Possible "extreme switch" from zoom to prime

[HarryLally]

Haven't been following the thread, alas, but I think you've reached the right decision. I have those two zooms and am very happy with them. I find the 24-105 more contrasty than the 70-200 and the 35 f1.4L is even more contrasty - almost 'gritty'. The three are an excellent combination. You might also consider the very reasonably priced 17-40 f4L in the future. It's not as contrasty as the three other lenses mentioned but has wonderful deep colour and excellent microcontrast. Stopped down to f8 or so, it is ideally suited to your landscape work and produces wonderful images. And of course on FF, 17mm is quite a lot wider than 24mm.

Michael

 

[Philippe Castagna]

HarryLally wrote:

Haven't been following the thread, alas, but I think you've reached the right decision. I have those two zooms and am very happy with them. I find the 24-105 more contrasty than the 70-200 and the 35 f1.4L is even more contrasty - almost 'gritty'. The three are an excellent combination. You might also consider the very reasonably priced 17-40 f4L in the future. It's not as contrasty as the three other lenses mentioned but has wonderful deep colour and excellent microcontrast. Stopped down to f8 or so, it is ideally suited to your landscape work and produces wonderful images. And of course on FF, 17mm is quite a lot wider than 24mm.

Michael

Hi Michael,

yes, I'm sure now. Just need to get some feedback from users in between the 35mm f/1.4 and the new f/2 IS that I was not able to test here.

Regarding the 17-40 you're right. I had the opportunity to try it several days and it was really nice. Right now my point is to cover my low light needs but in the future complete my f/4 trinity with the 17-40 sounds like a plan.

Cheers

 

[Philippe Castagna]

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

 

[alan duncan]

Finally with the feedback and experience of most of you I decided to go with the 40mm f/2.8 and keep my 2 zooms.

lately I was pushed to the 35 f/2 IS and this project was looking good for me.

I had the opportunity to try it yesterday and even it's a good lens the difference was just not that big for the price. Yes f/2 with IS versus f/2.8 but in regular condition the IQ is somewhat the same of the 40mm.

I got the 40mm for $165, the 35mm was at $875!

thank you all for your feedback and will made a personal review of the 40mm within short

thanks again!

 

[Philippe Castagna]

alan duncan wrote:

Finally with the feedback and experience of most of you I decided to go with the 40mm f/2.8 and keep my 2 zooms.

lately I was pushed to the 35 f/2 IS and this project was looking good for me.

I had the opportunity to try it yesterday and even it's a good lens the difference was just not that big for the price. Yes f/2 with IS versus f/2.8 but in regular condition the IQ is somewhat the same of the 40mm.

I got the 40mm for $165, the 35mm was at $875!

thank you all for your feedback and will made a personal review of the 40mm within short

thanks again!