So, I am starting to give some thought to selling my 24-70L and picking up a few primes. I have been using it mostly for weddings and magazine stuff, but I am not totally loving it, and in the interest of full disclosure, I am a bit of a weight weenie. I currently shoot a 5dMkII with a 30D/17-55 IS/50 1.8 backup. I was trying to sell the 17-55, but now may keep it when I need a zoom for wedding shoots in the event I sell the 24-70.

My thought would be to pick up a used 35L, 24L II or 50L and maybe a 85 1.8 or a 50 1.4 if I don't get the 1.2. And in the event I got the 35 or the 50, maybe get something wider as funds come in.

Am I limiting myself too much by getting rid of the brick? Am I crazy?

I dont remember the last time I used mine.

I did the same when I had one, went to primes, then went full circle and bought the 5Dii with the kit lens but kept the primes as well. I use prime 90% of the time in that range, and when I don't, a normal kit lens type zoom works just as well because it's stopped down.

The other thing to consider, especially if you're a weight weenie, check out the tamron 28-75mm as a back up/standard zoom. ~$500 and SUPER small/light. Then get one of the primes you listed.

I love my primes, but there are times when switching back and forth will make you miss a shot. Rare but it happens. You also need to *know* what each FL is before picking and switching really. 1.6 is messing with me with this right now, but for instance if you're shooting an event and have a 24mm on for example and need more reach. You need to KNOW the 50 is the right choice instead of trying the 85, realizing it's too long, then switching to the 50... With a zoom that takes ~1 second, with primes it's ~20 with 2 lens changes? Big difference. A 2 prime setup would be great and with 2 bodies (of different crops?) it would be amazing.

I don't shoot "zooms", but I never really liked the 24-70. Anytime I had shot with one I couldn't wait to put a prime back on.

i nearly always use my zooms. i have to force myself to use my two primes. plus i dont have a wide prime.

hey Mark, look, primes -vs- zooms here too today!

Good luck finding a used 35L! If you really want one, try to forums rather than KEH--I didn't check every day, but everytime I checked KEH they never had a used 35L.

Only you can decide if you'll be too limited or not. I'm going to shoot a wedding in a few weeks with just primes (will have the zooms as backups, just in case) and see how that goes. Not planning on selling the zooms, but the 24-70's definitely been languishing lately.

Thanks guys, this is definitely going to take some thought. I just feel like the 24-70 just really isn't inspiring me to go and shoot. It is my main lens now since I can't use the 17-55 on the 5D, and I just don't enjoy using it (if that makes any sense).

Mark, I remember reading your post when you got your 35L about feeling like it was the right lens for you, that's kind of what I feel I am missing with the brick.

I love my primes, but there are times when switching back and forth will make you miss a shot. Rare but it happens. You also need to *know* what each FL is before picking and switching really. 1.6 is messing with me with this right now, but for instance if you're shooting an event and have a 24mm on for example and need more reach. You need to KNOW the 50 is the right choice instead of trying the 85, realizing it's too long, then switching to the 50... With a zoom that takes ~1 second, with primes it's ~20 with 2 lens changes? Big difference. A 2 prime setup would be great and with 2 bodies (of different crops?) it would be amazing.

That is kind of what I am hoping to avoid with having the 17-55 on the 30D. Hopefully then I won't find myself in the situation where I need to change at a crucial moment.

I can't imagine shooting an event without a 24-70/2.8 of some sort, but that's just me. I typically would shoot with that on my main camera (with on camera flash for fill), and a normal prime on my secondary camera. 24-70's aren't for lovin', they're for making the donuts.

Originally Posted by Idjiit

I can't imagine shooting an event without a 24-70/2.8 of some sort, but that's just me. I typically would shoot with that on my main camera (with on camera flash for fill), and a normal prime on my secondary camera. 24-70's aren't for lovin', they're for making the donuts.

That's a good point. Maybe I'll just ditch the 17-55 and use some of those funds towards some primes, keeping the 24-70 for when it's needed. Maybe it being the workhorse is the problem, I just need to try something else.

yeah, I've always hated my mid range zoom, but it's always been a money maker for me.

I was going to suggest exactly that - sell your 17-55 and buy a prime or two with those funds (obviously you'll need more). I'd go 50mm and 85 probably if you do a lot of weddings, use the 24-70 for wider stuff unless you have funds for 35/50/85 or 24/50/85.

I'm just starting out in wedding type stuff, but I feel the 24-70 is a must have for me for now.

Originally Posted by Idjiit

If you're not already shooting with a second camera, I'd highly recommend it. I really love having a holster-type arrangement for this since it allows you to quickly pop off a few shots with the prime if you see something it would work well for, then re-holster and keep shooting with your primary camera. If you're shooting weddings and don't already have a second camera, you should really re-think that strategy.

+1... this is the big thing with primes--I feel like that especially for event type shooting, if you're going to commit to primes, you need to have at least a couple of bodies with different primes mounted to make it work.

^ hell, it would have been nice to have 2 cameras even for ALMS this weekend.

Originally Posted by Idjiit

If you're not already shooting with a second camera, I'd highly recommend it. I really love having a holster-type arrangement for this since it allows you to quickly pop off a few shots with the prime if you see something it would work well for, then re-holster and keep shooting with your primary camera. If you're shooting weddings and don't already have a second camera, you should really re-think that strategy.

I have 2 backups, so no issue there. The holster idea sounds really good, I will need to look into that. Slinging straps around your shoulder gets old fast. What it looks like I will do is keep the brick and try to grab a 35 and maybe an 85 1.8 with the funds from the 17-55 and see how that goes.

I'm with ya, I shoot 2 for rally stuff - use the tele when they're far away, then pop down and use the wide angle for low/close shots.

Originally Posted by Idjiit

Cool. FWIW, I use the Spider Holster, which I love. I have mine modified so that it stays permanently in the auto-lock position - let me know if you get one and want more details.

Thanks! That looks like it may be a great option for me.

Originally Posted by talon95tsi

this sums up a lot of feelings on the 24-70 for me, love this guy's work: http://bertstephani.com/2010/05/03/r...-fall-in-love/

benjamin

That's actually exactly how I feel, but am trying to change. I know I will miss it when it is gone, and now that the 17-55 is sold, I can try and enjoy it like it I should.

I'm on this fence right now as well. I've been frustrated with primes for landscaping lately (too many lens swaps) and I'm thinking about a mid range. Not sure if I want a 24-70 for the 2.8 for certain action shots or the 24-105 for it's size and IS (for panning). Tough choice. I'm also considering the 17-55 and just committing to crop, but even then it's range seems limiting when a 24-105 on crop gives me more range, but the starting FL isn't as great (I'd have it covered but with another lens).

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

I'm on this fence right now as well. I've been frustrated with primes for landscaping lately (too many lens swaps) and I'm thinking about a mid range. Not sure if I want a 24-70 for the 2.8 for certain action shots or the 24-105 for it's size and IS (for panning). Tough choice. I'm also considering the 17-55 and just committing to crop, but even then it's range seems limiting when a 24-105 on crop gives me more range, but the starting FL isn't as great (I'd have it covered but with another lens).

Well, but there may be a 24-70L II with IS to solve one problem (one day). OR, you could get a mkI cheaper as a result. I just wish it wasn't so heavy.

Originally Posted by Occytron

Well, but there may be a 24-70L II with IS to solve one problem (one day). OR, you could get a mkI cheaper as a result. I just wish it wasn't so heavy.

both of those factors have me leaning towards the 24-105 IS. It has IS now and the best range. If a 24-70 II comes out with IS, I can always upgrade then, to either the old on or the new one, but owning a 24-70 when the new version comes out wouldn't be ideal. This will of course all come down to pricing, if they do what they did with the 70-200II the 24-70 used price won't change much.

It's funny though, I can now see the case for some people owning both. They're both great lenses with different purposes, but for me I'm thinking f/4 with IS and range and smaller/lighter wins because I also use primes. If I went w/o primes then I'd "need" the 2.8 much more.

I guess in your case, the decision is a bit easier since you have those fast primes. And I am assuming that used 24-105 prices are pretty good now.

I think 24-105 IS would be a great walk around on a crop. Sure its not that wide (38+mm effective), but its got a ton of range (168mm eff long)

Originally Posted by PhatheadWRX

I think 24-105 IS would be a great walk around on a crop. Sure its not that wide (38+mm effective), but its got a ton of range (168mm eff long)

especially when paired with a 10-22. 2 smallish lenses with massive range.

also, the IS is very appealing to me for panning.

10x+ zoom in 2 lenses

Too bad you didn't own a crop last time you had the 24~105
ps. looks like you need remove your *drowned* in your massive gear list

Originally Posted by PhatheadWRX

10x+ zoom in 2 lenses

Too bad you didn't own a crop last time you had the 24~105
ps. looks like you need remove your *drowned* in your massive gear list

yeah, but the lens will only be better on crop thanks to the cropped corners. It's just tough to choose between it and the 2.8 IS 17-55 or even the 17-50 VC (smaller lighter cheaper). But having all that range covered in 2 lenses is tempting, then if I keep a FF camera as well it's good for both.

That's not a bad setup for traveling, 10-22, 24-105, 100-400.
40x zoom in 3 lenses

and leave the 100-400 at home when I want small/light...

Something I have been tossing around the last day or so, is checking out the 200mm 2.8L II. I like that it is a stealthy, lighter, cheaper alternative to the 70-200 (granted I don't need anything between 70 and 200). It seems to be a lens that is loved by some, and mostly ignored by everyone else due to the 70-200 being so popular. Anyone have any experience with it?

Originally Posted by Occytron

Something I have been tossing around the last day or so, is checking out the 200mm 2.8L II. I like that it is a stealthy, lighter, cheaper alternative to the 70-200 (granted I don't need anything between 70 and 200). It seems to be a lens that is loved by some, and mostly ignored by everyone else due to the 70-200 being so popular. Anyone have any experience with it?

I think it is ignored because of the 70-200 and, more importantly, the 135 f/2L... With a 1.4TC, the 135 is pretty close to being a 200 f/2.8 without any loss of sharpness (that I can tell, I'm sure there's some) or much focus speed. The 135 is such a great lens, and so good for portraits, that I think it gets the nod instead of the 200 most of the time... the 200 just doesn't add enough to make it really special--it's not faster than the 70-200, and is about the same, IQ-wise, as the 135.

^ exactly. The 135L is just so good and f/2 so it wins over the 200 unless you'll ONLY ever use it at 200. I will say the 135 was sharp and AFed fast with the 1.4 TC, but it got some really weird bokeh with it (but it was a sigma 1.4 TC).

That's good to know. I thought about the 135 but never really considered the TC