit wider, e.g., for land- or city-scape shots, I use a manual focus OM Zuiko 21mm lens. I haven't ever owned the 17-40L but that seems like a good bet for an ultra-wide. I like the flexibility of the zooms and carrying only two largish lenses, not three..
Addendum: I also owned the 24-105L for a few weeks, but parted with it. I found it not long enough for some of the people shots I wanted to take, a bit too compressed in focal lengths at the short end, and too slow ... but again these are personal value issues. Obviously many people are happy and do truly superb work with this one lens. A one-lens solution has lots of charm for family shots. 24-105/Av/evaluative and shoot away.
Well, just got back from the camera shop -- and I am fairly confident the 35 is just too wide for my needs. As some suggested -- the 50 seems like the perfect range. Also, I will give my 24-70 and give it a low light workout. I usually shoot (indoors) around 2.0 (I prefer not to use flash), but the move to 2.8 might not be as drastic as I had anticipated. No question the zooms are a lot more versatile, but I have learned to zoom/back away with my feet. But I have revised my plans a bit -- I will hold on to the 135, pick up a 50 (not sure which one), give the 24-70 a low light workout. The wife said I can do what ever I want -- but the 70-200 stays!!! I'm glad, despite it's weight -- it just a great lens.
I have both 3-somes and a 5D. 35L, 85L, 135L ( and a 300L) as well as a 16-35L, 24-70L and a 70-200L IS. I take pictures of things I like..scenery, my son, boats, cars, etc. for fun and memories.
The best lens for kids who are fast and will not sit still are lens that focus fast and zoom. I would recommend the 24-70L and the 70-200 2.8L IS throw in a 85 1.8 and you have the perfect lens for Kids. Fast accurate and covers a wide range of focal lengths. I shoot primarily kids from portraits to sports you can’t go wrong with these.
