Help me pick my prime setup for FF

[Luq]

If you didnt already have the 5D2, I'd say just get two pre-owned 5D, and mount your 50f1.4 on one, and a 28 f1.8 or 24 f1.4 on the other.

I hardly think that the older 5D can't produce what you need (based on your description of use).

On my part, I had a good copy of the 28 f1.8 on a 5D and I didn't have any problems producing photos that were needed by my editor at the time (and no, I wasn't photographing for a newspaper, so quality was still a requisite).

That and the 50 fulfilled my need for a small, fast, and light setup - like the old Leica Ms.

The 24L and 35L are superb lenses, no doubt. But they are also significantly bulkier and heavier. Not to mention more expensive.

Just my humble 2 cents.

Good luck!

 

[golfpro44]

very well said dude....

 

[golfpro44]

very well said.Power of your pocket still holds all court.;(

 

[ManWearPants]

35L + 85L makes me happy.
Wonder if it will make you happy too

I thot for a 2 prime setup for events, this would be the ideal combination - 35 for group photos and 85 for individual or couple shoots. I would be happy with this combo. But then too expensive for me, as an amateur/hobbist. > S$4k for 2 lenses.

 

[gazkw]

I thot for a 2 prime setup for events, this would be the ideal combination - 35 for group photos and 85 for individual or couple shoots. I would be happy with this combo. But then too expensive for me, as an amateur/hobbist. > S$4k for 2 lenses.

buy the non L set up... still good stuff.

 

[Headshotzx]

Yeah, I don't think I'll shoot wider than 24mm really. 28mm does it for me (17mm on crop).

However, I kinda like the bokeh of the 35L over the 24L II... perhaps I should keep the 17-40L and purchase the 35L?

I'm going to borrow a friend's 11-16 and test it at 15mm (24mm fov on FF) to see it if works. if it feels too wide, I'll go with option b (5D2, 400D, 17-40L, 35L, 50 1.4, 135L + extender).

Cheers,
Zexun

 

[m3lv1nh0]

Yeah, I don't think I'll shoot wider than 24mm really. 28mm does it for me (17mm on crop).

However, I kinda like the bokeh of the 35L over the 24L II... perhaps I should keep the 17-40L and purchase the 35L?

I'm going to borrow a friend's 11-16 and test it at 15mm (24mm fov on FF) to see it if works. if it feels too wide, I'll go with option b (5D2, 400D, 17-40L, 35L, 50 1.4, 135L + extender).

Cheers,
Zexun

Good choice! I love my 35L. Not too sure about that 501.4 as the FL difference(15mm) is too little to see any major difference. 851.8 would be a better choice, IMHO.

 

[Garion]

Good choice! I love my 35L. Not too sure about that 501.4 as the FL difference(15mm) is too little to see any major difference. 851.8 would be a better choice, IMHO.

Seconded. IIRC, TS is currently using 50mm on his 1.6x crop body which is somewhat equivalence to 85mm on a FF.

Another vote for 35L, 85/1.8 and 135L lineup. :thumbsup: (this is my kinda realistic 'dream' prime lineup btw ;p)

 

[ManWearPants]

buy the non L set up... still good stuff.

I am cheap skate. I will keep my Ex50f1.4 and zoom using my legs. I know the perspective is different but have to make do at 1/6th the price of 35L + 85L. I think f1.4 and f1.2 is very close.

 

[night86mare]

not all primes are ultimate sharp3st lenzx0r, btw

but then, i don't know, i only buy primes when there is a certain focal length i really like

zooms can be less sharp, yes.. but so much more convenient, not necessarily heavier too

 

[chengpenguin]

Seconded. IIRC, TS is currently using 50mm on his 1.6x crop body which is somewhat equivalence to 85mm on a FF.

Another vote for 35L, 85/1.8 and 135L lineup. :thumbsup: (this is my kinda realistic 'dream' prime lineup btw ;p)

Another alternate lineup would be a wide zoom with the 2 tele primes. Like 24-70, 85 1.8 and 135L

Although 24-70 is not prime like 35L, but sometimes for event photos, you simply just need the versatility of it. Perfect sharpness if usually less of a concern for events photography.

 

[Headshotzx]

Well, if I keep the 17-40L, I will get a UWA on FF and a 28-64 ƒ/4 that I'm very used to on 1.6 crop. Not bad for events with a 135L, I would think. I did 40D/400D & 17-40L + 85 1.8, which is 400D + 17-40L, 5D2 + 135L. Swap over, and I get 17-40L and 216mm, so I'll have a 50mm and 35mm 1.4 in the bag.

But since I might go into event photography as a monetary aid for my family, I'm pretty sure 24-70 2.8L and 70-200 2.8L IS, even though very very heavy, will be a good idea to have.

Perhaps, and this is just me thinking aloud, if I were to really need to start trying to earn a little bit of income (either because my studies flunk or something bad happens and my family needs it), I could sell my 400D and other bits and piece of gear, and purchase a 28 1.8 and swap my 50 1.4 with an 85 1.8 which will give me 17-40L, 28, 85, 70-200 2.8.

That's not really idea because I really really really hope to get the 135L and either 24L or 35L, but we'll see.

Thanks for all your help guys, I know I will do either of the following (ranked accord to personal 'i think i will like it' views):

Limits: Must have wide angle 28mm or wider, must have tele at least 135mm.
400D stays unless I can convince my parents that photo gear are great tools, not really sentimental gifts that I should have an attraction to =(

1. 400D, 24L, 50 1.4, 135L
2. 400D, 17-40L, 35L, 50 1.4 (or direct trade with 85 1.8), 135L
3. 5D/1D2, 24-70L, 135L (don't really like - quite heavy and max ƒ/2 aperture)
4. 5D, 17-40L, 28 1.8, 85 1.8, 135L
   
   From here on, I don't really like, but it might be useful if I have to try to head into the industry to earn some green.
   -
5. 400D, 17-40L, 50 1.4, 70-200 2.8L IS (don't sell/buy anything: 70-200 heavy as heck, but good lens)
6. 24-70 2.8L, 50 1.4, 70-200 2.8L IS (heaviest setup - don't quite like)

I have a better idea of my options now

Cheers,
Zexun

 

[hetfieldpaul]

haha option 6 is my lineup and i pretty much need it cause i shoot sports often nowadays, btw TS do you find that a 2X teleconverter on the 70-200mm 2.8 IS causes pictures to turn out pretty soft? I tried both and the 1.4X makes pictures turn out better

 

[archlover]

i used mostly primes until now ( 15, 24, 50, 85, 135 ) except the ultra wide angle...
but now i'm going to backpacking, and i thinking to have a 24-105 will be a better choice >_<

i shoot wedding also, and im ended up keep changing between 12-24 and 85... >_<

 

[kel77]

i shoot wedding also, and im ended up keep changing between 12-24 and 85... >_<

Wouldn't it be easier to use 2 cam bodies covering such important events?
You can't afford to miss out valuable moments while changing lenses.

 

[ManWearPants]

[*]400D, 17-40L, 50 1.4, 70-200 2.8L IS (don't sell/buy anything: 70-200 heavy as heck, but good lens)

Cheers,
Zexun

Actually, I find what you already have good enough. Change to FF and you find the 70-200f2.8IS range more useful than on 400D. No need for 85f1.8 or 135L.

The aperture size diff between f2.8 and f2 is like 10cents coin vs 20cents coin. Big but not significant enough (not like from f4 to f2). Not forgetting on 5DmkII, if you require faster shutter, you can go up to ISO3200, 6400 or H1/H2. If talking about bokeh, the f2.8 is also quite nice. If want more fuzzy bokeh, then use the far end 150-200mm. Bokeh sure will be creamy. The only thing lose out is the weight and sharpness. But since you already owned the lens and it is serving you well. Why change it for the sake of changing. As you know, I have the same dilemma as you on this lens. My main reason for not making the move to 135L is with 1.4TC and 2TC, you are getting 190f2.8 and 270f4. The overall weight will be 750g(135L) + 220g(1.4TC) + 265g(2TC) = 1.235kg. This setup has the same aperture for the extended range (without IS) and weighs almost the same. So LPPL. Unless all you need is 135mm and nothing beyond that.

Just my 30 cents.

 

[lightning]

From experience, I always use a 16-35F2.8II and a fast prime like at 85F1.2L or 135L. This setup has help me shoot many weddings and with 2 cameras it is still not that heavy. You get to take all the wide shots/groups and etc and also for the special moments when you want to isolate a subject the 85/135 comes in. This combo has yielded very good results. I was toying with the idea of switching to 24L too, but I think the 16mm distortion does give some interesting perspective at times. There are many occasion where the 16mm shines....(when all camera cannot capture the entire group, with 16m it can take it.)

I find I need 16mm 35mm 85mm and 135mm for most events, and 16-35 + 85 + 135 yields the best image quality possible, and still keeping the setup manageable. (technically you can have 3 cameras with 16mm 35mm and 85mm.....but I think is not practical).

It is risky to switch from zooms to primes suddenly.

 

[mpenza]

The considerations are different if you intend to "go into event photography as a monetary aid for my family". If that's the case, you should be saving and reuse your existing gear which are already pretty good. Your 400D and 17-40F4L/50F1.4 would do pretty well for events, especially when coupled with an external flash. You don't actually need to get faster primes for what you shoot. If anything, a Sigma 20 f1.8 would have given you pretty good wide and low-light capability at a low cost.

Anyway if weight was an issue for moving to a prime setup, carrying a second body around would defeat the purpose.

 

[ManWearPants]

From experience, I always use a 16-35F2.8II and a fast prime like at 85F1.2L or 135L. This setup has help me shoot many weddings and with 2 cameras it is still not that heavy. You get to take all the wide shots/groups and etc and also for the special moments when you want to isolate a subject the 85/135 comes in. This combo has yielded very good results. I was toying with the idea of switching to 24L too, but I think the 16mm distortion does give some interesting perspective at times. There are many occasion where the 16mm shines....(when all camera cannot capture the entire group, with 16m it can take it.)

I find I need 16mm 35mm 85mm and 135mm for most events, and 16-35 + 85 + 135 yields the best image quality possible, and still keeping the setup manageable. (technically you can have 3 cameras with 16mm 35mm and 85mm.....but I think is not practical).

It is risky to switch from zooms to primes suddenly.

Another option for TS is to get a 5DI/II and pair it with his 17-40. Keep his 400D and pair it with his 50f1.4 to get 80mm with even shallower DoF. So no lenses change required. Just addition of a camera.

Anyway, go with your heart. Sometimes the answer already lies in your heart.

 

[Headshotzx]

The considerations are different if you intend to "go into event photography as a monetary aid for my family". If that's the case, you should be saving and reuse your existing gear which are already pretty good. Your 400D and 17-40F4L/50F1.4 would do pretty well for events, especially when coupled with an external flash. You don't actually need to get faster primes for what you shoot. If anything, a Sigma 20 f1.8 would have given you pretty good wide and low-light capability at a low cost.

Anyway if weight was an issue for moving to a prime setup, carrying a second body around would defeat the purpose.

For events, carrying a second body with primes would be better than carrying a second body with the large 70-200, imo. But yes, you are correct, but perhaps I didn't phrase it correctly. I would go into getting a little more money for the family to supplement the income not that we are in dire need of lots more. My parents are able to afford the 5D2 because of an medical claim from an accident long way back.

Another option for TS is to get a 5DI/II and pair it with his 17-40. Keep his 400D and pair it with his 50f1.4 to get 80mm with even shallower DoF. So no lenses change required. Just addition of a camera.

Anyway, go with your heart. Sometimes the answer already lies in your heart.

Heart says 70-200 2.8L IS is good. Arms say 70-200 sibei heavy.