I agree with your plan, as I have been down that route myself, and it works for me.
I recommend that you consider the 35L f:1.4, a truly magnificent lens and a great focal length for the 40D. If you can't/won't, then look at replacing your 28 with a 24 f:2.8 and a 35 f/2.0. It would also plug the "gap" in your lineup between the 15mm and the 28mm, which is too wide for my taste. But that is just me.
But as soon as I pulled her out of the camera bag, her being a large, white lens, I had the full and undivided attention of ANYONE in a quartermile radius. The end of candids, the beginning of every single "Uncle Bob" within that radius coming over "Hey, are you a pro? Can I try that thing? My Ixus is better AND smaller" etc. Thus, Charlene ended up spending most of her time in the bag. When I first saw the 135L at a local (pro) supplier, I knew I had to have it. So compact, yet so much reach. Street candids here I come!
Kids and primes rock. Especially when my 2½-year old is getting ready for bed, sitting with his mother and listening to his little sister, feeling her move around: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3248/2803075255_38c6a574d1.jpg
Shot it last night with my 50mm. F/1.4, 1/50, ISO 1600. It was getting dark. Primes rock.
Thanks for all your backup, comments and suggestions. Will keep you guys posted...
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....Show more →
You nailed it. My thoughts EXACTLY.
And no, I don't shoot for a living so I can do pretty much as I please, as long as funding allows
I think that this particular subject would have had a bit more relevance forty five years ago when zooms were starting to become popular but not now. Look at any mass market product and if you compare say a mid-sixties Japanese car to one today you would have to say that they are superior in every aspect.
When I got my first zoom lens in 1974 I use to hold it up to the light just to see if it had the word Coke written on it. Both Canon and Nikon have a back bone of zoom lenses that are used by pros on a daily basis that produce stunning results that are as good if not better than prime lenses of that time. Case in point is Canon's 10-22 wide angle zoom which is just a stunning peice of glass but is still very affordable.
JON VAN DAAL wrote:
I think that this particular subject would have had a bit more relevance forty five years ago when zooms were starting to become popular but not now. Look at any mass market product and if you compare say a mid-sixties Japanese car to one today you would have to say that they are superior in every aspect.
When I got my first zoom lens in 1974 I use to hold it up to the light just to see if it had the word Coke written on it. Both Canon and Nikon have a back bone of zoom lenses that are used by pros on a daily basis that produce stunning results that are as good if not better than prime lenses of that time. Case in point is Canon's 10-22 wide angle zoom which is just a stunning peice of glass but is still very affordable. ...Show more →
Please re-read my first post. I am quite sure you missed something
Edit:
Just noticed something in this wonderful thread... Just about all the replies can be put in one of 3 categories:
1) You're insane.
2) You're insane because [insert logic here]
3) Go for it! PRIMES ROCK!
Man I love this forum. Seriously, best photography forum on the net. Thanks for all your replies, keep 'em coming. No matter which category they're in.
I'm not sure you want to add the 15 fisheye - it can be fun, but not particularly utilitarian. If I were you, I'd keep your current lineup and add the 135 and the 85 f/1.8 - buy used and you can do it for just over a grand. Don't give up the brick or the 16-35 - the 15 fish and the 28 prime won't replace that lens, in my opinion.
I have mostly primes - above 50mm and love them - however, my latest purchase was a 70-200 f/2.8 IS - I was shooting cafe performances, and it really got to be not only a pain, but somewhat scary having the 85 f/1.8, 100 f/2.8 macro, 135 f/2.0 and 200 f/2.8 lenses sitting on the table as I went from one shot to the other, and changing lenses often. I was waiting for the beer, wine, water, table-bump - whatever while I was working - the 70-200 became a reasonable compromise for the majority of the shooting, though I still drag out the 135 prime for some shots.
for mostly nature/landscapes I'd definitely get a 24mm for the wide end, you already have the 50 and 100 so you're mostly set.
If you shoot mostly people I'd start with 35mm because it has less distortion and maybe get a 85/1.8 or 100/2.0 because it's about 1-1/3 stop faster than your 100mm so it'll offer a little more DOF control.
I really like my cheap 35/2.0 + 50/1.8 and the affordable 100/2.0 on my 5d. Of course the L-primes give better IQ and handling but are also much heavier/bigger/expensive.
For prime shooting I can really recommend a full frame body with the bigger viewfinder and thinner depth of field.
If you'll buy a fish-eye I'd start with the cheap zenitar 16mm f/2.8 (nice on full frame) or the peleng 8mm f/3.5 (nice on 1,6x crop)... the canon is expensive and fish-eyes mostly don't get used that much.
Photodo rates both lenses extremely close - 4.8 vs. 4.9 out of 5
So it's versatility (70-200), and IS vs. fixed focal length (135) and 2 stops more speed. The 135 f2L isn't technically as sharp until f4.... and the 70-200 f4L IS still has it beat there too. It's basically old film lens technology (135 f2L) vs new. Both are great lenses, but visual comparison and Photodo ratings are good indicators of what you can expect.
IMO, get a 10-22mm (you can't get wide enough if you want superwide on the 40d without using this lens), the 35L, 85L, and 300 f/4. Maybe a 135L if you see the need for that length, but in my opinion, you'd have it covered from wide to tele with those, and you would get impecable image quality as well. The 50 is good as well, but for many things that you are shooting with the 35L, you can generally foot zoom to achieve the same framing.
Interesting; I didn't know that the 70-200 f4 IS was actually sharper than the 135 f2!
I use my 135 much more... it fits in my bag more easily because of its length, and I like being able to go to f/2. I think they're fairly close in weight though.
I have no zooms and plan on not to buy zooms ever again.
I have a 24L, 50L and 135L currently.
I have used or used to own in the past a 50 1.4, 35L and 17-40L. Also used to own a Nikon d80 with a tamron 17-50 2.8, then switched to primes on that system with a Sigma 30 1.4, and a nikkor 85 1.4.
I'd rather have the ability to shoot in low-light conditions, than to have variable focal lengths any day. Not to mention the excellent IQ of primes.
The Negs of each IMO:
With zooms = missed/blurry low light shots
With primes = sometimes missed or incorrect framing
In my opinion, its much easier to train yourself to compensate with incorrect or limited framing, than it is to compensate for a slow Ap zoom. (ie: you already know how far you have to be and the look of each FOV after practice)
Edited by Edgar Maguyon on Aug 28, 2008 at 10:07 AM GMT
I've slowly switched to primes. After switching though, I decided I'd like one nice zoom to walk around with. I walk around a lot with either the 50mm or 85mm on my 1d2 and nothing else, but for sunny days, I wouldn't mind having a simple zoom when I don't want to carry a bag.
Currently I have:
10-22
50mm
85mm
150mm sigma
I think I'll swap the sigma for something else but I'm not sure yet.
If you go to http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews and do the comparison, you can see that the 70-200mm F4 IS is sharper then 135L. I only have 7-2 so I don't know whether the test is true or not in practice.
I switched from prime to zoom gradually. Although prime can train you for framing or others, it is not that case all the time. I shoot lots of pictures for my daughter's rehearsals (piano, choir, dancing or other stage performance). Most of time you can not move around. You sit on your seat. That's all.
