from your post, it looks like you value primes for sharpness and speed. if you don't need the OOF blur of large apertures, then one potential cure is to get a latest-n-greatest body that is remarkable at high ISO (5DII eg).
Also, try investing in the best zooms available. 24-70, 17-55 2.8 if you have a cropper, 70-200. and while you're working with that zoom, note the flexibility in foreground vs background composition, note the extra time you have to take pictures, note the lightness of your camera bag, note the reduction in time your sensor is bare to the wind.
And then, you can still carry primes & zooms... carry a prime (or two or three) for the shots that you plan for (and don't want to compromise even a gnat's whisker), and then good zooms for all the possibilities that spring up along the way.
It's all in the balance, me thinks. Good luck to you, your wallet, and your back.
Yakim Peled wrote:
So your 70-300 IS is collecting dust?
no... it's the one zoom I still use with regularity...mostly because I don't hate my back (or my wallet) enough to replace it with a series of primes. It's actually DAMN sharp... I've put it up against a few of the 70-200 variants and it holds its own despite being a fraction of the cost. Plus... as I said even 2.8 feels too slow for the kind of shooting I do. When I'm shooting clubs and bars 2.8 is too slow so it can't realistically replace it with primes anyways... and outdoors in decent light it's plenty fast enough.
So untill they come out with a 200mm or 300mm f1.4 IS and it's less than the price of a new car... the 70-300 will do the jobs I need it to do.
SmegHead wrote:
no... it's the one zoom I still use with regularity... mostly because I don't hate my back (or my wallet) enough to replace it with a series of primes. It's actually DAMN sharp... I've put it up against a few of the 70-200 variants and it holds its own despite being a fraction of the cost. Plus... as I said even 2.8 feels too slow for the kind of shooting I do. When I'm shooting clubs and bars 2.8 is too slow so it can't realistically replace it with primes anyways... and outdoors in decent light it's plenty fast enough.
So untill they come out with a 200mm or 300mm f1.4 IS and it's less than the price of a new car... the 70-300 will do the jobs I need it to do....Show more →
Don't worry. It'll soon come. You're on the straight path to it.
p.2 #11 · Addicted to primes... is there a cure...
There is no cure and once you get started you want more more more, but here is something to give you a good scare. First you need 1 of each available/soon to be available focal length with native EF mount
8mm Circular Fisheye - Sigma
14mm L
15mm Fisheye
17mm L T+S
18mm Zeiss ZE
20mm
21mm Zeiss ZE
24mm L
24mm T+S
25mm Zeiss ZE
28mm
30mm Sigma
35mm L
40mm Voigtlander
45mm T+S
50mm L
50mm macro
60mm macro
70mm Sigma macro
85mm L
90mm T+S
100mm
100mm L macro
125mm Voigtlander
135mm L
150mm Sigma Macro
180mm L macro
200mm L
300mm L
400mm L
500mm L
600mm L
800mm L
1200mm L
MP 65E
Then next you'll try an alternate lens with adapter and then it starts you onto another addicition.
Just think of all the lens you'll need to carry instead of zooms, that'll be one heavy bag, better buy yourself a bus to carry all this gear. And forget about 1 body and a spare, its best to get a body for every lens that way you'll never miss a shot.
Have fun. I'm mainly prime, but have a few zooms as they still have important uses but I got caught up in Alts.
p.2 #12 · Addicted to primes... is there a cure...
The Image wrote:
SmegHead,
You want to get addicted like heroin, try the 85mm 1.2L II, you'll fall head over heals in love!
I already have the Mk I version and it's the one that solidified my addiction. I don't think I'll ever upgrade to the MkII, from what most have said the only real advantage is slightly faster AF... but I really don't find the AF on the MkI all that bad... I only miss maybe one in 15 shots due to slow focus when I'm shooting concerts.
p.2 #14 · Addicted to primes... is there a cure...
I just got a walkaround zoom lens. The tamron 17-50 2.8.
I tested shooting at some apertures in 50mm and compared the sharpness against my 50 1.4.
Darn... my 50 1.4 shot at 2.8 is as sharp as the tamron shot at 5.6.
