Primes DO make you think more carefully about composition and the expensive ones give you wide apertures for all sorts of uses - and still tend to be smaller than the big zooms they are replacing, but unless you are going to shoot wide open the 24-70L for example is as good as a prime from a stop or two down, to the extent that you simply couldn't tell from the results. You also have to change lenses, which can be a pain in certain situations
Get some primes, but not ALL primes, that's cutting off your nose.
I have a simple prime kit of 24, 50, 100, 5D or 35, 85, 135, 5D and it does well, but I wouldn't sell the 24-70L ever
Kaffemonster wrote:
LOOOOOVE the candid portraits people churn out with this baby on a FF camera. And it's just so small and innocent (= not white) looking. Perfect for street photography.
I think you have the perfect lens selection now. The problem I see is that you list only one camera, a 40D, for seven prime lenses. That amounts to constantly switching lenses and losing time (and opportunities) in the process. Your camera bag will be at least twice as heavy, and searching for just the right focal length will get to be a pain after the first few hours.
Your current selection equals L quality. Your prime selection is a mix of L and ordinary optics. The 15 is expensive - kind of crazy on a FF camera, and optically isn't all that great. You will have a hard time selling it too. The 28 f1.8 is a POS. The 85 is OK - I've got one that I wouldn't mine selling because the 70-200 f4L IS is more functional and technically awesome. The 70-200 f4L IS is actually better than the 135 f2 and includes the 85, although not as fast.... but what's your hurry. I didn't see anything on your web page that indicates that you need anymore speed than f2.8.
About two years ago I switched from all zooms to all primes. Haven't regretted it at all. IMO, the IQ with primes exceeds that of even good zooms (I had the 24-70 f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS) and they force you to think more about how you are going to compose the picture. I shoot a lot of action/sports and a little bit of portraiture. My keeper rate is much higher with the primes and my ability to frame a shot has definitely improved by being force to more fully consider it before firing away.
Kaffemonster wrote:
Because so far, I'm only toying with the idea.
No sports whatsoever. They bore me to death so shooting them is not on my wishlist. Landscapes, candid portraits and macro is more of my field. And my kid, naturally... Who is my biggest cause for going with zooms so far.
The reason I even started considering this at all is that I feel I'm in a rut. Just stuck shooting the same things over and over again. As Zogster, I enjoy being "forced" to think more before I press the shutter. I like having to "work" a bit for my images.
I would love to keep my zooms and just buy a wheelbarrow full of primes, but sadly, funds are not permitting. I'm about to quit my job so I can spend more time with my family (and my camera ). Unfortunatly, such luxury comes with a pay cut. On top of that, my kid #2 is due in 9 weeks. Both the 16-35 and 24-70 are absolute gems, but my primes blow them out of the water when it comes to sharpness - and size. I love the 50mm on my 40D, as opposed to the two pound 24-70.
For now, I've set a challenge for myself: Primes only, for a week. Get the camera out every single day and shoot primes only. I'm borrowing the 85mm F/1.8 from a friend tomorrow for this little project. I'll be all out of wideangle, but if it's not a prime, I'm not shooting it for the coming week.
I'll post my results in this flickr set: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dk_spook/sets/72157606977964152/
Right now it's nothing but 50mm shots from this afternoon, but it should grow for the next week. Come friday next week, I should have a better idea about whether or not I'm cut out for primes
I often wonder: "Why EITHER primes or zooms ONLY?"
Both have their advantages in certain situations, and there are things that either can do that the other cannot. In addition, the supposed IQ differences diminish if you consider the ways that most people use lenses in actual photography. (I will acknowledge that for some photographers who specialize almost entirely in one or another particular type of photography, what I say may be less relevant.)
High quality zooms can produce excellent image quality that will stand up to printing at quite large sizes. The flexibility of zooms means that one is more likely to make the lens on the camera work for the shot at hand - less likelihood of needing to switch lenses. While the IQ of a prime may be a bit better, this difference, to the extent that it is even relevant, diminishes or even reverses if the prime shot needs to be cropped for composition in post since the zoom shot can be "cropped in camera" and have essentially the same resolution and pixel dimensions.
Primes can produce slightly better image quality, though this is most noticeable at the largest apertures. Related to this, zooms cannot match primes in the large aperture department - so primes can be better in situations where very narrow DOF is needed or in some low light situations shooting active subjects.
My approach is, for the most part, to consider high quality zooms that do not necessarily have the largest available apertures - e.g. lenses like the 24-105mm f/4 L - and to augment them with a few carefully chose primes.
Why cut yourself off from the advantages of either type of lens?
In terms of Canon lenses I prefer primes, my line up isn't too far from your proposed one:
24L, 35 f2, 50 f1.4, 85mm f1.8, 135 f2
I am very pleased with this collection, can't wait to upgrade my 40D to the 5D Mk2 and watch my 24 and 35mm lenses behave as they were intended to.
Problem with Canon is that they don't make a good prime wider than my 24L (don't like fisheyes personally). Maybe they will bring out a new wide at Photokina, or I might have to save up for the new Zeiss 18mm!
I see you have young children, I find the 24 and 85 particularly good for photographing my young family, when I go full frame (which I see you might too) the same effective focal lengths would still be covered by a 35 and 135mm. Zooms are fine, but no substitute for a crisply focussed prime at f2.
For me, I use my 70-200 more than anything beause it seems to fit the bill more often than not.
However, sometimes I'll go out carrying only a prime. It ends up being more of an adventure by having to work harder for the angles/views. More fun overall in the end. So, it maybe depends on the purpose of the shoot (i.e. paid or not).
I am close to your possible new lineup as well - I am a 24L/50/85L and 180L.
The one 'catch' with your plan is you are on a crop body so the 24L is still not going to be that wide really. Don't get me wrong, I love that lens but it really comes into its own on full frame. That said, even on full frame, I am tempted by the 17-40L as its cheap but it would be a quasi prime as I would only use it at 17 for landscapes.
That said, I LOVE shooting with primes, especially for their low light capability and depth of field control. It will definitely force you to think of what you are going to need ie: I am going to a birthday party inside, I want the 50 vs say I am going on a hike I want the 24L. Of course, you can bring more lenses with you but I will be the first to admit it is a pain in the butt. I like that it forces me to think about composition and slows me down a bit. It will cost you a shot on occasion though when you only have your x and wish you had brought your y. Of course, it will also get you shots you wouldn't have got when your zoom would have been too slow so I call that a wash myself.
My thoughts - definitely yes on the 24L, ponder finding the cash for an 85L (cmon, you know you wanna, the 1.8 is slow he he). You might want to think about the 17-40 as your extreme wide angle and just pretend its a 17 prime? Finally, for myself, I don't find much use for anything in between the 85 and 180 so I am not sure how valuable the 135 type FL would be for you there. Unfortunately, the 180L is not f2 but for reach for shooting people at a distance its a great FL.
Kaffemonster wrote:
Lens Lust - Oh yeah, you can check that box alright... But I'm quite sure I'm going with AF lenses. When I have time to focus carefully and manually, I can do that (FTM on the USM lenses rock!) but if I'm in a hurry, I need that AF.
And a 5D mk II is on the horizon for me. Probably a year down the road, yes, but I'm getting one. If it turns out to be rubbish, I'll save a ton of money and get the original 5D. Spending a year shooting only primes, forcing myself to compose my shots properly, zooming with my feet and generally getting to know those primes a 5D mk II would not be a bad idea I think. Hmmm... to swap my 40D for a 5D mk I or not........Show more →
The lust starts with AF pimes then you decide to try a manual focus lens with adapter such as a Zeiss, then the lust starts all over again. It just never ends. I had most of the L lens primes, then tried a Zeiss 25mm, then added the 35, the 50 the coastal optics 60, now I want a Zeiss 18 and 100, and the Distagon 21, beware the prime lust its just like L lens fever
