i'm REALLY thinking about going to a prime lineup

i wish i didn't have to sell my zooms to fund it though. that's the big holdup for me.

 

really? what would your lineup be?

 

if i could do only primes???

14mm f/2.8L ($1,500) -- still not sure about giving up my 17-40L/4 (or not replacing it with the new 16-35L/2.8)

15mm f/2.8 fisheye ($560) -- would be fun to have, but by no means a priority. probably the last prime i would buy on this list.

24mm f/1.4L ($1,100) -- must-have for my low-light journalistic-style shooting

35mm f/1.4L ($1,100) -- i rented this for a week. LOVED it. it's borderline magical.

50mm f/1.2L ($1,400) -- that's a LOAD of light to let in. hell of a walk-around lens at night. it's just been released, though, and the reviews are sketchy.

85mm f/1.2L ($1,800) -- another "must-have" for the prime lineup. sure it's slow to focus and weighs a good bit -- but the results are worth it.

100mm f/2.8 macro ($470) -- i want a macro, but i'm scared i'll get too far into that rabbit hole. kind of like why i've never played fantasy baseball.

135mm f/2L ($1,600) -- good for shooting sports indoors, and portraits on the 5d.

300mm f/2.8L IS ($3,800) -- as long as we're living in fantasyland, i'll take this stud.

i'm not going to go higher, because i'm not a sports shooter (by trade) or a wildlife shooter. those lenses are as big as their pricetags.

that'd be nuts.

right now, i've got 17-40L/4, 24-70L/2.8 and 70-200L/2.8 -- hard to give them up.

so, if i happen to come in to about $12K, you know what i'll be ordering.

 

Well, when you find that $12k let me know - I'll take your 24-70 and 70-200 off your hands

 

i'm really wanting to try out the sigma 12-24. i want to see 12mm on my full-frame.

 

I bet that would be incredible - I think you could see behind you with that lens.

I've about decided my next purchase will be that 10-22 (depending on how this new job works out). it's funny, when I got into this, I really thought I'd just want to get as long as I could. I'm finding myself now wanting to go much wider more often than I'm wanting to go long.

 

same here.

 

yeah, i've only seen one really good wedding pic with a fisheye so far (see bleow). i think it's a novelty lens -- like the lensbaby. i've used it before -- i'll track down the pics.

 

Wow, that trumps any that I've seen! Actually, the best I'd seen before that was one shooting down on a reception at night in b&w and one that was shot at a Bahamas wedding of a reception table setting and centerpiece with the ocean in the background - and I've seen too many that just weren't all that memorable. I'm sorry I don't have thee two good ones to share but they weren't in the same league with that beach wedding shot.

 

Thanks for the topic. I didn't even know what a "prime" was. I'd been thinking about getting an inexpensive 300mm lens for my camera, but I shoot a lot of flowers in lousy light and Pentax makes a 50mm f1.4 lens that would be a lot more practical.
Just an observation on the fisheye. I really think it would be fun to have one. I can think of several places I'd like to use one. But my wife is a florist and she also coordinates weddings so I get to see a lot of wedding photography and I've see a few photographers that just seem to get carried away with the fisheye. I'm really not qualified to criticize and it's an interesting effect if it's used right, but if I see it more than a few times in a wedding album the novelty wares off pretty quick.
But like I said, I'm sure they can be fun. There's a fountain near the waterfront in Charleston where kids play in the summer. I'd like to shoot that with a fisheye lens.