rarely do my biz. partner and i get to go out and shoot at the same event, but we did (horray!) this past weekend;
just seeing stuff and realizing the power of the prime....
every time one of us was using an L-series zoom and the other a prime in same conditions, the prime lens blows it out of the water . . .

had my 100 macro on anyway and am loving THIS:


between us, here's our collection of primes;
85L 1.2 (kim's)
85 1.8 (mine, aargh, but there's a lot to love)
28 1.8 (mine, but i never seem to use it; didn't even pack it on this trip)
100 MACRO 2.8 (used in above; got it for rings mostly . . . sure is slow to focus, but geez, love it HERE)

advice on what's next?

50mm f1.2 - Completely Awesome!
24mm f1.4 (if you need to go that wide)

I'm sure considering switching to primes...if purely just for my arms' sake! Although, I do so love my 70-200 IS

My 35L is the go-to lens. The 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 50/1.2, and 85/1.2 make a great lineup

Agreed...35 1.4 is amazing!

I just recently got the 24 2.8 and I am in love!!! I was worried I was making a mistake by not holding out for the 1.4 version but dang!! Woo hoo!

I also have the 50 1.4 and the 85 1.8. They both rock my socks! I do believe that the 70-200 IS (love love love this lens) is going to remain my only zoom.

A funny (and great) thing that I noticed is that I am more apt to grab my camera just for social things since the primes are so much more compact. That alone makes me super happy

I have my 50 1.4, not quite as sweet as the 50 1.2, but I have that lens on most of the time. The 85 1.8 rocks my socks for portraits another fave in my bag. Love, love, love all my primes.

primes:

28/1.8, 50/1.8, 100/2.8, 400/2.8

I want: 50/1.4, 85/1.8

... then Id be happy (laughs at the ridiculousness of that statement)

Jonathan

I have a 5D and a Mark III 1d so I get a bit more flexibility with the lenses and the crop factor if I want to swap em out:
15mm fisheye
24mm 1.4
50 1.4
85 1.8
100mm macro
70-200mm IS 2.8

From what I've seen, I think the 85 1.2 is way overrated and SO heavy. I am on the fence about the 50mm 1.2. I like the 50 1.4, but I've had fun with the 1.2. I am very happy with my lenses and bodies right now. Just got a new Mac Pro Desktop. New Mac Pro Laptop on the way. I'll get the iPhone and just bought a 580ex II. I honestly can't think of anything else to buy until the successor to the 5D comes out. DOH! What will I do if I can't consume?! I guess I'll just have to get better at photography.

I totally hear ya on the primes vs zoom - my second shooter used her 50/1.4 at the last wedding I shot while I used my 24-70L and the difference in the photos was unbelievable.

I would love to get the 135/2 - I used it one time while second shooting and I can't believe that I still don't have it.

That truly is a beautiful lens for when you need to go a bit further than most of the more common primes.

+1 this lens is easily the sharpest out of the whole bunch of them, and even at f2.0 WOW, thats all i could say when using it.

the 135 kicks some serious butt. i wont leave home without it.

There is a rumor that Nikon is coming out with some primes that are supposed to wax Canon's but we'll see!

I chime in and agree that primes are AMAZING! Right now, I have the 28 f/1.8, 85 f/1.8 - I am dying to get the 50 1.2 and the 100mm macro ...

But for those of you who do have zooms, question -- with the primes I have, would I be better off going for the 70-200 over the 24-70 (since my primes cover a lot of that range). I'm just trying to weight which zoom to get and while I'm leaning toward the 70-200 b/c I could use something in the telephoto department, was curious what others thought ...

70-200 2.8 IS FLAT ROCKS!!! It's always on my camera. I it!

It's sad to say... I cannot love anything more at the present time (lens wise, LOL) than I love my 85mm.... (LOVE it on the 5D AND 40D) I am a sucker for primes. Literally gave my 70-200 away. Its a great lens, I just love primes. I wish Jesse James (not Chopper dude..) could teach me the tricks he used with his guns, in lens changing. LOL...

i have the following as my arsenal: (i am fully satisfied and have no wish list)

15 fish
24L 1.4
50 1.4
60 2.8 macro
85L 1.2 (its on its way)
85 1.8 (being sold to pay for the 1.2 that is on its way)
135L 2.0
200L 2.8


i love these lenses!

24 1.4 is just amazing. 135L also amazing. Add a 50 and an 85, and you are good to go. That's all i have brought to my last couple weddings, and i am in LOVE.

I do have a 70-200 2.8L, but it's not getting much use.

HAHA!

Never ever touch an L prime. I made that mistake. I had the 28/1.8, 50/1.4, & 85 1.8. Now i have the 24L and 135L, and i lust after either the 50L or the 85L next.........

It never stops

Tammy, I am jealous! I want the 1.2!!! LOL

Actually, I want your arsenal

The 50 1.2 and the 135 2.0 are my faves...I have the 50 1.4 and the 85 1.8...but once you go red-stripe...you never want to go back... (thanks a LOT for that Canon...)

Dan,
You have now put the 135 right up there with the 70-200 for consideration (so I'll say thanks a LOT for that Canon AND DAN!)

But seriously, the reviews on that lens are pretty awesome too!

For those talking about the 85, can you really tell a ton of difference between the 1.2 and the 1.8 (just curious, b/c I have the 1.8)

Red Stripe, it's beer. Hooray beer!

i'm forwarding your comment to the Busch's

Don't worry...in a few days there will only be one beer company on the planet...

Fair warning, you will want both. And here is the short version of why. Lets use the dark church as the example, say really dark 1600 iso, 2.8, 1/30. And just for fun your stuck at the back, so a good 25+ pews back, so your going to be shooting long. On your 135L, at f2, your at maybe 1/60, but the real question is can you hand hold it there? I know with my 70-200 IS, i could hand hold 1/30, but the 135 without IS, i don't know how sharp i would be at 1/60. I try to keep the 135 over 1/100 when possible. So there are some days where 200mm is really needed, so you will probably end up with both. But on a 1.6 crop, you might be able to get by with just a 135, but then with the crop, the shake can become more of a factor sometimes.

So it's a tough call which to buy first. I am using the 135 mostly, but have the 70-200 around for weddings with restrictive churches where i would want the 200.

Ok, maybe that wasn't so short.

Good luck picking.

Others think I'm nuts sometimes for my arsenal...what? No zooms? I just love the clarity of my primes. Always have, always will. And yes, it's so true. And whatever you do...do not rent, click or even look in the direction of a Canon L prime. You will HAVE to have it. This happened to me. i rented the 24mm 1.4L fro ProLensToGo (Pauls rocks) and fell in love at first click. I really mean first click. There is something magical that's hard to even explain with these lenses. They are so sharp and creamy and very little distortion if any on the wides. They are superfast and workhorses in low light.

Have:
50 1.8 (my first prime. cheap, but really sharp)
50 1.4 ( need to sell my 1.8)
85 1.8 (love this for portraits, sidewalks, suuuuper sharp)
24 1.4L (rarely leaves my camera)

Wish to have:
35 1.4L (probably next)
85 1.2
135 2
a prime macro

I just want to thank you a. enderle, for starting this thread and for all of you that have commented. I've been going crazy deciding between another zoom 16-35L or going prime and I'm pretty sure now that prime is the way to go. I've been a zoom girl. The studio I was with used no primes, and I haven't gotten one yet myself. I think the 50 1.2L is what I'll get first. I have the 24-105 4 and 70-200 2.8 (love).

Thanks again!

Tanya

now what about the 200/1.8L or the new 200/2L IS ???

I'd take the 200/2 IS. I've used the 200/1.8 and it's beyond brilliant, but trading 1/3 stop of light for 4 stops of IS is worth it, unless you're mostly shooting sports where you need the shutter speed.

As far as the 85/1.2 compared to the 1.8 version, I think you can definitely tell a difference. Whether it's worth it or not is subjective, but I think it is

I love my primes. I currently have the 24L, 35L, and the 85 1.8. I had the 50 1.4 and sold it because I couldn't rely on the stupid AF at all in low-light conditions (hunt. hunt. hunt.). I'm renting a 50mm f/1.2 right now and while I really like it, but I can't say that I think it's worth 1K more than the 1.4 version. Sigma came out with the 50mm f/1.4 recently and I'm sort of intrigued. I read a couple of threads over at DPreview and apprently it's quite sharp, better contrast than the Canon 1.4, and snappier AF (even in low light). So now I'm torn between it and the Canon 1.2 (there's an $800 difference and 50mm isn't my favorite focal length, but I do rely on it a lot). I love Canon L glass, but I think there are some pretty sweet third party lenses out there, too. I used to have the Siggy 30mm 1.4 and I loooved it.

What to do, what to do.

I don't mean to hijack this thread, but does anyone else have a little difficulty with their 24 f/1.4L in the 5 ft - infinity range in low light situations? It seems like mine always jumps to infinity in that situation.

I'm runnin it on a 5D and a 1dIII. Maybe it's the 5d? I dunno. Doesn't happen with my 50 f/1.2 or 85 f/1.2

-g

I'm lens shopping right now and need to clear some things up....

What's the difference between a prime lens and an L Series?

Also, what is the filter you are supposed to put on the lenses to protect them? A UV filter? Is this a necessary thing?

I'm in the process of switching over to prime lenses. I doubt that I will ever totally ditch the zooms, but I'm really looking forward to the new primes I'm getting.

I just ordered the Nikon 35 2.0 lens today! I can't wait to use it for this weekends wedding.

Prime = fixed focal length = no optical zoom
L Series is canon's annotation for their pro-lenses

UV filter is standard. Other options available depending on your environment. I'd say 99% of people run UV. Is it necessary? Absolutely. Consider it a $60 insurance policy. No need to ever keep a lens cap on your lens while it's on camera and not be ready to capture a moment.
B+W makes the great glass filters. Glass is ground vs. cut from what I understand. Expensive, and have little to no color shift. I've had UV Hoya filters that looked like a 1/16 Lee Staw filter.

Thanks Garrett, for clearing that up for me. I knew 50mm,85mm etc. were fixed focal lengths. I thought "prime" might mean not an L series lens but it all makes sense now!

I literally just 1 hour ago bought the 85mm 1.8 and also picked up the Canon 58mm Haze UV-1 Glass Filter. Is this what I need for the UV filter?

ohhhh some day you will (ditch the zooms). once you start using those long primes, you'll see.

UV filters are not necessary for UV light as digital camera's aren't susceptible to UV light, but they are good for protecting the front element.

They do make clear filters just for that purpose though.

so many camera shops just serve up those UV filters like they were going out of style - hoping and praying upon anyone who will buy them.....

TOTALLY, although they still do protect that front element. They make way more money percentage-wise off accessories, than cameras and lenses...I worked for a bad camera store for two years and they always tried to push me to sell things people honestly didn't need and/or want most of the time.

i don't think filters do anything to protect the lens from anything but superficial scratches on the very front element (which doesn't affect IQ anyway). if you drop it, the filter is just as likely to break and scratch the element anyways. even if it doesn't, a drop is probably doing to shake some stuff loose inside the lens.

i say they are absolutely unnecessary, but i respect people's decision to use them

garret, I've noticed that with my 24/1.4 also. it's not all the time, but it's frequently enough. i've heard that it has something to do with the AF points being too big to focus such a wide angle and wide aperture in certain conditions. something about the phase detection not being quite sensitive enough. if I stop down to f/2.0, it seems fine, though.

Couldn't agree with you more! I stopped using my filters last December...

I stopped using filters years ago when I noticed that images were clearly sharper without 'em. Anytime you add glass between the lens and the subject, you're putting on an unnecessary layer of interference. If the lens manufacturers felt it was a good layer of protection, it would be built onto the front of the lens. Protect your gear with photography insurance instead.

Ditch the filters. There are now filters made that will give you as good of image quality as if they weren't there. You can always get a lens fixed if you have to.

24 1.4
50 1.4
85 1.8
135 2.0

Love the primes. After using primes, most zooms suck in comparison. Plus, 1.4 is magical!

I was never a Prime fan. I hated using my legs to zoom, so I pretty much swore by my 24-70 for most stuff. I actually still prefer the 24-70 for my commercial work but for portraits and weddings I'm a full convert for primes.

I don't think the zooms can replicate the sharpness of the primes. I shot a wedding with a buddy of mine a few weeks ago and I used a lot of his primes and was shocked at what I was missing. My wife has a 50 1.4 and an 85 1.8 and I wasn't all the impressed so I never gave it much thought. After playing with the 50 1.2 and the 85 1.2 I have changed my opinion. He rented a 200 2.0 to play around with and my god is that lens sweet!! I'm currently evaluating a 50 1.0, not sure if I should keep it or not yet.

I bought a 135 2.0 today! I've been wanting it for a LONG time. I am so excited!

you will LOVE it.



damn! i just bought the 50 1.2 and i ws looking for the 1.0 !!!!!!!

the 200L is nice, but the 135L is much nicer.

good luck finding one.. I'm still trying to deal with how much that thing costs.. but it is an awesome lens.

i know! i hve the 1.2 now and am very happy with it!

The 200mm f/2.0L IS... oh man, I want that lens. If every member of OSP donated a dollar...