Switching to Primes?

[mikehillman89]

Don't do it Jan! Don't be tempted!


I rented the 70-200L 2.8IS for a week last week. I really didn't want to send it back... Once you start playing with quality stuff, you never want to see it go... I always end up shooting at the extremities of zoom lenses as well, but still prefer them over a prime unless I'm in a controlled environment like you are, but for general walkabouts and such, I much prefer the zooms


Good luck!


cheers,


Mike

[Sheiky]

Haha Mike, to be honest I'm thinking of trading my Canon 100mm f2.8 macro for the new Canon 100mm f2.8L macro. Since I've gone full frame I'm not using the macro lens for other purposes as macro anymore. My 24-105 takes a beautiful photo at 100mm f4 as well and it gives me the advantage of flexibility, weathersealing and IS. And if I want to shoot a shallow depth of field portrait I'd rather pick my Sigma 50mm 1.4. Therefor the 100mm stays in the bag quite too often.


I'm thinking the weather-sealing and image stabilization of the new 100mm L could come in handy for me so I'll use it more often(and also make my macrophotos better), but I'm not entirely convinced yet and I was looking at other things to spend my money on and at that point I began stretching my budget looking at the 135mm f2L, the MP-E 65MM macro(don't think my 430 flash will cope with this one) and some others [:P]


...

[scalesusa]

For outdoors, I do like my 24-105mm L. I've had five different 24-70mm Lzooms, none of them keepers. If you get a good one, hang on to it.


I am, however converting to primes for indoor use, or for shallow depth of field. I just sent back my new 70-200mm f/2.8 L, it was heavy, and still too small a aperture for the very low light indoor photography I like to do.

[Keith B]

I am, however converting to primes for indoor use, or for shallow depth of field. I just sent back my new 70-200mm f/2.8 L, it was heavy, and still too small a aperture for the very low light indoor photography I like to do.

Same here. Just sold my 70-200 2.8 IS. Hardly used it. If I was indoors, it wasn't fast enough. If I was outdoors I'd rather have the range of my 100-400. It was nice for portrait work for about ten minutes and then my arm would get tired. Even portrait work I like to work with wide apertures. At least it paid for most of my 85L.

[scalesusa]

After sending back my new 70-200mm f/2.8, I ordered a 35mmL. I had used the lightroom search function to look at my 20,000 images to see which focal lengths were most often used, (24mm or 35mm). I found that I could use the 35mm for about 70-80% of my shots in that range.





The new 35mmL arrived last night, and it seemed to me to be backfocusing with my 5D MK IIa lot. After working with it for 3 or 4 hours setting up the microfocus adjustment, a +2 made a huge difference. I was doing testing at f/1.4 to f/1.8 so I could keep a shallow DOF and find out exactly where it was focusing. i used all types of images, from test shots to real world images, and I am stil suprised that a tiny MF adjustment made such a large difference in image sharpness. I guess that thin DOF requires focus to be right-on!


Now, I'm really pleased with it. Next, I'll mf my 1D MK III to it. I've got a starting point now, I'm curious to see if the same setting works.

[Jordan]

Dude, get an EF 24mm f/1.4 L II USM and an EF 85mm f/1.8 USM! That'll run you just under $2k and keep your EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM and you'll be golden!