Which group of lenses would you want?

[o hey tyler]

I wouldn't consider the 35L to be overpriced. Especially compared to the other fast 35's on the market.

 

[analog.universe]

I've said it before, but I'll repeat it again... 28mm 1.8 fail :-/

It's really just mediocre. Not so sharp, not such great bokeh... I had one because it seemed like the best lens in that range at the price point, and it might be, but I ended up selling it and getting a 35mm 1.4.

 

[Robin Usagani]

yeah... I would keep the 70-200 2.8 L IS. The only time you may want to consider primes is when:
1. You simultaneously shoot with 2 bodies for events coverage. If you like to only carry 1 body with you (one in the bag as back up), then zoom is a must.
2. You dont need to change focal length that much (studio photos, babies, portraits).
3. When your lens will be zoomed all the way in all the time (bird shots).

 

[Nikon_Josh]

I've said it before, but I'll repeat it again... 28mm 1.8 fail :-/

It's really just mediocre. Not so sharp, not such great bokeh... I had one because it seemed like the best lens in that range at the price point, and it might be, but I ended up selling it and getting a 35mm 1.4.

I said 35 and 135 don't work on APS-C really, but then again Analog seems to be kicking up a storm with these focal lengths on a 60D. So maybe I'm wrong....

 

[o hey tyler]

I've said it before, but I'll repeat it again... 28mm 1.8 fail :-/

It's really just mediocre. Not so sharp, not such great bokeh... I had one because it seemed like the best lens in that range at the price point, and it might be, but I ended up selling it and getting a 35mm 1.4.

I said 35 and 135 don't work on APS-C really, but then again Analog seems to be kicking up a storm with these focal lengths on a 60D. So maybe I'm wrong....

35mm lenses work great on an APS-C IMO.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

I've said it before, but I'll repeat it again... 28mm 1.8 fail :-/

It's really just mediocre. Not so sharp, not such great bokeh... I had one because it seemed like the best lens in that range at the price point, and it might be, but I ended up selling it and getting a 35mm 1.4.

I said 35 and 135 don't work on APS-C really, but then again Analog seems to be kicking up a storm with these focal lengths on a 60D. So maybe I'm wrong....

35mm lenses work great on an APS-C IMO.

Hmmmm, What sort of shots do you use your 50mm lens for? Just close ups or scenes? I can't seem to make my 35mm 1.8 DX work for me, it just feels plain awkward at times. I guess I'm more a tele person or extreme wide person. But I'm still trying to make the 35mm (50mm equiv) length work for me. I find the Sigma 50mm 1.4 (80mm equiv) makes a better walkaround lens, it must just be down to opinion I guess!

 

[analog.universe]

I walk around with a 35 most of the time. It really is aptly termed as "Standard" for APS-C. Doesn't feel wide, doesn't feel close up, just a natural perspective. I really like it for indoor portraits as well since you can be relatively close to your subject.

My 50 is a macro, and also my sharpest and straightest lens, so I find I use it for that sort of stuff. It's nice for portraits as well, but it sees more use shooting small things on the forest floor and delicious things in my kitchen.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

The 35mm would be used for a general purpose lens to be used inside mostly, but also for street/urban photography when I want to be up close and not compress everything.

As for Derrel's Recommendation on the 85mm - I have actually owned one on 2 different occasions and just sold the most recent one over the weekend in order to get the 135mm (although the the 100 f/2 might be better for me ). I never really liked the FL on it. Its sharp and fast (I wish the 50mm had the true USM that it has ) but it just never worked for me. In most cases it proved to be too long to use, but too short to be very useful for sports or wildlife or anything. I know the 135 will be longer, but that is the point. In street photography, I figured I would typically find myself in 1 of 2 situations

A) in the thick of it where I want to be close (which as of now the 50mm and 10-22 would work for that assuming light was adequate ) or

B) Wanting to have discretion and keep at a distance, in which case, I would want some reach. This is where the 135mm would come into play. I do not want to pull out a big massive lens and draw attention to myself.

I also think that the 135L could be reasonably useful with sports and wildlife (more so than the 85mm ) Although if I kept the 70-200 f/2.8 this would be more than adequate.

As for switching lenses often, this is not really an issue. #1) I bought a messenger bag that allows upright standing of the lenses for easy swapping and #2) even with the 70-200 lens on, I want to take it off as quickly as possible in most situations due to the attention that it draws.

I am not trying to refute anyone's opinion though. These are all very good and valid points that I will use to decide my final choice. Its forced me to reconsider many things.

I think the 28mm f/1.8 is out of the question now after some research.

 

[o hey tyler]

I said 35 and 135 don't work on APS-C really, but then again Analog seems to be kicking up a storm with these focal lengths on a 60D. So maybe I'm wrong....

35mm lenses work great on an APS-C IMO.

Hmmmm, What sort of shots do you use your 50mm lens for? Just close ups or scenes? I can't seem to make my 35mm 1.8 DX work for me, it just feels plain awkward at times. I guess I'm more a tele person or extreme wide person. But I'm still trying to make the 35mm (50mm equiv) length work for me. I find the Sigma 50mm 1.4 (80mm equiv) makes a better walkaround lens, it must just be down to opinion I guess!

I don't use the 50mm for close up scenes as much. Short to medium range mostly, but I'm never trying to get close ups with it (Unless it's the 50mm f/2.5 macro that's on my body).

Well, when I was shooting a 50mm on a crop frame I felt that sometimes it was too narrow, so I used the 35mm focal length. Now I use 50mm or 85mm on a FF camera more. However, once the 35 f/1.4L comes, I think that will change drastically. I rented a 35L for a wedding I shot and it was amazing on a full frame camera.

It's all personal opinion... But I've taken quite a liking to the 35mm FoV in my travels.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

I should also add, that the Canon 200mm f/2 is $5500, and I am guessing is mostly used on full-framed cameras. So aside from missing IS, this would basically be the cropped-sensor version of that lens. Doesn't mean it would always be useful to me, but is interesting when you think about it that way.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

35mm lenses work great on an APS-C IMO.

Hmmmm, What sort of shots do you use your 50mm lens for? Just close ups or scenes? I can't seem to make my 35mm 1.8 DX work for me, it just feels plain awkward at times. I guess I'm more a tele person or extreme wide person. But I'm still trying to make the 35mm (50mm equiv) length work for me. I find the Sigma 50mm 1.4 (80mm equiv) makes a better walkaround lens, it must just be down to opinion I guess!

I don't use the 50mm for close up scenes as much. Short to medium range mostly, but I'm never trying to get close ups with it (Unless it's the 50mm f/2.5 macro that's on my body).

Well, when I was shooting a 50mm on a crop frame I felt that sometimes it was too narrow, so I used the 35mm focal length. Now I use 50mm or 85mm on a FF camera more. However, once the 35 f/1.4L comes, I think that will change drastically. I rented a 35L for a wedding I shot and it was amazing on a full frame camera.

It's all personal opinion... But I've taken quite a liking to the 35mm FoV in my travels.

Yeah, the 35L is an amazing lens on a FF camera I'm sure, will look forward to seeing some samples from it if you pick one up. I want a Nikon 35 1.4 when I go FX.

While I struggle to see the appeal of 50mm sometimes, I can fully appreciate the appeal of 35mm. 35 is close to the way the eye sees things but wider, actually feels quite a natural focal length to work with, the crossing point between wide and normal. Steve Huff wrote a fantastic article about his love of the 35mm focal length.

 

[jaomul]

Assuming I was in a position to grab one of these sets without re-mortgaging the house I would go with the 50/135/ 70-200 combo, because it seems that most agree that the zoom is as good at 200 as the prime + it has IS and all the benefit of zoom. As for the 35mm, I have the 35mm f2, and don't think I need a faster 35mm lens. I find it very good for the price and couldn't justify a 5 or 6 time price hike. Maybe if I was a "working" photographer it might have to be an option.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

I also saw that that when they submitted the patent for the new 24mm IS and 28mm IS, there was also a 35mm f/2 IS listed. I would take that if it was sharp wide open and had USM. Canon is also supposedly releasing a 40mm f2.8 Pancake lens as well which is interesting, but I probably wouldn't be interested in.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

If anyone cares, here is what I settled on:

I decided to keep my 70-200 f/2.8. I don't know what I was even thinking cause I could never let that lens go no matter how much I pondered the possibility.

I decided to buy a Canon 35mm f/1.4L and a Canon 100mm f/2 USM. I mainly needed a "normal" length lens with great quality since that is what I was missing and needing for things like street photography. I picked up the 100mm for discreet distance shots on the street. I would much rather use the 70-200, but it is bright white, huge, and heavy, so I think this lens will be a nice compromise. So now my street photography/light travel kit will consist of a Canon 10-22, Canon 35mm f/1.4L, Canon 50mm f/1.4L and Canon 100mm f/2. All of those are fairly light lenses compared to things like the 70-200 f/2.8 or the 24-70 f/2.8. Now I just have to agonize over waiting for the two new lenses to be delivered.