Seeking advice for set of primes

[Triggyman]

Hi all:

I need some info from the fine forum members here who have a collection of primes, and what set of focal lengths you have.

There was a recommendation I heard that to be economical, if I had one focal length I should spread every lens out 2x. (e.g. 24 + 50+ 100 or 35 + 85 + 135). Does this make any sense at all?

I have already started by ordering a 35mm f/2 IS USM, but I still need a 50mm (I will wait until the CR2 level rumored f1.8 IS USM comes 2014). I could not afford the L primes.

Thanks!

Background: Last week I purchased a 24-70mm f/2.8L II, it was a marvelous lens, real good sharpness/contrast/colors - it was hard to part with it, but as I'm not making money out of photography I came to my senses and realized it was an extravagant purchase for me personally. After a week I ashamedly returned it to the photo shop. (Nitpicked on my copy about the soft corner sharpness on the lower left even at 35mm f/8. All other corners were significantly sharper and the vignetting was heavier on the left of frame).

I am going back to primes. I ordered a 35mm f/2 IS USM. I love the 35mm focal length, I mostly do documentary/"fly on the wall" style of photography.

 

[Loswr]

I have the 'holy trinity' – 35L, 85L II, 135L. Well spaced, and a versatile collection of focal lengths. In your place, I think I would be looking at the 85/1.8 next. IMO, it's one of the best values in the Canon lineup in terms of IQ per dollar. The 100/2 is its close cousin in build an image quality, and also an excellent lens. Not sure what body you're using, but I found 85mm on APS-C to be excellent for tight portraits, but 100mm to be slightly too long, at least for indoor use.

 

[alexanderferdinand]

If you find an used 135L, check it.
I got mine for €800 (around $1000), and simply love it.
The 85/1,8 comes very close, much cheaper.
Sweet pain of choice, good luck!

 

[Cptn Rigo]

I have the 'holy trinity' – 35L, 85L II, 135L. Well spaced, and a versatile collection of focal lengths.

+1 If money is not an issue

85mm 1.8 is amazing too

 

[verysimplejason]

I'm using a 28mm f1.8, 50mm f1.8II and the 100mm f2.8 macro usm non-l (coz I also love macro). I find it complete enough for most of my photography. I have only 1 L lens, a UWA which I only use for landscape. I'm planning to get a 200mm F2 later or a 70-300 but only if I got some extra money as I rarely shoot sports. I'm also waiting for the 50mm IS. Hopefully, it won't be expensive.

 

[Triggyman]

I have the 'holy trinity' – 35L, 85L II, 135L. Well spaced, and a versatile collection of focal lengths. In your place, I think I would be looking at the 85/1.8 next. IMO, it's one of the best values in the Canon lineup in terms of IQ per dollar. The 100/2 is its close cousin in build an image quality, and also an excellent lens. Not sure what body you're using, but I found 85mm on APS-C to be excellent for tight portraits, but 100mm to be slightly too long, at least for indoor use.

Thanks for your advice. I got a 5DM3. Looks like when building up primes, one needs to plan carefully.

In my situation, I didn't plan ahead. I acquired my 1-year old 100mm 2.8L Macro about 6 months after the 24-105.

I just got the 35mm f/2 IS today, and I'm in love with it since it's my favorite focal length and I judged the focus is bang on for my camera body. So it's either the 50 or 85 next. One of those Focal lengths will be covered by the 24-105mm albeit at f/4.

If you find an used 135L, check it.
I got mine for €800 (around $1000), and simply love it.
The 85/1,8 comes very close, much cheaper.
Sweet pain of choice, good luck!

Thanks, I will take a look at the 135L, but it's kind of close to the 100mm Macro. Wait, I don't have 135mm focal length...