Converting to primes - would love some opinions

[btaylor]

Howdy guys and gals,

I've 90% decided to convert my kit to primes for all bar the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II (can't get rid of that piece of magic glass).

My current kit is:

Canon 5D Mark II
Canon 17-40mm f/4.0L
Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L
Canon 50mm f/1.8 II (rarely used)
Sigma 85mm f/1.4
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II

I've found myself using the 24-70mm very infrequently since I bought both the 17-40mm and the 85mm. I'm not really satifsied with f/2.8 in terms of depth of field (especially around the 24mm end) or low light ability. I recently travelled for an extended period and the 85mm f/1.4 was used the majority of the time because I really enjoy the narrow depth of field and ability to take good photos hand held in low light without having to bump the ISO up too far.

I bought the 17-40mm because I didn't feel like my landscape shots were dramatic enough at 24mm however I really wasn't blown away by the difference between 24mm and 17mm on the wide end. Certainly not in the same fashion that I was when I bought the Canon 10-22mm for my 40D after the 28-135mm was my widest lens. Don't get me wrong, it's a great little lens. It's got pretty good IQ and is a compact piece of kit to have on standby but I think I could deal with 24mm on full frame for landscapes. I often just take a few photos and turn it into a panorama later on anyway if I feel like I'm not getting it all in, in which case I'll generally use the 70-200mm for its superior IQ and reduced distortion which helps with stitching images together.

For example:

Taken at 17mm:

Iceland - The Blue Lagoon by Ben__Taylor, on Flickr

Taken at 24mm:

Wide Open Spaces by Ben__Taylor, on Flickr

Also at 24mm:

The Milky Way by Ben__Taylor, on Flickr


Pano with Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II:

Iceland - on the road pano by Ben__Taylor, on Flickr


So I guess I'm in two frames of mind:

1. Sell the 24-70 (they're still going for around the $1000 mark used here in Australia) and replace with the Canon 24mm f/1.4L and keep the 17- 40mm. This would cost me roughly an additional $500 but I'd get to keep the 17-40mm if I ever needed to go that wide.

2. Sell the 24-70 and the 17-40 and the Canon 24mm f/1.4L will cost me nothing.

Eventually I'd possibly look at the Canon 14mm f/2.8L as an ultrawide lens or even the 8-15mm fisheye for something more unique.
I haven't sold myself on the 24mm f/1.4L yet, and am also toying with the idea the TS-E 17mm f/4L but again this doesn't give me the wide aperture I really want and costs a bit more.


Would love to hear your thoughts - especially from any happy 24mm f/1.4L users.

Thanks in advance!

Ben

[Steve U]

I have been a happy 24mm f/1.4 user, but now I love me Zeiss, just like me spinach.
Zeiss 21mm and 35mm are dreamy to use and work very well.

[Daniel Browning]

I love my 24mm f/1.4 II and it was definitely worth the upgrade over the mark I for me. But I don't recommend sacrificing your ultrawide range just to get the Mark II -- a lot of times 24 just isn't wide enough. So you should look for some way to afford both a 24mm and a 14mm from the start. My suggestion is to go for the inexpensive Samyang (AKA Rokinon) 14mm f/2.8.

[Dr Croubie]

How do you feel about Manual Focus?
I've been using MF more and more lately, on live-view for not-very-fast-moving stuff, with the Samyang 35/1.4, Takumar 50/1.4 and FL 55/1.2. Not too useful with the stock 7D screen, but $150 worth of Katz Eye focussing screen is on its way.
And does this relate to upcoming travelling? Would you rather small and light, or don't care?

The Samyang 35/1.4 is great value, IQ of the zeiss at 1/4 the price. Nowhere near the build quality though, and it's fairly big (although, the 35L is about the same size and the Zeiss is heavier).
An Asahi Pentax Takumar 50/1.4 will set you back about $100 including an M42 adapter. Not much contrast at f/1.4, but sharpest i've got after f/2.0. It's as small as an EF 50/1.8 but built like a zeiss (ie, metal). Even if I don't need a prime, I stick it in my pocket anyway just in case.
The FL 55/1.2 are going about $200-250, the EdMika adapter is another $120. I've shot a lot with it but haven't done any direct comparisons yet, the images are nice though.
The IQ of any of those are great, distortions are low so stitching is a breeze, plus the apertures are as fast as you get for the lengths.

Or without stitching, what's wider than that?
Sigma 20/1.8 all i've heard is stay far, far away.
Zeiss 21mm, i've heard a lot of people rave about it, justifiably so from the images i've seen. It's going to be my kit lens if i ever go FF.
Zeiss also did a 20/2.8 and 20/4 for older mounts, they go for around $200. Takumar 20/4 is reputably just as good, $3-400 in good nick.
But then you've not really at a fast aperture anymore.

In short, wider than 35mm, it's going to be the 24 f/1.4L, f/2.8, or nothing...

[btaylor]

I have been a happy 24mm f/1.4 user, but now I love me Zeiss, just like me spinach.
Zeiss 21mm and 35mm are dreamy to use and work very well.

I do like the Zeiss lenses Steve but I'd still be heavily dependent on autofocus in the 24mm range so unfortunately I don't think they'll work for me there.

I love my 24mm f/1.4 II and it was definitely worth the upgrade over the mark I for me. But I don't recommend sacrificing your ultrawide range just to get the Mark II -- a lot of times 24 just isn't wide enough. So you should look for some way to afford both a 24mm and a 14mm from the start. My suggestion is to go for the inexpensive Samyang (AKA Rokinon) 14mm f/2.8.

At this stage I don't think I'd be in a position to go for the 14mm as well Daniel. Especially considering the 5D3 is on the cards for later on in the year. To be honest I haven't read a huge amount about the Samyang so I have a look at a few reviews. I do know that it is manual focus only which is fine for that focal length as I'd generally be shooting off a tripod and setting up for a shot. I'll see, it's defiinitely an option. If it appears to perform well then I could always sell both my lenses, keep the Samyang in the back of my mind, and if 24mm isn't wide enough for me purchase it on that premise.

Dr Croubie - thanks for the ideas. However I'm pretty dependent on autofocus to be honest, especially in a walk around / general purpose focal length. I understand the the split screens do make it easier to manual focus however if/when I upgrade to the 5D3 I'm not sure whether split/focus screens will be available for it (with the new intelligent viewfinder). Although I do believe the 7D has the same viewfinder so I'll check out the katz eye screens anyway. In saying that, I don't think I'd be prepared to go all out on the manual focus front. For an UWA lens I think I'd be more than happy manually focussing.

Lots to think about, better read a couple of reviews on the Samyang.

Cheers,

Ben

[neuroanatomist]

I understand the the split screens do make it easier to manual focus however if/when I upgrade to the 5D3 I'm not sure whether split/focus screens will be available for it (with the new intelligent viewfinder). Although I do believe the 7D has the same viewfinder so I'll check out the katz eye screens anyway.

The 5D3 is like the 7D in that Canon does not consider the focus screen to be user-replaceable, and swapping them out is difficult and carries some risk. FWIW, it's a choice made by Canon, not a mandate of the transmissive LCD (intelligent VF) - the 1D X has the transmissive LCD and does support all the usual 1-series focus screens.

[Steve U]

G'day Ben at 21mm, I haven't found that I have missed the AF at all. At 35, it would be nice to have AF, but not nice enough to swap the Zeiss 35/1.4 for anything.
Here are a couple with the 35mm on the weekend. The first at f/5.6
[img]
Twilight_9 by Steve's Life, on Flickr[/img]
The second at f/2.0
[img]
Twilight_7 by Steve's Life, on Flickr[/img]
Just a couple of snapshots on a stormy afternoon.
For your weddings I can understand that AF is very important and the 24mm f/1.4 is a superb lens. Good luck with the ponderings Ben, I know you will end up with some very special kit. (eg.tripod)

[HDNitehawk]

I have been a happy 24mm f/1.4 user, but now I love me Zeiss, just like me spinach.
Zeiss 21mm and 35mm are dreamy to use and work very well.

@btaylor, I own the 24mm F/1.4 and the 35mm F/1.4 and I lust after Steve’s Zeiss 21mm. Steve's observation is correct, even on the 24mm I would only miss the AF when I am trying to shoot at extremely tight apertures. I think on the 21mm I wouldn't miss it at all because of the deep dof.

If you want a tilt shift function then consider the TSE 24mm, if you don't need the tilt shift function then stick with the 24mm F1.4

The 14mm is so wide and has so much lens distortion; it really is a specialty tool, it is a lens that you really should be definitely sure you want, it might not hurt to rent one for a day or two to see how it performs.

All of these lenses are excellent lenses, which is better? They all have an edge in one area or the other.

[btaylor]

Thanks for the pics Steve - the DOF at f/2.0 is great. I'll keep the Zeiss in the back of my mind but I still think I'd struggle at times without AF, particularly with candid/ quick shots. I'm probably being lazy in that regard.

@NDNitehawk - I guess the reason I want the 24mm f/1.4L is so I can shoot at wide apertures with a narrow DOF.

I agree that the 14mm is a bit of a specialty tool due to the amount of distortion and I suppose that's why I like it. For only a few hundred bucks (for the Samyang) I'm considering just buying it and seeing if I like it enough, if not then there's not a lot lost.

[FastGass]

I understand your desiere for fast glass and I too use mostly manual focus primes, but one odd thing about them is if you use them at wide apertures (thats why you bought them right?) you are going to have less IQ than a zoom at f/2.8. So actually it lowered my standard of accetable sharpness rather then raising it. Now obvisouly if you stop down to f/2.8 you will get better IQ, but based on your (amazing) shots it doens't seem like you really needed a prime. How about getting the 24-70mm II? That thing promises prime IQ in a zoom package, which by what you shoot would make more sense.

If you want to shoot street photograhy then a 24mm f/1.4 or 35mm f/1.4 is a must and a 50mm f/1.4/f/1.2 would be nearly as usefull.

Cheers,
John.