Moving to primes, should I sell the 16-35 or the 24-70?

Started Nov 20, 2012 | Discussions thread
Moogles
Regular MemberPosts: 159
Like?
Re: Moving to primes, should I sell the 16-35 or the 24-70?
In reply to Collett, Nov 23, 2012

Collett wrote:

Moogles wrote:

Collett wrote:

Moogles wrote:

I've seen some incredible shots done on a 50L f/1.2 (think it was from dpreview, not sure) but when I tried it, I just can't frame very well with a 50mm. I was disappointed to find out that it's not for me because I've thought of the 24mm and 50mm prime path. When I ran through my collection of photos, I came to realize that I'm a 35mm kind of guy.

I am using a 5D2 together with a 16-35 f/2.8 L II and a 24-70 f/2.8 L. I am considering selling one of these lenses to get a prime or maybe even two (2) if there's enough funds. I am looking at the new 35mm f/2 IS USM and the 85mm f/1.8. Doesn't have to be an L.

The new 35F2w/IS and the 85F1.8 sounds like a good combo of primes if you are concerned with weight. The 24-70L used to be my walk around, but it is now the 50L. I can see either a 35mm or 50mm as a walk around replacement for the 24-70L when one favors less weight or a faster lens over flexibility. The 24-70L is hard to beat in terms of flexibility, so I don't plan on selling mine. I cannot speak to the 16-35F2.8, but it seems the 24-70 would be a better keeper for you because it is your current walk around and you don't shoot much in the way of landscapes (where the 16-35F2.8 would be my choice as a keeper).

The 16-35 f/2.8L II is used mainly for landscape and group shots, both of which dont happen often. The 24-70 f/2.8L is my walk around lens. I shoot anything and everything with it.

I am feeling the weight of the body + lens, so badly that I am considering changing to a different system like the Sony NEX mirrorless but someone suggested that I should try primes.

What would you do if you were in my shoes? Will you give up your ultra wide angle and keep your walk about lens? Or will you sell your walk about lens and use the prime from here forth at 35mm? If it helps, I also have a 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II.

-- hide signature --

Jim

My friend who's a professional wedding photographer said the same thing. Sell the 24-70 for a 50L. Can share your experience in how the move from zoom to the 50L was like? Were you a 50mm shooter before?

Well, I can actually see having both the 50L and the 24-70L (I do). However, the only place where I really think the 24-70L cannot be substituted for by the 50 is on the wide end. So I can see keeping the 16-35 for the wide end and using the 50 for pretty much everything else I would use the 24-70.

Years ago (1980) I started out with just a 50mm lens on a film camera and did not get my first zoom for at least 5 years. I put down the fast 50 for a long time, but really appreciated it when I came back to using just the 50 a year or so ago with the 50L because I really like to shoot in the F1.4 to F2.0 range that is not available on a zoom. The bokeh, color, contrast and saturation of the 50L is a cut above the L zooms IMOHO.

-- hide signature --

Jim

Thanks for sharing, Jim. I had thoughts on the 50L long time ago but never got one. I have the 50mm f/1.8, it's really old now and I stop using it since the mechanic within is failing. I never gave much thought about the 50mm f/1.4. I was poisoned by the 50L (yes, the bokeh is God-like!) when I saw some post in here, I remember the name now. I think it's a forumer name Great Bustard. He was the 50L source of inspiration for me. I really wanted 50L but then found out myself as the 35mm guy. I dont think I want a 35L, many tell me it's bound for replacement? Not sure's that's true but I can live with a 35mm f/2 IS USM.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow