prime focal length choices

I'm looking to get a few primes, and wondered if others could provide some info on why they chose the focal lengths they own.

For example, I'm considering the two following combinations: 24, 50, 135 or 35, 85.

Anyone with preferences of one of these combinations over the other? (I'm less interested in specific lenses (E.g. 24 f/1.4 vs. 24 f/2.8 IS), but the focal lengths themselves.

I'm shotting with a 5d3, and mostly interested in the primes for portraiture and events.
 
Well, those are pretty much the 5 classic fixed FLs for lenses. Kind of hard to offer advice without knowing what camera (sensor) you're shooting, and what you shoot. Even then, it's completely subjective. Obviously the 24/50/135 gives you more options, and wider and longer FLs. But you could certainly get by with a 35/85. Just a discussion on 85 vs 135 could go for pages. Ultimately it comes down to personal preference.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,099
12,863
As statted, it really comes down to personal preference. For example, I prefer 35mm to 24mm for a fast, wide prime.

sturdiva said:
I've got a 24-70 and 70-200, so I have all of these focal lengths covered

Ok, so set your 24-70mm to 24mm, 35mm, and 50mm, and your 70-200mm to 85mm and 135mm for a while at each focal length, and play around. See what fits your needs best.

Personally, I went with the 35L, 85L II, and 135L (the classic 'holy trinity' of fast primes).
 
Upvote 0
neuroanatomist said:
Ok, so set your 24-70mm to 24mm, 35mm, and 50mm, and your 70-200mm to 85mm and 135mm for a while at each focal length, and play around. See what fits your needs best.

Good idea (feel slightly silly not thinking of that). I had gone through my lightroom catalog looking for most used focal lengths, but that really seemed to only lead me towards the extreme ends of my zooms (24, 70, and 200).
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,099
12,863
sturdiva said:
neuroanatomist said:
Ok, so set your 24-70mm to 24mm, 35mm, and 50mm, and your 70-200mm to 85mm and 135mm for a while at each focal length, and play around. See what fits your needs best.

Good idea (feel slightly silly not thinking of that). I had gone through my lightroom catalog looking for most used focal lengths, but that really seemed to only lead me towards the extreme ends of my zooms (24, 70, and 200).

Yeah, that's common for zooms. The other problem with that is you are probably not considering any cropping you had done on those images. The reason I picked 35mm over 24mm was after using a 24-105L set to each for a while, and processing the images, I found myself leaving the 35mm images alone but cropping almost all of the 24mm images. EXIF would still have told me I had a lot of keepers at 24mm, of course.
 
Upvote 0
I know you said you just wanted to consider focal lengths, not specific lenses, but ultimately it comes down to purchasing lenses. As most agree, the focal lengths are somewhat subjective as to what works best for you, but lens options and costs aren’t. The 135 is pretty limited, but options for an 85 prime are quite large and varied, from the quirky 85/1.2, to the cheap 85/1.8, to options in between like Sigma’s 1.4. If you’re having a hard time deciding let the options help you, as I don’t think you’ll find any concrete decisions in the focal length. Besides perhaps, that the 85 will be more forgiving in low light than the 135/2 considering the wider aperture and shorter FL.
 
Upvote 0
I'm using the 35L on my 5D3 and it's a superb lens for environmental portraits and candid shots. I'm also using the Sigma 84mm f/1.4 and while it has the ability to take incredible shots I'm thinking of trading it in for a 135mm for the extra focal length. Sometimes I find it's a little short for really effective subject isolation in busy environments (weddings / street photography for example).

As always, this is only my opinion and others may like 85mm over 135mm. I can't fault the 35mm focal length though, it's very useful for portrait work.
 
Upvote 0

MARKOE PHOTOE

Photography is a love affair with life.
Like most have said: 135L f2.0, 85 1.2L II, and maybe a Siggy 35 1.4 ....and a Zeiss 50mm f2.0. Oh, and a great bargain for the price; 200 f2.8L II, this being a fast and lightweight lens (non-white) that is about the same size as the 135L.

Best Regards,
Markoe
 
Upvote 0

JonAustin

Telecom / IT consultant and semi-pro photographer
Dec 10, 2012
641
0
Horseshoe Bay, TX
My two primes are a 50 and 100 ... seems I'm the only one to list a 100mm prime here.

I used to have an 85mm for portraiture (on FF), but I found that I was cropping most of those shots (and I never opened it up to f/1.8 ), so I sold it and bought the 100.

I use the 50 mostly when I want a small, light rig for environmental shooting, or when I want to push myself out of the comfort zone of zooms.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 14, 2012
910
7
sturdiva said:
I'm looking to get a few primes, and wondered if others could provide some info on why they chose the focal lengths they own.

For example, I'm considering the two following combinations: 24, 50, 135 or 35, 85.

Anyone with preferences of one of these combinations over the other? (I'm less interested in specific lenses (E.g. 24 f/1.4 vs. 24 f/2.8 IS), but the focal lengths themselves.

I'm shotting with a 5d3, and mostly interested in the primes for portraiture and events.

If those are the two main purposes, there are still many variables - for portraits: head-shot portraits, half body, full body, individuals vs groups, how close do you like to get, etc. For events, are you trying to capture the overall scene - e.g. a concert in a church - or a close-up of a basketball going through a hoop, how big is the event, etc.? Depending on what you're trying to capture, you might want to expand the range of lenses you're considering to include the excellent 200mm 2.8 (unless your 70-200 is 2.8).

At present I have 28mm IS, 50 1.4, 85 1.8 (may want to replace this with 85L), 100L and 135L (plus some excellent M43 primes); have also owned, but no longer do 20mm 2.8, 28mm 1.8, 50mm 1.8, 50mm 1.5 and 200mm 2.8. Would like to add a very wide fast prime (or zoom) for large interiors.

You may want to surprise yourself too - some of what I own is by fortunate accident (e.g. the short-lived ridiculous Adorama discount on the 28mm IS) rather to meet some perceived need; I've sometimes ended up with a lens I've liked enough to experiment with to see what I can do with it and whether I can adapt myself to it - a rather enjoyable adventure of sorts, and one reason why primes, while more limiting in some ways, expand your horizons in others, altering how you see the world. You may want buy, or at least rent, a lens outside your "comfort zone" and see what happens....
 
Upvote 0

DRR

Jul 2, 2013
253
0
I have a different approach - start with the one focal length you can't live without and build around it.

For me I shoot a lot of contextual portraits. 85 outside is very common for me, 35 is used a lot indoors. That's good, not a lot of overlap. I personally find 50 to be too narrow for moving around indoors, and too wide at the distances I want to use outside. So it's common for me to just bring 35 and 85 and no L zooms, which are large and heavy. To round out my primes I'd like to have a 135 and maybe something like a 20. I think 20 is as wide as you can get without getting into unnatural looking distortion. Sigma makes a 20/1.8, Canon's fastest at that focal length is f/2.8. Unless you step up to 24mm and L glass.
 
Upvote 0
neuroanatomist said:
Personally, I went with the 35L, 85L II, and 135L (the classic 'holy trinity' of fast primes).

I beg your pardon OP but could I add a question to everyone here (in reference to Mr. Neuro's statement, may be he will also jump to share his understanding/opinion here).

Why does not this "holy trinity" include the 50L? Alright, 85 is 50mm more than 35 and 135 is 50mm more than 85. So they are equally spaced. That may be one logic (not a very strong one though). But is there any other reason to exclude 50L? We could have an "unholy foursome" (ok that did not come out right)....
 
Upvote 0
In the same boat... What i did was look at what focal lengths i use the most (using LR).... For me, 60% of my shots with my 24-105 were at 24mm, 25% at 105 and the remaining everywhere in-between.

I suggest doing that! It can be very interesting.

I'm picking up a 24mm Prime. I have a 50 1.8, which I'm sure one day i will up-date, but on the long side of things, my 70-200 is doing me nicely...

My primes will be:
24, 50, x.

Another reason for 24 over 35.... you can always crop a 24 to 35 easily, but the other way round is more annoying (stitching)... :)


ps - I am also picking up the 40mm 2.8... so my need for a 35 is extremely low now! :p
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,099
12,863
RAKAMRAK said:
neuroanatomist said:
Personally, I went with the 35L, 85L II, and 135L (the classic 'holy trinity' of fast primes).

I beg your pardon OP but could I add a question to everyone here (in reference to Mr. Neuro's statement, may be he will also jump to share his understanding/opinion here).

Why does not this "holy trinity" include the 50L? Alright, 85 is 50mm more than 35 and 135 is 50mm more than 85. So they are equally spaced. That may be one logic (not a very strong one though). But is there any other reason to exclude 50L? We could have an "unholy foursome" (ok that did not come out right)....

Well, we could blame it being relatively less sharp, or the focus shift, but let not. I suppose the most likely explanation is that the 35/85/135 have been around a while (since before digital, when everyone with an EF lens shot 'full frame', although the 85L was updated), whereas the 50/1.2L is from 2007 and the 50/1.0L was too expensive to be part of most people's kit.
 
Upvote 0
RAKAMRAK said:
neuroanatomist said:
Personally, I went with the 35L, 85L II, and 135L (the classic 'holy trinity' of fast primes).

I beg your pardon OP but could I add a question to everyone here (in reference to Mr. Neuro's statement, may be he will also jump to share his understanding/opinion here).

Why does not this "holy trinity" include the 50L? Alright, 85 is 50mm more than 35 and 135 is 50mm more than 85. So they are equally spaced. That may be one logic (not a very strong one though). But is there any other reason to exclude 50L? We could have an "unholy foursome" (ok that did not come out right)....

It is true that 35>85>135 has 50mm in between. But it may be a better "spacing" to look at the field of view ratios. 135mm film is 24*36mm; so a 2:3 aspect ratio. The ideal spacing would be to have your focal lengths a factor 1,5 apart. That way the vertical FoV is the same as the horizontal FoV of the next lens in your series. An ideal series would look like (starting at 24):

24>36>54>81>122>182>273 with a bit of rounding:
24>35>50>85>135>200>300
 
Upvote 0