I find myself increasing drawn to shooting w/- primes - in part after the stellar experience I have had with the 135L & was intending to "work backwards" & (eventually!) acquire the 85L & the 35L. But recent discussions here about the DOF on the 85L & the arrival of the 24L f/1.4 II has started me wondering - not wanting to be an apostate - but is the holy trinity in need of a rethink?
For those of you lucky enough to have experience with these lenses, indulge an aspirant on a slow Sunday afternoon: Could the 24L II supplant the 35L? Should the 50L take precedence over the 85L?
Just because the threesome is referred to as 'the holy trinity' doesn't actually mean that it is for everyone. If you like 24mm over 35mm, get the 24mm...if you like 50mm over 85mm (and can deal with focus shift) get the 50mm. For me the 35, 85 and 135 make for a more useful set--but it doesn't limit me to just the three primes since both the 24 and 50mm FL's have their place as well. Don't let preconceived notions decide for you...you are allowed to make your own decisions
Absolutely true, but sadly, my income is likely to limit me to just three (big ticket) primes. The question was playful but I was really interested in the experience of people who have had the chance to make similar choices ...
What I'm trying to say is the decision of which prime to get all depends on personal shooting style. Do you shoot a lot of landscape? If so the 24L (or 17/24TS-E) may be a better choice than the 35L. Do you shoot a lot of environmental or full length portraits? The 35L may better suit you over the 24L. For portraiture would you rather have a 50mm or an 85mm? These are all questions which only you can answer for yourself. If someone says the 24L is a better lens than the 35L and another person claims the opposite will either opinion have any sway over which you will decide on? It shouldn't.
I think some people tend to consider a prime lens as dedicated to a usage, for example, the 85L to portraits, and then they get in the classic twist over DOF.
I find the 85L great for all kinds of things, more for its IQ and sharpness, with its bokeh as a bonus.
The 135L isn't just for head shots, along with TCs the scope of usage, while still keeping its IQ and sharpness, is wide.
The 35L is about the best for so many applications and worth a little effort to get the most out of it's color rendition and sharpness exactly where you want it.
Add quality Cirpols and these three really are Holy territory. Above and below these focal lengths becomes more specific, and as good as some are, they aren't as versatile as the Trinity. The 50L kinda belongs in there, but maybe more as a Cherub 'cause the focal length is considered "normal". The 24L gets you into the tower of Pisa country, so you aren't quite as free in that dimension, so you start thinking TSe.
Thanks Matt for taking the time to clarify - I understood your earlier post about preference & style - & god knows, I've given this advice here enough times myself. I was really interested in why people made the choices they did (in this context) & I suppose whether they were subsequently happy with them. I'm super happy with people expressing opinion (assuming it's based on *some* experience) - I'm equally happy to interpret those opinions according to my own needs.
But, to answer your question, at the moment I shoot a mixture of landscape/wildlife and urban candid/architecture - which are quite different. I've not yet got into portraiture, but my experience with a quality prime like the 135L suggests that might be in my future.
brainiac wrote:
The EF 24 F2.8, 35 f2 and 85 f1.8 are not bad lenses as place holders, especially on crop cameras.
My holy trinity would probably be something like a Zeiss 21, Zeiss 35 f1.4, and Oly 90 f2 (or Zeiss ZF 100), but that's another can of worms.
It truly is (another can!) but an incredibly enticing one. I don't make my living from photography - though have managed to finagle getting my work to pay for a lot of my gear - so the price vs. quality trade off is one I have to take seriously.
Edit: I mostly shoot w/- a 5D at present & will likely upgrade to the 5DII when I return to the land of affordability.
globalkiwi wrote:
But, to answer your question, at the moment I shoot a mixture of landscape/wildlife and urban candid/architecture - which are quite different. I've not yet got into portraiture, but my experience with a quality prime like the 135L suggests that might be in my future.
In that case, if I were in your shoes, I'd take a serious look at the two new TS-E's to cover your landscape/architecture portion of shooting. For urban candid's the 135 is outstanding and I feel the 35L, 50L and the 85L would all have their place but again if I were you I'd have a hard look at the 35L+50/1.4+85/1.8 (which together will put you at the price point of the 85L alone) unless of course the 1.2 aperture of the 50/85L is something you covet. So in the end your prime kit would look something like this: 15 FE, 17/24 TS-E, 35L, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 100 macro, 135L, 300/4--you could do an awful lot with that.
Hmmm... very interesting! Thanks Matt. This is really constructive input. I'm going to go google! The two new TS-E's certainly piqued my interest but I was kind of waiting until some real-life feedback about them surfaced before factoring them into my thinking.
The point of the "trinity" is so the vertical height of the widest = the horizontal of the next longer FL, and so on...that's about 24-35-50-85-105-135-180 or so...
The reason for this is so you know when to switch to get the most of your subject in the frame to reduce the amount of enlarging/cropping to get the best possible IQ.
Each one of the L primes has their place. I really love the IQ from the 85L and 135L, but if I could only own one it would be the 35L for it's versatility.
If you do a lot of low light work, the 24L can be very interesting as well. Great handholdability due to the FL, can almost shoot in the dark. I initially had the 24L on a crop camera and thought I would sell it in favor of the 35L once I upgraded to the 5D. But once I had the 35L I just could not let the 24 go.
The 85L is really the most special out of the bunch, it's micro contrast and rendering are unmatched by most lenses (Canon or alternative glass). And finally the 135L is no slouch either, and takes a 1.4x TC very well if you need to get out to 200mm. Both bring you bokeh heaven if you shoot them wide open with close subjects, but I did find I get tired of indiscernible backgrounds after a while... It's a personal thing I guess.
I'm still waiting to get my grubby hands on a 50L, but so far I live well with the "gap" between 35 and 85mm
I'd pick the focal length you do most of your work with to start your L prime collection, and expand from there. In my opinion the "holy trinity" is overrated in the sense that everyone has their own style and preference. The 24L, 50L and 135L just might be *your* holy trinity.
Good advice above to consider shooting the non-L primes if the cost of the L's is an issue at the time. They will do quite well on your 5D and be a much lighter load in your bag. Also good advice on the TS-E's for the stuff you shoot.
I prefer shooting with primes and am somewhat of gearhead, ok I am. I have the 200, 135, 85, 50, and 35L's. I actually do use them all too. I am waiting to get the 24L also. They are all great, you really can't go wrong with any of them. Just choose the FL that works for you. The 50L's focus shift and softness issues are blown out of proportion. Yes, there are people that aren't happy with them, just like any lens. However, if you actually read peoples posts that own and use them, the majority of owners love the lens, myself included. The 85L is absolute magic, it just takes time and patience to perfect your technique when working at wide apertures, this applies to any lens. The 35L is fantastic as well. I wouldn't sell or trade any of these. I can't wait for the 24L.
I recently got the 24L II and have used it a little, on my 40D so far. I have to consider it in Holy Trinity territory from an overall perspective. I'd also like to make mention of the well-known Sigma 50 1.4; it's exceptional too.
abam wrote:
just think outside of the abrahamic tradition, and go for the more eastern, peuralistic (if not more expensive) solution of the holy pentad.
That sounds like a good target. Cash seems to be worth less all the time, may as well convert it to something tangible and stimulate the Japanese economy. As to the OP, the 24L II does seem to leapfrog the 35L in technology. If that is a major qualification for the holy trinity, then perhaps a shakeup is in order. Who is the supreme judge in this matter? I await the final ruling so I know what to long for.
I have lots of lenses but leave the 50 1.2L on my 5D most of the time. Too much hassle carrying 3 heavy primes, swapping back 'n forth and adjusting my eyesight. I tend to "see" the 50mm view most of the time anyway.
The question was playful but I was really interested in the experience of people who have had the chance to make similar choices ...