24-70 or a selection of primes?

B

bozwellox

Suspended / Banned
Messages
171
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi everyone,

I ordered a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 but it's going back to Amazon as it is faulty (completely fails to focus sometimes, just makes a hideous noise).

I was going to try another copy, or failing that pay a bit extra and get a Canon 24-105, but I've talked myself out of that as I think I would miss f/2.8.

This got me thinking, that another option would be to add a couple of primes to my bag. I already have the Sigma 50mm f/1.4, so I'm considering ditching the idea of a zoom and getting a Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 and a Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 instead. So I would have:

28mm f/1.8
50mm f/1.4
85mm f/1.8

These would be my only lenses for quite some time. Eventually I may get an ultra wide zoom, and maybe either a longer prime or a 70-200, but for the moment this would be my lot. I think it would suit my kind of shots well (mainly portraits and general shots of my family, often in low light).

Obviously this wouldn't be as convenient as a zoom, but I must admit I find I get more enjoyment out of using primes than I do a zoom (not to mention the optical qualities).

So, I'd be keen to hear from any other "prime only" shooters, particularly anyone using these lenses on a 5D.

It's crazy, but it might just work!
 
Go for the primes. Wiĺl blow most zooms out of the water..
 
See, I'm in the other camp, I love my Nikon 24-70 F2.8. I used to use primes (albeit not the costly F1.4 units), but a 20mm, 24mm, 50mm and 85mm F1.8, and to be honest, I loathed changing lenses.

Also, TBH, my 24-70 is so sharp and contrasty, that I've never needed anything more. Indeed on the D800 it sings.

For me (at least), the only advantage to primes is that they are mostly faster (i.e. F1.4 vs F2.8 for most fast zooms) so better in low light and slightly better Bokeh, and they are smaller, although once you have 3 or 4 of them in your bag, that point is largely mute. Also, primes tend to give less distortions, although by no means all of them, and the high end 24-70's from the likes of Nikon, Canon etc are pretty well corrected.

It really is a personal choice as to what you think assists your kind of photography.
 
Last edited:
What about a used canon 24-70mm f2.8 MKI usually pickup for around the £800-900 mark
 
I love my 24-105mm f4L...and use this on my 5d...i use a 70-200 f4L on my 50d...so covers a large focal length...

I have a 50mm f1.8 mark I...nice bokeh and the metal finish is much better than the mark ii...personally I find I dont use it as much as I thought I would...but thats a preference each shooter has...depends a lot on what you want to shoot and what style you shoot...

Anyway...if you want lower than F4...and decide to go the prime route...I have mine for sale here... http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=427811 ...

STEVIER
 
85mm is superb
50mm is built like a toy, but becomes really sharp by f2.5
28mm is rather poor, certainly not great for landscapes or group shots where resolution matters

I'd have 24-105 and then add primes where it matters most
 
THE-BIG-MAN-SAYS said:
I love my 24-105mm f4L...and use this on my 5d...i use a 70-200 f4L on my 50d...so covers a large focal length...

I have a 50mm f1.8 mark I...nice bokeh and the metal finish is much better than the mark ii...personally I find I dont use it as much as I thought I would...but thats a preference each shooter has...depends a lot on what you want to shoot and what style you shoot...

Anyway...if you want lower than F4...and decide to go the prime route...I have mine for sale here... http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=427811 ...

STEVIER
Click to expand...

Thanks mate but I've already got the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 so no need for this really. Although that does look stunningly sharp, I would definitely have had it if I didn't already have the Sigma.
 
I prefer primes, I use a 50 and nothing else really!

I always entertain the idea of a zoom for versatility, so buy one, and then realise i don't really like them.

obviously, it's all down to the type of shooting you do though, but for me I don't think i'll ever use zooms.

Edit: can't really share info on that combo on your body, but just wanted to put my 2p on primes in :)
 
Ash. said:
I prefer primes, I use a 50 and nothing else really!

I always entertain the idea of a zoom for versatility, so buy one, and then realise i don't really like them.

obviously, it's all down to the type of shooting you do though, but for me I don't think i'll ever use zooms.

Edit: can't really share info on that combo on your body, but just wanted to put my 2p on primes in :)
Click to expand...

Thanks, I'm kind of the same. I find I tend to use my zooms at the extremes of either wide or zoomed in, and sometimes somewhere bang around the middle. So I think with those 3 primes I would be covered for most things, I'd just have to deal with changing lenses more frequently!
 
They said great minds think alike.
I have been pondering on the same thought for a while now. I have a canon 24-70 F2.8 MKI. I also have a 50mm F1.8. I have been thinking of changing the 24-70 to 85 1.8 and 28 1.8. But I just can't decide.... :(
 
bozwellox said:
mainly portraits and general shots of my family, often in low light
Click to expand...

Quick Q, do you have kids? And do they often run around in the low light?

I've debated this issue a lot and often go back and forth. Obviously it's personal preference, but don't underestimate how flexible and convenient an f2.8 zoom is. If I'm using a 85mm to take pics of my daughter across the room, and she suddenly moves/runs somewhere closer, I don't have time to swap primes and typically don't have room to step back. So you're at risk of not being able to react fast to a dynamic situation (and miss some shots), but, primes will probably slow down your photography and force you to consider the shot/working distance etc more carefully (which is a good thing).

Also, I find I often use wider apertures to blur the background as much as possible, as typically there's loads of distracting toys/mess/stuff indoors that distract the viewer in the final image. So I tend to only stop down when I really need the DoF. So if you go for a zoom, definitely get the f2.8 for this type of shooting.
 
Yes, most of my shots are of my kids. I know there would be limitations, as you say, using primes. But I also find that the majority of the time 2.8 isn't fast enough for getting shots in my house without flash (I live in a house where for some reason the sunlight never reaches the living room, so it is permanently fairly dark). That is one of the reasons I'm considering the primes - being able to shoot at f/2 and below would open up more shooting options without having to resort to flash.
 
As Xenon54 says, kids and space limitations are a very good reason to think about a zoom - I hate changing lenses as it is a faff, takes time and can let dust in (I had a 5d and it was seemed to hoover dust in every time I changed lenses !)
I shoot kids a fair bit, and stepping back or forward in a classroom can result in injured children and irate parents..!
I have owned a couple of 50mm primes and the 85mm but rarely used any as I never seemed to have the right one on the camera at the right time.
If working in a dark-ish living room would it not be an idea to set up a flash to provide soft light to boost whatever available light there is so ?
 
Sounds like that's your answer then. If you're a natural light style of shooter and therefore need f2 to maintain a usable shutter speed, then primes are the only option.

Not wanting to further complicate matters, but before investing money you might want to briefly consider ...... switching to nikon :eek:

Compared to your 5D, a used D700 would get you better low light AF abilties (both outer point and tracking), plus better flash consistency and accuracy for times when you do have to use it, plus better auto ISO (I think). All of which might make a material difference to your final images, and Nikon have a good prime line up just like Canon. I know I've considered swapping my 5Dii for a d700 several times since my baby girl grew into a toddler and started moving fast in dim light. Just a thought.
 
stevewestern said:
As Xenon54 says, kids and space limitations are a very good reason to think about a zoom - I hate changing lenses as it is a faff, takes time and can let dust in (I had a 5d and it was seemed to hoover dust in every time I changed lenses !)
I shoot kids a fair bit, and stepping back or forward in a classroom can result in injured children and irate parents..!
I have owned a couple of 50mm primes and the 85mm but rarely used any as I never seemed to have the right one on the camera at the right time.
If working in a dark-ish living room would it not be an idea to set up a flash to provide soft light to boost whatever available light there is so ?
Click to expand...

Another good point. I have often in the past set up a flash behind a plant pot or on top of a bookshelf via a cheap ebay radio trigger. The idea is to lift the shadows a bit, so I'm not working in the typical flash dominated way where the whole scene is lit with the flash. I try and work in a part available part flash way, so usually shoot on manual with settings to underexpose ambient a bit (and hence raise shutter speed), then dial up the flash up until the images are well exposed again. Usually this means the flash is often only on 1/64 or 1/32 power, into a white/cream ceiling for a nice soft effect. The difficultly is getting the blend right, but once the settings are nailed for the room, you can run-and-gun and always get consistent results. The only thing I'd say it that it doesn't work too well if the room starts out too dark (as you end up needing too much flash), but the lighting in my lounge isn't too dim.
 
Xenon54 said:
Another good point. I have often in the past set up a flash behind a plant pot or on top of a bookshelf via a cheap ebay radio trigger. The idea is to lift the shadows a bit, so I'm not working in the typical flash dominated way where the whole scene is lit with the flash. I try and work in a part available part flash way, so usually shoot on manual with settings to underexpose ambient a bit (and hence raise shutter speed), then dial up the flash up until the images are well exposed again. Usually this means the flash is often only on 1/64 or 1/32 power, into a white/cream ceiling for a nice soft effect. The difficultly is getting the blend right, but once the settings are nailed for the room, you can run-and-gun and always get consistent results. The only thing I'd say it that it doesn't work too well if the room starts out too dark (as you end up needing too much flash), but the lighting in my lounge isn't too dim.
Click to expand...

Thats exactly what I meant, but much better put !
As the OP is talking about his living room it would be easy to set it all up again once the setting have been worked out and wouldn't cost too much (assuming he has a flashgun)
 
Difficult choice, but I think I'd try another Sigma 24-70 f/2.8

I have (on a Sony A900, so FF) the Sigma 24-70 HSM, 50/f1.4, 85 f/1.4 (looking at lenses in the range you mention).

I find I have the Sigma on the camera by default - but switch to the 85 f/1.4 if I know I am going to take a number of shots at the long end - on FF it's a great FL for children's parties in a hall where you can move about freely (the IQ, etc of the Minolta G prime is outstanding, which helps!).

In a normal house I'd want the flexibility of the zoom.
 
For me its a Nikon 24-85 when convenience matters and primes when quality matters (eg family portraits). Buy carefully (f1.8d's instead of the newer g's) and the setup is yours for around the price of a decent f2.8 standard zoom.
 
stevewestern said:
Thats exactly what I meant, but much better put !
As the OP is talking about his living room it would be easy to set it all up again once the setting have been worked out and wouldn't cost too much (assuming he has a flashgun)
Click to expand...

And you can also solve any horrible mix lighting issues, where you have yellow room lighting and white flash lighting. Once you've worked out which gel(s) you need to correct your flash specifically for that room, you never have to worry again (until someone replaces a blub with a daylight version, doh!)
 
Xenon54 said:
Another good point. I have often in the past set up a flash behind a plant pot or on top of a bookshelf via a cheap ebay radio trigger. The idea is to lift the shadows a bit, so I'm not working in the typical flash dominated way where the whole scene is lit with the flash. I try and work in a part available part flash way, so usually shoot on manual with settings to underexpose ambient a bit (and hence raise shutter speed), then dial up the flash up until the images are well exposed again. Usually this means the flash is often only on 1/64 or 1/32 power, into a white/cream ceiling for a nice soft effect. The difficultly is getting the blend right, but once the settings are nailed for the room, you can run-and-gun and always get consistent results. The only thing I'd say it that it doesn't work too well if the room starts out too dark (as you end up needing too much flash), but the lighting in my lounge isn't too dim.
Click to expand...

Now that's not a bad idea at all. I have an old YN-460 II and some cheap (and horrendously unreliable) triggers sat there not getting much use. I suppose I could make them a semi-permanent living room fixture!
 
SimonUK said:
Go for the primes. Wiĺl blow most zooms out of the water..
Click to expand...

I don't believe that you've used the two 1.8 lenses if that's your answer!

daugirdas said:
85mm is superb
50mm is built like a toy, but becomes really sharp by f2.5
Click to expand...

Agreed the 85mm is great, apart from it's lack of contrast, but I'd be hard pushed to describe the Sigma 50/1.4 as 'built like a toy'. Are you thinking of the right lens?
 
DemiLion said:
I don't believe that you've used the two 1.8 lenses if that's your answer!



Agreed the 85mm is great, apart from it's lack of contrast, but I'd be hard pushed to describe the Sigma 50/1.4 as 'built like a toy'. Are you thinking of the right lens?
Click to expand...

I was referring to Canon 50mm. The sigma is different, but it's like a lottery

85mm is not really bad for contrast, certainly no worse than 100mm macro which is OK but obviously not stellar in that regard
 
I've been thinking something similar. I've just sold my nex-5 which has given me £250 in the kitty. If i now sell my d5100, sigma 10-20mm and tamron 17-50mm i should have the money for a d700. This obviously leaves me with now lenses and not much money, so a few primes would be my only option. So d5100 and a few zooms or a d700 and 1 maybe 2 primes?
 
bozwellox said:
Now that's not a bad idea at all. I have an old YN-460 II and some cheap (and horrendously unreliable) triggers sat there not getting much use. I suppose I could make them a semi-permanent living room fixture!
Click to expand...

It'll be fun experimenting anyway, and you'll gain some more experience with strobist photography.

Couple of notes:
1) My lounge is long and thin, so with the overall slight underexposure of ambient, I originally found that the foreground was well exposed (due to the flash) but background was too dark. So now I use two flashes, one at each end of the room, both dribbling a small amount of light out into the very corner of the wall/ceiling (which helps spread the light a bit). The point is, watch out for the background looking too dark, as this gives the viewer the instant impression it was a flash lit shot, whereas you're trying to make it look like flash was never used at all. This might or might not be an issue in your room.

2) I also try to point one of my flashes into the ceiling next to the window (I also don't have too much natural light coming in). This is deliberate, to make the flash light direction appear to come from the same direction as the window light, which is what the viewer will expect to see (if even sub consciously). I find it looks slightly unnatural if a strong-ish light source is coming from an area of the room where's there's not any lights. For anyone that knows the room (eg my wife, or me) it won't look quite right.

HTH,
Will
 
Xenon54 said:
It'll be fun experimenting anyway, and you'll gain some more experience with strobist photography.

Couple of notes:
1) My lounge is long and thin, so with the overall slight underexposure of ambient, I originally found that the foreground was well exposed (due to the flash) but background was too dark. So now I use two flashes, one at each end of the room, both dribbling a small amount of light out into the very corner of the wall/ceiling (which helps spread the light a bit). The point is, watch out for the background looking too dark, as this gives the viewer the instant impression it was a flash lit shot, whereas you're trying to make it look like flash was never used at all. This might or might not be an issue in your room.

2) I also try to point one of my flashes into the ceiling next to the window (I also don't have too much natural light coming in). This is deliberate, to make the flash light direction appear to come from the same direction as the window light, which is what the viewer will expect to see (if even sub consciously). I find it looks slightly unnatural if a strong-ish light source is coming from an area of the room where's there's not any lights. For anyone that knows the room (eg my wife, or me) it won't look quite right.

HTH,
Will
Click to expand...

Thanks for the tips - there goes my Monday evening! :thumbs:

I was thinking the same about mimicking the direction of the ambient light, and I have just the spot to hide the flash away.

Do you leave your flash/receiver on all the time? If so - what's the battery life like when they are in standby? Is it feasible to have them sat there all the time and just use them when the trigger is attached to the camera?
 
Last edited:
bozwellox said:
Do you leave your flash/receiver on all the time? If so - what's the battery life like when they are in standby? Is it feasible to have them sat there all the time and just use them when the trigger is attached to the camera?
Click to expand...

I got some cheap fleabay remotes a few years ago that "wake up" one of my flashes, but not the other (580ex), so your mileage my vary. I think the newer ones should all wake up the flash, and are a lot more reliable now.

Battery is fine while shooting, just remember to turn them off when you're done. Leaving em on for weeks in your bag, or on a shelf, will kill the battery. But if they run off AA's its not a big problem.

You won't be able to leave them in standby all year round so you can just walk into the room a start shooting. So plan it so you can easily toggle the little on/off switch on the side.
 
Thanks mate, had a little play around this evening with two flashes scattered around the living room and got some pretty good results. Top idea!
 
rjbell said:
I've been thinking something similar. I've just sold my nex-5 which has given me £250 in the kitty. If i now sell my d5100, sigma 10-20mm and tamron 17-50mm i should have the money for a d700. This obviously leaves me with now lenses and not much money, so a few primes would be my only option. So d5100 and a few zooms or a d700 and 1 maybe 2 primes?
Click to expand...

Make it the 85mm f1.8 you wont regret it!
 
I can't be bothered changing lenses - especially trying to take shots of my kids.. "stand still while I change my lens"
 
Sootchucker said:
See, I'm in the other camp, I love my Nikon 24-70 F2.8. I used to use primes (albeit not the costly F1.4 units), but a 20mm, 24mm, 50mm and 85mm F1.8, and to be honest, I loathed changing lenses.

Also, TBH, my 24-70 is so sharp and contrasty, that I've never needed anything more. Indeed on the D800 it sings.

For me (at least), the only advantage to primes is that they are mostly faster (i.e. F1.4 vs F2.8 for most fast zooms) so better in low light and slightly better Bokeh, and they are smaller, although once you have 3 or 4 of them in your bag, that point is largely mute. Also, primes tend to give less distortions, although by no means all of them, and the high end 24-70's from the likes of Nikon, Canon etc are pretty well corrected.

It really is a personal choice as to what you think assists your kind of photography.
Click to expand...

I also use a Nikon 24-70 f2.8 on my D700. I wouldn't change to primes in this range now. It's a truly great lens...with a monumental price tag :eek: You do get what you pay for. I've had a lot of Canon gear in the past and I changed systems because for what I do and expect Nikon can supply better lenses than Canon. Nikon have invested in updating a lot of lenses whereas Canon are apparently still selling many lenses with an inherently old design. I have found it easier to choose excellent lenses from Nikon rather than Canon.
 
flashp said:
I also use a Nikon 24-70 f2.8 on my D700. I wouldn't change to primes in this range now. It's a truly great lens...with a monumental price tag :eek: You do get what you pay for. I've had a lot of Canon gear in the past and I changed systems because for what I do and expect Nikon can supply better lenses than Canon. Nikon have invested in updating a lot of lenses whereas Canon are apparently still selling many lenses with an inherently old design. I have found it easier to choose excellent lenses from Nikon rather than Canon.
Click to expand...
I'm a Nikon user too so no way a canon fanboy but i would say both Canons 24-70mm L's 1&2 are sharper than Nikons from images i've seen in magazine reviews. I would however take the nikon if you bent my arm!:)
 
Last edited:
I'd go with the primes in your situation personally, the 28mm 1.8 doesnt have a brilliant rep but that seems mostly down to the boarder performance below f/4 which I'd guess isnt going to bother you much taking portraits considering the Sigma 50mm is rather similar.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top