So, Would it be Nuts to Give up my 70-200 for 3 Primes? (Page 4): The more you use primes, the less you use zooms, in my experience -- but I'm not sure that equates to the more you use...

dhowland

The more you use primes, the less you use zooms, in my experience -- but I'm not sure that equates to the more you use primes the more primes you use ...

stevefrankel

Great photos! I strongly agree with you. There are some times when environmental conditions (rolling seas, strong winds, blowing sand, etc.) limit your options and size/weight restrictions (e.g., regs of different airlines, your age and health) come into play. That's what my book is aimed at.

revhen Loc: By the beautiful Hudson

For quick shifts all you would need is three bodies with the three primes slung around your neck.

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

I used to see the Japanese tourists use this technique all the time...

revhen wrote:

For quick shifts all you would need is three bodies with the three primes slung around your neck.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

revhen wrote:

For quick shifts all you would need is three bodies with the three primes slung around your neck.

I have a B&W of the great Life Magazine photographer, David Douglas Duncan, just like that hanging in my darkroom - 3 cameras with different primes (Nikon’s) around his neck and over his flak jacket, taken at the siege of Khe Sanh

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

I think it is a good choice. Primes are IMO capable of producing far better images than any zoom. There may be exceptions, but they are rare. The only reason you lose any versatility is if you are in a situation where you must remain static while subject(s) do not. Even sports shooters use both. As you mentioned portraits, I think it is a perfectly reasonable thought.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

I own both the 70-200 along with all the primes you list, along with a few others. When I go to shoot sports outside, I always have my 70-200 along. For indoor sports I may use either. I have a few Sigma ART lenses, including the 50/1.4 and the 135/1.8 and I find them to be exceptionally good lenses. I also own a Nikon 85/1.4 and a 105/1.4 which I find exceptionally good as well. Each breed of lenses (zoom and fixed focal length) have their own uses and strengths and I would not want to be without any of the ones I currently own. Best of luck.

Jamers Loc: Michigan

Kmgw9v wrote:

I use a 35mm 1.4, 50mm 1.4, 58mm 1.4, 85mm 1.4, and a 105mm 1.4.
Still, I will keep my 70-200 2.8.

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

Blurryeyed wrote:

Considering going without my 70-200 and replacing it with 3 fast primes, 35, 50, and 135. Wondering what people think of such a silly idea. I think what got me on to this is that I have two high resolution full frame bodies and I use my first generation 70-200 mostly for portrait, I also already own a 85mm f/1.8 and the Canon 100-400 MII. The new Sigma Art lenses resolve much better than anything Canon is currently producing including the 70-200 MII.

Why not keep the zoom, and just pick up a cheap 35mm and perhaps a 105mm? The 35mm alone will handle all of your street shooting needs. And you will have a sweet 105 for any tighter shots that you may want to shoot in the future. Do not over-think this. Street shooting is about keeping it simple. Travel fast and light. I often just shoot with an older film rangefinder. Go shooting. Enjoy the process. You are setting off on an enjoyable path. Go for it.

KK

tomcat

The only logical thing that makes sense is that if you want to get rid of a zoom lens with an infinite range of focal lengths from 70-200mm and replace it with 3 fixed lenses, then you need 3 bodies to mount those lenses onto so that each will be available instantly. The reason a lot of folks use a zoom lens is for sports shooting, when you need the longer reach and you are not permitted to come out onto the court or field to get closer or you need to zoom back away when the action comes closer and you can't run backwards. I love the idea of primes and I have several, but when shooting sports, I have to have the zoom potential. Primes and my feet won't be able to make the quick adjustments for composing the shot.

Linda Ewing Loc: Lincolnshire,UK

I am interested in buying the Sigma Art Lens 85mm but don't really understand what the Art bit means, is it because it is sharper or is it for specific tasks ie portraits etc. sorry to be so thick to ask this question but I really don't know and they are producting more and more 'Art' lenses. Thanks

crazydaddio Loc: Toronto Ontario Canada

Linda Ewing wrote:

I am interested in buying the Sigma Art Lens 85mm but don't really understand what the Art bit means, is it because it is sharper or is it for specific tasks ie portraits etc. sorry to be so thick to ask this question but I really don't know and they are producting more and more 'Art' lenses. Thanks

The ART series is their premium line. (similar to G-Master for Sony and the L series for Canon)
The 85mm ART is a phenomenally sharp and contrasty lens however I bought the 85mm F1.4L IS Canon lens for the IS and AF accuracy (the Canon lens is not nearly as sharp as the Sigma ART but "good enough")
...Sigma lenses in general, dont AF as fast (or in some cases as accurate) as native Canon lenses. I have heard the AF performance will also vary by body type for some reason. (My 50mm ART performs poorly on my 70D/6D but is quite decent on my 5DmkIV.....after calibration on all)

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

crazydaddio wrote:

The ART series is their premium line. (similar to ... (show quote)

I cannot speak from personal experience. However, I have read numerous reports about the Sigma ART lenses having focusing issues...

Linda Ewing Loc: Lincolnshire,UK

Thank you that was very helpful, I go for Sigma because of the price difference. I have a Nikon 810, but have, in general, been a little disappointed with the 50-500 4.5 to 6.3 apart from being heavy it does not focus well enough for BIF. I will be purchasing one of the ART lenses like the 85mm though as now you have explained it to me I understand more about the difference. Thank you once again.

crazydaddio wrote:

The ART series is their premium line. (similar to ... (show quote)

tomcat

Linda Ewing wrote:

Thank you that was very helpful, I go for Sigma because of the price difference. I have a Nikon 810, but have, in general, been a little disappointed with the 50-500 4.5 to 6.3 apart from being heavy it does not focus well enough for BIF. I will be purchasing one of the ART lenses like the 85mm though as now you have explained it to me I understand more about the difference. Thank you once again.

You aren't going to get any decent BIF pix with an 85mm lens. My recommendation is to try out the "new" 200-500mm Nikon lens. It is incredibly sharp and plenty fast enough focusing to track and take good bird shots. I use this lens a lot for my bird shots at the feeder. I am not fast or skilled enough to get BIF, but the equipment can. I use this lens a lot for my granddaughter's soccer games and it is a great lens that provides fast focusing and a very sharp image with my D500. Sigma also makes a lens in this same comparable range, but the Nikon one is not that expensive, so take a look.