Switching to Primes?

[realityinabox]

So, after looking at the exif data from my last few portrait sessions with my 24-70L, I noticed a rather interesting trend. At least 90% of my shots were either at 24mm or 70mm, with very few shotsinterspersedthroughout the rest of the focal range.


After looking through the shots that were interspersed, I noticed that very, very few of them were ones I had selected as keepers, and even those were only passable, definitely not among my favorites.


This tells me two things, I like shooting wide, and I like shooting tight.


I am quite pleased with my 24-70L on the whole. My only real complaints are that it isn't super sharp wide open (stop it down to 4.0 or 5.6 and it is stunning, though you lose some of the background blur), and that getting a tightly framed portrait at 70mm on a full frame can cross the comfort zone line.



<meta charset="utf-8" />



I also have the 50 f/1.8, which is decent enough, but I hear that the higher end/L primes are in a class of their own as far as IQ goes, with even better IQ than my current 24.70.


So my current thought process is why not trade the 24-70L which I only really use at 24 and 70 (70 being slightly too short some times) for the 24LII and the 85 f/1.8 (with hopes up upgrading to the 85L in the not so distant future).


Better, faster, sharper glass at the expense of the 25-49 and the 51-84mm range, which apparently I'm not terribly fond of to begin with.


I guess I should make it clear that I'm shooting mostly outdoor portraits, so the only concern with switching to only primes is changing the glass while in the field. The 5DII has the self cleaning sensor, but even then I'd probably have to clean it manually more often.


Any thoughts on the switch?

[Brendan7]

The primes have faster apertures, but the whole point of a zoom is not that you use the in-betweens (35mm, 50mm etc) but you can use 24mm and 70mm without switching lenses. That being said, 24mm f/1.4 is a nice thing to have, as is 85mm f/1.2 (as there is no 70mm prime). But that'll cost you more and you will have to switch lenses. If you are walking around with a lens than having a 24mm prime and 85mm prime is a bit stupid. But for shots that you know you'll be taking and have the time to switch lenses that the primes would be better. The best option, obviously, is to have have the zoom and the primes.


EDIT you said you use the 24-70 for portrait sessions; in that case the primes seem like the better (albeit more $$$) idea.


my 2&cent;


brendan

[neuroanatomist]

The 24LII is softer at f/1.4 than the 24-70mm at f/2.8. But with both at f/2.8, the 24LII is sharper. The 85/1.8 is a little softer wide open than the 24-70mm at 70mm f/2.8, but by f/2 the 85mm is similar across the frame. OOF blur will be stronger with the primes, obviously, since wide open is wider than the zoom. The 85/1.8 is a great value.


Since you'll have time to switch lenses during a portrait session, and you seem not to use the range of the zoom, I'd say go for it!

[clemmb]

I have always said the best zoom is a prime and a good pair of legs. For portraiture I prefer an 85 or a 135. If the 75 is not quite long enough you may find the 85 also not quite long enough. The 135 f2 is an awsome lens and does not cost as much.


I have the 24-105. For portraites I find myself using it at 105 f4.5 quite a bit. For a head shoulders shot at 105 f4.5 I get good sharp shots with a very nice background blur and do not cross that comfort zone line. One of these days I plan on getting the 135 f2 for these shots.


I do find myself shooting at the 24 to 35 end for full length portraits but do not see the need for shallow DOF on these so my lens works great.


I say make the switch.


Mark

[Keith B]

I wouldn't pigeonhole myself into being a prime only guy. I found myself in a very similar situation as you. Most of my shots with the 24-70 were usually at 3 different lengths, 35, 50, or 70. If they were at 70 it was because the lens wouldn't go longer. So I bought the 35L and 85L but I still use my 24-70 regularly. I am still debating what 50mm I want to get. I'm on the fence between the 50L and the Sigma.


I use the 24-70 for product and food shots because of it's MFD and higher magnification. I also use it for events and photojournalist type work where I can't get to the exact spot I want.


Just a side note; I think the ISO Charts on this site are a good starting point in evaluating a lens, but they don't tell you much about real world performance. I know for certain the 85L ISO Chart doesn't tell you anything about how amazing that lens is. I have a feeling the 24L might be better than the ISO charts lead on.

[realityinabox]

For some reason I had it in my head that the 24L was only $999, when really it is $1700, so selling the 24-70L would not get me the 24L and the 85 1.8.


I think I am going to go with some of the advice on here, stick with the 24-70 for now and invest in the 24L and the 85L when/if business picks up enough to cover the cost. That way I'll have both the 24-70, and the primes.


Thanks for the advice. Those beauties are definitely still on the list, just not quite yet.

[Micktheexbiker]

Well from my experience of a recent shoot of Foxes ill say this...........


I used a Canon 7D with a range of lens, 24-105 soft and grainy pics.


Canon 7D and 70-200 IS L. Better sharper but still grainy shots.


In essance, the 7D will give you noisy shots. Sharp but noisy.


Canon 1DS MK3 and 500f4 IS L. Utterly totaly amazing. The 7D wasnt in the same league for image quality. I shot foxes from further away with the 500 and got sharper, better tones and colours less noise.


So the moral of the story is, get the best camera you can then go prime. You will miss shots but when you nail them, theres no comparison.





Mick

[Sheiky]

For some reason I had it in my head that the 24L was only $999, when really it is $1700, so selling the 24-70L would not get me the 24L and the 85 1.8.

You probably looked at the 24mm 1.4L mark I [:#]


Good luck with everything! And really the 24-70 can do a great job []

[realityinabox]

You probably looked at the 24mm 1.4L mark I [img]/emoticons/emotion-16.gif[/img]


Good luck with everything! And really the 24-70 can do a great job [img]/emoticons/emotion-5.gif[/img]

I think I was thinking of the 135L. And I'm definitely happy with my 24-70L, just the thought of something even better makes my mouth water a bit.


It's official, I've caught the L disease...

[Sheiky]

And I'm definitely happy with my 24-70L, just the thought of something even better makes my mouth water a bit.


It's official, I've caught the L disease...

I'm in the same situation at this moment...I keep stretching my budget [:P]Sometimes it comes in handy to have someone back you up a bit [A]