Possible "extreme switch" from zoom to prime

[Philippe Castagna]

LightDriver wrote:

I have both the 24-105 and the 70-200 f4. I also have some primes and I could easily live without the 24-105 but not the 70-200. The 70-200 has IQ that is every bit as good as primes but my copy of the 24-105 is good but not great. Having an ultrawide prime and a 40 pancake goes a long way, I rarely use my 24-105. Buy some primes and enjoy them, but keep your zooms ( at least the 70-200 which is a truly Great lens).

you are the second one coming with this solution... I realiwe myself that effectively, apart of the great picture quality, the 70-200mm is really convenient at list with a good amount of light.

 

[Philippe Castagna]

Marcos Villaroman wrote:

I use my DSLR for snapshots, travel, and times when photography isn't the most important thing going on. For that I want the utility of zooms --- especially for my standard walk around lens. You can't always get the framing you want by zooming with your feet. You may not want the pain of swapping lens and missing a shot.

The 24-105 and 70-200/4L IS are excellent zooms; I can compensate for their lack of speed by cranking up the ISO. Sure I don't get the option for shallower DOF like I would with a prime, but, they are close enough. I can see using those two focal ranges as separate from each other requiring less swapping --- normal focal range for most things; telephoto range when you are stuck in the back of a crowd at a parade, can't move, but, need to get wider and tighter shots close together.

But, if you can be more methodical with your shooting and lens selection, sure primes are great. I've traveled with a set of primes on occasion (e.g., Rotinkon 14/2.8, 35L, 85L, 135L) or even lighter/smaller (35/2, 50/1.4, 100/2) and had a great time.

I also have the option of bringing two bodies: 5D2 and 5D3. That option makes using primes even easier.

Your point is logical and I feel really close to it.

Maybe the budget is the real issue and not zoom vs prime, as both have a reason to be.

I notice that you own the Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM. How good is it compare to the 24-105 at 35mm at comparable aperture? How often are you using it knowing your lens arsenal and in which occasion?

--
Philippe
http://500px.com/phcastagna

 

[hotdog321]

Yeah, it really is overpriced IMO. I own it and use it professionally, I like it a lot, but $2200 (with tax) is awfully high for this lens. The bulk really isn't too bad compared to the 70-200 f/2.8, but I wish it had an internal zooming mechanism like the 16-35 and 70-200. And IS.

 

[dprsok]

You are expecting better IQ. The one thing that strikes me is that you are losing IS. To me, not a small point. Have you considered the new 35mm F/2 IS? Or the 100mm F/2.8L IS Macro?

 

[Philippe Castagna]

dprsok wrote:

You are expecting better IQ. The one thing that strikes me is that you are losing IS. To me, not a small point. Have you considered the new 35mm F/2 IS? Or the 100mm F/2.8L IS Macro?

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/39169343@N04/

One of my friend has the 100mm f/2.8L is and it's a great lens for the IQ. Unfortunately I was not impressed by the focussing speed that I found strangely slow on the 6D.

Yes the 35mm f/2 IS could be an option but I find it over priced... I plan to pass by one of my dealer and try it with my camera to make some real life compare with the 24-105...

I need to precise that my copy of 24-105 is perfect and if it was a faster lens I will not even think for an alternate solution.

The 6D is great in lowlight however the best IQ remain at max 6400iso and eventually up to 12800 within certain light condition and/or photo style. Sometimes for me f/4 is really limiting

This is the reason of this thread...

thank to all for your input which help me a lot building my final decision, which is not made yet

--
Philippe
http://500px.com/phcastagna

 

[Osvaldo Cristo]

I think your idea is interesting but I think it is a challenge to replace those two zoom lenses for only two primes (even using eventually a TC).

In your shoes I would consider the classical prime set instead: 24-35-50-85-135-180 or slightly variations on theme. Yes, it is not exactly minimalist but it would cover the range you current have with your two zoom lenses.

In my personal case I shot DX and I have in my collection of primes Sigma 20 f/1.8, Sigma 30 f/1.4, Nikkor 50 f/1.4, Nikkor 85 f/1.4 and Nikkor 135 f/2DC. They are not exactly stellar but except the Sigma 20, all are very good optically. Eventually I enjoy to challenge myself going to the field only with the primes.

Perhaps an intelligent approach would be to start with two primes you are considering and according to your needs add more primes in the future - but, again, I think it would be improbable you will stay with these two lenses only.

Regards,

--
O.Cristo - An Amateur Photographer
Opinions of men are almost as various as their faces - so many men so many minds. B. Franklin

 

[Franglais91]

Happened to me a couple of weeks ago. My (non-professional) fashion shoots have suddenly become available light affairs with no flash so I bought a couple of fast primes. Put them in my bag instead of any zoom lenses because I thought I was going to do the Bievres photo fair at nightfall. No hurry, lots of time to decide what I wanted to do.

And there was a stage set up in the middle of the village with Brazilian dancers. I suddenly found myself juggling with 28, 50 and 85mm lenses, changing every two minutes depending on what was happening on scene.

I cursed myself for not reading the program. And not coming out with zoom lenses which are so much more practical than primes when you have to change focal lengths often.

 

[Philippe Castagna]

Osvaldo Cristo wrote:

I think your idea is interesting but I think it is a challenge to replace those two zoom lenses for only two primes (even using eventually a TC).

In your shoes I would consider the classical prime set instead: 24-35-50-85-135-180 or slightly variations on theme. Yes, it is not exactly minimalist but it would cover the range you current have with your two zoom lenses.

In my personal case I shot DX and I have in my collection of primes Sigma 20 f/1.8, Sigma 30 f/1.4, Nikkor 50 f/1.4, Nikkor 85 f/1.4 and Nikkor 135 f/2DC. They are not exactly stellar but except the Sigma 20, all are very good optically. Eventually I enjoy to challenge myself going to the field only with the primes.

Perhaps an intelligent approach would be to start with two primes you are considering and according to your needs add more primes in the future - but, again, I think it would be improbable you will stay with these two lenses only.

Regards,

 

[Philippe Castagna]

Franglais91 wrote:

Happened to me a couple of weeks ago. My (non-professional) fashion shoots have suddenly become available light affairs with no flash so I bought a couple of fast primes. Put them in my bag instead of any zoom lenses because I thought I was going to do the Bievres photo fair at nightfall. No hurry, lots of time to decide what I wanted to do.

And there was a stage set up in the middle of the village with Brazilian dancers. I suddenly found myself juggling with 28, 50 and 85mm lenses, changing every two minutes depending on what was happening on scene.

I cursed myself for not reading the program. And not coming out with zoom lenses which are so much more practical than primes when you have to change focal lengths often.

well I do not want to reach the experience that you describe eather...

my point of you is get better IQ, better low light but still forgetting the technique to leave the eyes pilot the creativity...

 

[mu55]

Philippe Castagna wrote:

mu55 wrote:

I understand your need for brighter/faster lenses, but i have actually approached this problem almost from the other side - I bought a 135L with the intention of never getting a 70-200 zoom.
I am mainly a wide/standard shooter and the 24-70mk2 serves 90% of my general use, i do shoot alot of realestate where the 12-24 sigma is the main culprit. I picked up the 70-200 f4 IS for a conference job after also getting tired of not being able to zoom as bridesmaids walk down the isle.

save your cash and get the faster lenses as you actually need them - don't rely on a kit of primes because you will get sick of changing lenses REAL fast - coming from a 21-50-100mm kind of guy...

 

[Philippe Castagna]

mu55 wrote:

Philippe Castagna wrote:

mu55 wrote:

I understand your need for brighter/faster lenses, but i have actually approached this problem almost from the other side - I bought a 135L with the intention of never getting a 70-200 zoom.
I am mainly a wide/standard shooter and the 24-70mk2 serves 90% of my general use, i do shoot alot of realestate where the 12-24 sigma is the main culprit. I picked up the 70-200 f4 IS for a conference job after also getting tired of not being able to zoom as bridesmaids walk down the isle.

save your cash and get the faster lenses as you actually need them - don't rely on a kit of primes because you will get sick of changing lenses REAL fast - coming from a 21-50-100mm kind of guy...

 

[dprsok]

"One of my friend has the 100mm f/2.8L is and it's a great lens for the IQ. Unfortunately I was not impressed by the focussing speed that I found strangely slow on the 6D."

Do you recall how the focus limiter was set? The 100mm Macro has a three-way focus limiter. Setting it to .5m - infinity for normal shooting should speed up the AF.

 

[Philippe Castagna]

dprsok wrote:

"One of my friend has the 100mm f/2.8L is and it's a great lens for the IQ. Unfortunately I was not impressed by the focussing speed that I found strangely slow on the 6D."

Do you recall how the focus limiter was set? The 100mm Macro has a three-way focus limiter. Setting it to .5m - infinity for normal shooting should speed up the AF.

 

[Rick Knepper]

Thanks in large part to the 24-70 II & the 14-24G (requires a Nikon camera to get the full benefit from the 14-24G which I just happen to have a couple of). I have the 70-200/4 IS too which rounds out the zoom range I am most interested in but it gets used the least.

I've retained a few specialty primes: the 100L macro & TSE-17mm. I used to have the 35L, 50L, 85L II, 135L but recently sold these. I still have the 24L II and the 200L/2.8 both of which I may keep as part of the "specialty" collection, 24L II so that I'll have at least one lens with an ultra wide aperture & the 200L + TCs (forming my poor man's 200-400L).

Someone above mentioned Zooms first, Primes 2nd. I think he stole that advise from me. Just kidding. But... I have advised this for years whenever it comes up. Get the range of FLs you most commonly use covered with the best zoom you can afford and then if you need the ultimate sharpness at a particular FL (which will be a small increment at best when trying to beat the 24-70 II), or a wide aperture, or tilt/shift, or macro capabilities, whatever, getcha a prime.

I should mention that I have 5 Zeiss primes in the Nikon mount which I have not divested as of yet simply because they are sharper than the corresponding zooms I own for the Nikon kit save for the 14-24G. Plus, I am still relatively new to the Nikon family (two years) and my collection of Nikkor lenses is still maturing.

I would advise retaining both zooms with the idea that you'll replace the 24-105 with 24-70 II at some juncture. The 135L is cheap so it seems like a good idea to pick one up before Canon "updates" it although I checked out your websites and I do not see a classic use of the 135L. In this FL neighborhood, you might find the 100L macro abounds with utility.

Philippe Castagna wrote:

Hi everybody,

please find below the possible plan that I'm thinking about and that I would like to get your pro and con feedback:

camera: 6D

zoom that I would like to sell:

- 24-105 f/4 L is and 70-200 f/4 L is

I love both of them for their quality and versatility but...

Prime that I would like to buy instead:

- 40 f/2.8 and 135 f/2 (coul be used with my converter x1.4 to get 189 f/2.8)

I choose them according to my photo style, example on photo websites, reviews and my budget

Why:

- gain size and weight

- gain even more IQ and low light cacapability

Thank you for your constructive input

 

[DCM1024]

Philippe Castagna wrote:

Franglais91 wrote:

Happened to me a couple of weeks ago. My (non-professional) fashion shoots have suddenly become available light affairs with no flash so I bought a couple of fast primes. Put them in my bag instead of any zoom lenses because I thought I was going to do the Bievres photo fair at nightfall. No hurry, lots of time to decide what I wanted to do.

And there was a stage set up in the middle of the village with Brazilian dancers. I suddenly found myself juggling with 28, 50 and 85mm lenses, changing every two minutes depending on what was happening on scene.

I cursed myself for not reading the program. And not coming out with zoom lenses which are so much more practical than primes when you have to change focal lengths often.

well I do not want to reach the experience that you describe eather...

my point of you is get better IQ, better low light but still forgetting the technique to leave the eyes pilot the creativity...

--
Philippe
http://500px.com/phcastagna

I have recently added 35L, 135L, 100L macro to my 24-105L and 70-200 F4L IS. I am using the zooms for critical moments in wedding photography, then switching to the primes at the reception. I don't want to miss a critical shot, but the primes do produce shots that are chosen as favorites, so I vote zoom first, then add primes.

 

[glokenpop]

you understood one of my point when you make the difference in between a good shot and a special ones.

for sure everything do not depend of the bokeh and focal but for me it's really a part of the mix which in final provide "the" picture.

the Canon ef 35mm f/1.4 is also in my maybe list...

 

[Philippe Castagna]

DCM1024 wrote:

Philippe Castagna wrote:

Franglais91 wrote:

Happened to me a couple of weeks ago. My (non-professional) fashion shoots have suddenly become available light affairs with no flash so I bought a couple of fast primes. Put them in my bag instead of any zoom lenses because I thought I was going to do the Bievres photo fair at nightfall. No hurry, lots of time to decide what I wanted to do.

And there was a stage set up in the middle of the village with Brazilian dancers. I suddenly found myself juggling with 28, 50 and 85mm lenses, changing every two minutes depending on what was happening on scene.

I cursed myself for not reading the program. And not coming out with zoom lenses which are so much more practical than primes when you have to change focal lengths often.

well I do not want to reach the experience that you describe eather...

my point of you is get better IQ, better low light but still forgetting the technique to leave the eyes pilot the creativity...

 

[Philippe Castagna]

glokenpop wrote:

you understood one of my point when you make the difference in between a good shot and a special ones.

for sure everything do not depend of the bokeh and focal but for me it's really a part of the mix which in final provide "the" picture.

the Canon ef 35mm f/1.4 is also in my maybe list...

 

[qianp2k]

Philippe Castagna wrote:

Hi everybody,

please find below the possible plan that I'm thinking about and that I would like to get your pro and con feedback:

camera: 6D

zoom that I would like to sell:

- 24-105 f/4 L is and 70-200 f/4 L is

Both are good lenses.

I love both of them for their quality and versatility but...

Prime that I would like to buy instead:

- 40 f/2.8 and 135 f/2 (coul be used with my converter x1.4 to get 189 f/2.8)

40/2.8 main advantage is its tiny size/small but not sharper than 24-105L after stop down. 135L is an excellent portrait lens but again is not really much sharper than 70-200L/4.0 IS after stop down and actually worse with 1.4x TC and without 'IS' that is very important in that range.

I choose them according to my photo style, example on photo websites, reviews and my budget

Why:

- gain size and weight

Sure but you have a big sacrifice in versatility.

- gain even more IQ and low light cacapability

Not really as I said above. Both lenses don't have 'IS' especially 135L while you 70-200L f4 IS has. If you really need IQ and low light, then Canon 35/2.0 IS or Sigma 35/1.4 is a better option. In tele side 70-200L/2.8 IS II is the best option in low light, as sharp as 135L and has 4-stop 'IS' but you need to deal with price/size/weight.

Thank you for your constructive input

 

[MarcosV]

Philippe Castagna wrote:

Maybe the budget is the real issue and not zoom vs prime, as both have a reason to be.

Personally I think it is slightly more of a budget issue. Mainly because you haven't had a lot of time with full frame and zooms and primes to see what really works for you over a long period of time. Making the wrong choice can be expensive in the short term, especially since you are only talking about two lens and would have to give up something to try something else.

I have a friend who decided he can't stand lugging a lot of glass around and so sold five L glass, keeping just three primes --- 50L f/1.0, 85L mk I, and a 135L. He shoots maybe ten to twenty shots per outing carrying only one prime all day. He also shoots with an iPhone for everything else. Before he got to this situation, he bought over fifty L glass --- all primes and zooms up to 400/5.6L --- selling/buying with a lot of lens being re-purchased. Thanks to the local Craigslist market, he didn't loose money (it became a game to him).

I notice that you own the Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM. How good is it compare to the 24-105 at 35mm at comparable aperture? How often are you using it knowing your lens arsenal and in which occasion?

35L is better than 24-105 wide open (f/4). However, by f/8, they are very close, with a little better corners for the 35L. That's to be expected since the 35L is more expensive that the 24-105.

Personally I went 24-105, then 35/2, and finally 35L. I wanted the 35mm field of view with the option of shooting tight and blurring the background a little (but, not blow it completely out). I didn't care about the corners that much in this focal length. The 35/2 worked really well for this purpose.

I bought the 35L mainly because I decided I wanted to go three L zooms and two L primes and went with 35mm and 85mm for the primes.

These days, I would have gone with the 35/2 IS or the Sigma 35/1.4 over the 35L. Not to say the the 35L is a bad lens --- it's actually really good, but, those other options are better performing.