Input on building a prime lens kit

[gregorywood]

Greetings all,

Long time listener, first time caller...

I've been slowly evolving my equipment as well as my skills over the last few years. I find myself in a good place with camera bodies and zoom lenses having honed in on the smallest number of zoom lenses (4) that meet my needs, but I find myself wanting to have that same efficiency in prime lenses.

My current kit consists of a 6D and a 7D body. I shoot a lot of action (soccer, dancing, events, exercise studio, motorsports, etc) as well as landscape, walk around, travel, portraits and product/real estate. My current lens kit consists of the EF 17-40mm L, EF 24-105mm L, EF 70-200 L, EF 70-300mm L, EF 100mm L macro, EF 35mm IS, EF 50mm 1.4.

To be specific, I'm curious to hear opinions from others on the most versatile 3 lens prime kit. I'm thinking either a 24mm/50mm/85mm or 35mm/85mm/135mm arrangement, though other combinations might warrant consideration. I want enough diversity in focal length yet still have a reasonably flexible kit. I'm not so concerned about the primes on the crop body as I am the full frame. I predominately use the zooms on the 7D and the primes on the 6D, though I do use the 17-40mm L for real estate shots and the 24-105mm as a walk around and travel setup on the 6D and occasionally will through the 35mm IS on the 7D.

I want to sort of "force myself" into leaving the house with 2 or 3 primes and the 6D and making it work to see what happens.

Thanks in advance for the input!
Greg
Fort Worth, Texas

 

[Loswr]

Personally, I have the 35L/85L II/135L trinity, all are excellent for their intended uses. You mention action/moving subjects first, and I will say the 85L II isn't great for that on your bodies (it's ok on the 1-series which drives the AF motor faster...but just barely ok). I use the 85L as a portrait lens. The 135L is great for portraits and low light action (dance recitals, gymnasiums, etc.).

You don't mention a budget, but you have the 35/2 IS and 50/1.4. In your place, I think I'd build from the 35/2 IS, and get the 85/1.8 (an excellent lens with the exception of bad longitudinal CA on specular highlights; focuses very fast), and the 135/2L.

 

[gregorywood]

Personally, I have the 35L/85L II/135L trinity, all are excellent for their intended uses. You mention action/moving subjects first, and I will say the 85L II isn't great for that on your bodies (it's ok on the 1-series which drives the AF motor faster...but just barely ok). I use the 85L as a portrait lens. The 135L is great for portraits and low light action (dance recitals, gymnasiums, etc.).

You don't mention a budget, but you have the 35/2 IS and 50/1.4. In your place, I think I'd build from the 35/2 IS, and get the 85/1.8 (an excellent lens with the exception of bad longitudinal CA on specular highlights; focuses very fast), and the 135/2L.

I use the 7D for action and typically the zooms are the "go to" lenses for that job. I wouldn't necessarily grab the 7D for indoor, low-light action, so the use of a wide aperture prime on the 6D would certainly occur in some low-light, indoor action, but it wouldn't be the norm or frequent.

I didn't mention the budget part because I'm really focused on getting the focal length/aperture of the trio of primes right above all else. I'll admit that my goal is to build a more "modern" kit, made up of lenses that are within a few years on the market, inclusive of L glass (all my zooms are L and my macro) and other brands are certainly in the running. The question was more around the most usable focal lengths in a trio of primes on a full frame, primarily.

Having said all that, do you find yourself wanting for something between the 35mm and and the 85mm? Where do you use the 85 versus the 135? They strike me as being quite close in application and usage.

Thanks for the quick response and good info!
Greg

 

[RLPhoto]

I used a 24-50-135 combo for the majority of my shooting. Look at your catalog as see where your best shots are and stick to those focal lengths.

 

[gregorywood]

I used a 24-50-135 combo for the majority of my shooting. Look at your catalog as see where your best shots are and stick to those focal lengths.

I like pretty much everything I've seen shot with the 135L, and I was on the fence about buying that or the 100L Macro recently, the IS at that focal length seems necessary for some things and a nice to have. I'm sure within 3-5 years, all the non-L Canon primes will have IS, and perhaps some of the L's also.

I fear that the 24 will be too wide, yet the 35 is closer to the 50 than any other separation. My gut tells me 35-85-135, but I can't help feeling like I'll miss that 50. The truth is that I use the 50mm f/1.4 more than any other prime lens currently. But I think if I didn't have it, I'd use the 35mm f/2 IS just the same (and maybe even grow to like it more). You're probably thinking "just use keep the 50 and dump the 35 then, that's easy"...and that certainly holds logic. For me, I don't think I've forced myself to explore enough with the primes and using my feet. I default to what I know and what I'm comfortable with.

Thanks for the feedback!
Greg

 

[Loswr]

I don't really miss not having a prime between 35 and 85 mm (well, actually I have two of them...but the 40/2.8 is really close to 35mm, and the MP-E 65mm doesn't really count ).

I debated between the 24L II and 35L, and I found 24mm too wide for my taste. I set my zoom at the time (24-105L) to each FL for a while, definitely preferred 35mm. Looking over your library EXIF is useful, but be careful...most people have a tendency to use zooms mostly at the ends of the range, personally I found that quite a few of my 24mm shots from the 24-105 were cropped a bit in post, such that they ended up closer to the 35mm AoV.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I'm finding that I use prime lenses a lot less, and the "L" zooms almost exclusively. I finally up and sold my 35L, all three of my 50mm lenses, and my 85mm f/1.8.

I still have a 15,, fisheye, a 17mm f/3.5, my 100L, and 135mm L, but I really never use them. My 135mmL was my most used lens, followed by the 35, and then 85 before I bought the Zooms.

I find 24mm to be wide enough, and am usually at 70-135mm for events. I can setup back from the stage and zoom in on one, two, or the whole stage. with this combination. The 16-35 only gets used when the actors come out into the audience and they are 3 ft away.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

I'd suggest 24(or 35)/50/135 that will suit your needs. You have already the 35mm, 50mm and 100mm focal distances covered. I have both 35mm and 100mm and use them a lot but sometimes miss a wide perspective like 24mm in FF.

 

[orrokinawa]

I'm finding that I use prime lenses a lot less, and the "L" zooms almost exclusively. I finally up and sold my 35L, all three of my 50mm lenses, and my 85mm f/1.8.

I still have a 15,, fisheye, a 17mm f/3.5, my 100L, and 135mm L, but I really never use them. My 135mmL was my most used lens, followed by the 35, and then 85 before I bought the Zooms.

I find 24mm to be wide enough, and am usually at 70-135mm for events. I can setup back from the stage and zoom in on one, two, or the whole stage. with this combination. The 16-35 only gets used when the actors come out into the audience and they are 3 ft away.

​

Looking to buy a 15MM Fisheye if ever need to get rid of it, seems to be a hard lens to find in good shape these days.

 

[Zv]

For me a the main reason for buying a prime lens is that it allows you to do something that your zoom lens can't. For example - I shoot a lot at 24mm but I don't need a prime at that focal length because I have a 17-40L and 24-105L and I mainly shoot between f/5.6 - f/11. Instead I went for a 14mm f/2.8 because it has a unique perspective and it doubles up as an astro landscape lens (should I ever get into that!). There is a huge difference between 17mm f/4 and 14mm f/2.8 so the decision was an easy one!

But anyway, looking at your primes 35/50/100 isn't a bad combo at all. They all have advantages over your zooms but is there anything you would like to be able to do that you can't using those three, like tilt shift ability? If I had to go out with just three primes I'd choose 14/35/135 but that's because of the way I shoot. I find 35mm to be more useful than 50mm (my EOS M / 22 is my 35) and I find the telephoto look appealing so I'd go with the 135L (also because it's a bargain!).

How about this combo for OP - 17mm (or 24mm) TSE for landscape and interiors, keep the 35 f/2 IS for travel, low light and discreet street photography and also keep the 100mm macro for product and portraits. Either hold on to the 50 1.4 or sell it. Depends how much you use it.

 

[e17paul]

I often carry with me my 50 and 24, between them they cover most of my needs whether I'm using my modern Canon kit (6D) or manual focus (OM-10) kit. That covers 80 to 90 percent of the photos I would like to stop and take.

With the OM-10 I sometimes carry the 135 too, giving the option of greater reach and thinner depth of field. With the 6D I would like to include a 100L, that's at the top of my wishlist for when I don't want to carry the big white zoom.

So in summary 24/50/100 or 24/50/135 is what suits me as a basic kit, and is not cumbersome enough to require a backpack or car.

 

[Dylan777]

35/85/135mm sounds solid.

 

[Dick]

My current lens kit consists of the EF 17-40mm L, EF 24-105mm L, EF 70-200 L, EF 70-300mm L, EF 100mm L macro, EF 35mm IS, EF 50mm 1.4.

I'm curious to hear opinions from others on the most versatile 3 lens prime kit.

I guess it all comes down to your definition of versatile. You mentioned that you have the 100L, which is a really versatily lens already, so I'd name that as one of the 3 lenses. Then to add a wide-angle lens, maybe the 14LII. The normal lens could then be a choice between a 35mm or a 50mm lens. That would definitely be a versatile trio.

The basic 24 + 50 + 135 or 35 + 85 + ? are really borin if you ask me and there is really no versatility. Those are combos that replace zooms with wider apertures. Boring.

 

[alexturton]

With just 3 lenses id get

24, 50, 135

24 1.4 is a fantastic prime. Will deliver images and dof you've never seen in such a wide angel
50 1.2 is a staple lens for me. Close enough to 35 and 85 to warrant not having all 3
135 2.0 just delivers beautiful images/boken

 

[RLPhoto]

I used a 24-50-135 combo for the majority of my shooting. Look at your catalog as see where your best shots are and stick to those focal lengths.

I like pretty much everything I've seen shot with the 135L, and I was on the fence about buying that or the 100L Macro recently, the IS at that focal length seems necessary for some things and a nice to have. I'm sure within 3-5 years, all the non-L Canon primes will have IS, and perhaps some of the L's also.

I fear that the 24 will be too wide, yet the 35 is closer to the 50 than any other separation. My gut tells me 35-85-135, but I can't help feeling like I'll miss that 50. The truth is that I use the 50mm f/1.4 more than any other prime lens currently. But I think if I didn't have it, I'd use the 35mm f/2 IS just the same (and maybe even grow to like it more). You're probably thinking "just use keep the 50 and dump the 35 then, that's easy"...and that certainly holds logic. For me, I don't think I've forced myself to explore enough with the primes and using my feet. I default to what I know and what I'm comfortable with.

Thanks for the feedback!
Greg

Another reason I chose that combo is its advantageous to a FF+crop shooter. Your get the FF focal lengths but you also get those in between ones as well so, 24-50-135 & 35-85-200 on apsc.

You have to decide if you like 35mm or 50mm more and then you can chose the other two. In practical use, I can stand father back and crop to a 35mm frame but If I need width, I'm out of luck with the 35mm. My issues with the 24LII was the vignette and some distortion but are minor in terms of that extra width. Then again, if you have a UWA, just use that along with the 35mm but now your taking more.

I have a video on the 24LII on my youtube channel if your debating between 24mm and 35mm.

 

[tayassu]

I used a 24-50-135 combo for the majority of my shooting. Look at your catalog as see where your best shots are and stick to those focal lengths.

I like pretty much everything I've seen shot with the 135L, and I was on the fence about buying that or the 100L Macro recently, the IS at that focal length seems necessary for some things and a nice to have. I'm sure within 3-5 years, all the non-L Canon primes will have IS, and perhaps some of the L's also.

I fear that the 24 will be too wide, yet the 35 is closer to the 50 than any other separation. My gut tells me 35-85-135, but I can't help feeling like I'll miss that 50. The truth is that I use the 50mm f/1.4 more than any other prime lens currently. But I think if I didn't have it, I'd use the 35mm f/2 IS just the same (and maybe even grow to like it more). You're probably thinking "just use keep the 50 and dump the 35 then, that's easy"...and that certainly holds logic. For me, I don't think I've forced myself to explore enough with the primes and using my feet. I default to what I know and what I'm comfortable with.

Thanks for the feedback!
Greg

Another reason I chose that combo is its advantageous to a FF+crop shooter. Your get the FF focal lengths but you also get those in between ones as well so, 24-50-135 & 35-85-200 on apsc.

+1
You gain much more flexibility with 2 bodies... I'd suggest also 24/50/135 or 200... but 135 will be better for your requirements. You can use that on crop as 38/80/216. If you get very fast primes (think 24/1.4, 50/1.2, 135/2) then the 7D at low light will not be that much of a problem. For walkaround in the city or something like that, I'd have the 50mm on FF and the 135 on crop, just swap the 24mm in when needed. It's not going to be too wide, 35mm is going to be too narrow, I had the same situation

 

[gregorywood]

For me a the main reason for buying a prime lens is that it allows you to do something that your zoom lens can't. For example - I shoot a lot at 24mm but I don't need a prime at that focal length because I have a 17-40L and 24-105L and I mainly shoot between f/5.6 - f/11. Instead I went for a 14mm f/2.8 because it has a unique perspective and it doubles up as an astro landscape lens (should I ever get into that!). There is a huge difference between 17mm f/4 and 14mm f/2.8 so the decision was an easy one!

But anyway, looking at your primes 35/50/100 isn't a bad combo at all. They all have advantages over your zooms but is there anything you would like to be able to do that you can't using those three, like tilt shift ability? If I had to go out with just three primes I'd choose 14/35/135 but that's because of the way I shoot. I find 35mm to be more useful than 50mm (my EOS M / 22 is my 35) and I find the telephoto look appealing so I'd go with the 135L (also because it's a bargain!).

How about this combo for OP - 17mm (or 24mm) TSE for landscape and interiors, keep the 35 f/2 IS for travel, low light and discreet street photography and also keep the 100mm macro for product and portraits. Either hold on to the 50 1.4 or sell it. Depends how much you use it.

You've given me some points to consider that I hadn't thought about - most notably, a lens that does something none of my zooms do. Thanks for that.

Also, the 35mm seems more versatile in concept and on paper, I just need to force myself to leave the 50mm at home for a while when I go and use the 35mm.

Thanks for the input!
Greg

 

[MamiyaSekor]

A daring idea! Sort of.


Try renting one focal length for a weekend. Roam around, get a real feel for what kind of shots it allows, what kind it prevents, and whether it is to your personal taste. After you've gone out with each one, I bet you'll know in a month which focal lengths you'd get the most out of.

Lately I go out of the house with just 1 prime: sometimes a 24, sometimes a 35, sometimes a 50, sometimes an 85, etc. Doing this experiment offers 3 things:

Advantage 1: lightweight, fast shooting, no messing with multiple lenses trying to find just the right one.

Advantage 2: Having one lens forces a kind of aesthetic rigor. The shot works or it doesn't and you move on, making note to return with a different lens. If you find that with an 85mm you're never satisfied and constantly skipping subjects, it's probably not your focal length.

With multiple primes you invariably go for the one that 'makes sense.' Working with one lens forces you to use a focal length for subjects you instinctively wouldn't which can stimulate new and different shots.

Advantage 3: Really get to know each focal length technically and creatively. Using one focal length on an outing for subjects both appropriate and inappropriate can leave a very strong impressions of what each lens type delivers with varied shooting situations or subjects. We all probably know intellectually what a lens will likely do in any given circumstance but it's nice to have real images burned into the mind for future guidance.


As for actual multiple lens shooting I suggest a 24mm, a 35mm, and a 135mm for the following:


The 24mm for architecture, interiors, a sense of place.


A 35mm for POV, documentary street stuff.

As has been said, a 35 and a 50 are redundant. Even though it overlaps to a 24mm in technical terms, I'd still go with the 35mm because it is way more versatile than a 50mm and fills a specific niche: It best approximates the human field of view, (2 eyes) it's easier to hand hold, doesn't distort too much, can sort of get you wide shots, and can sort of get you close ups with a 50mm feel if you get up real close and open up. (On a good rectilinear lens like Zeiss, the distortion won't be too bad).

Sometimes you don't have time to switch lenses and you need something that can grab a wide but move in to a closeup (for event documentary shooting).


A 135mm for details, faraway subjects, portraits. Generally I'd say go as long as you can. If you're creatively going to go wide, go wide. If you're creatively going to go telephoto, go telephoto! An 85mm is a great portrait lens but doesn't have the reach for distant subjects. 135mm can do both.


I think the least versatile 3 lens lineup would be 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm. There would be so much overlap that you might as well just go with a single 50mm. This group is neither here nor there.

 

[gregorywood]

I guess it all comes down to your definition of versatile. You mentioned that you have the 100L, which is a really versatily lens already, so I'd name that as one of the 3 lenses. Then to add a wide-angle lens, maybe the 14LII. The normal lens could then be a choice between a 35mm or a 50mm lens. That would definitely be a versatile trio.

The basic 24 + 50 + 135 or 35 + 85 + ? are really borin if you ask me and there is really no versatility. Those are combos that replace zooms with wider apertures. Boring.

Good points to consider. I hadn't really thought of anything off the wide end below 24mm, especially in the UW range, but you make a valid argument. I don't shoot a lot in that FL, but perhaps I would if I had it. I suppose to your point, something less than 17mm (the widest I have now, but on a zoom) either the 35 or the 50 I have now (I'd sell one to fund the new addition), plus my 100mmL meets the objective. I suppose part of my curiosity lands with not having any experience with these "epic" primes everyone raves about - the 85mm and the 135mm - and feeling like something is missing in my kit if I don't have at least one of them. I see the 100mmL that I have as more of a "specialist" lens, but I need to consider it in the 3 lens scheme.

Thanks for the input!
Greg

 

[gregorywood]

With just 3 lenses id get

24, 50, 135

24 1.4 is a fantastic prime. Will deliver images and dof you've never seen in such a wide angel
50 1.2 is a staple lens for me. Close enough to 35 and 85 to warrant not having all 3
135 2.0 just delivers beautiful images/boken

This is the combo that my gut tells me I should have, yet I am concerned about the usability of the 24mm in apertures that aren't already repeated in my zooms due to the challenges I've read about with focusing and DoF. Any words of wisdom there?

Thanks for the input.
Greg