The 24-70L or 3 different primes?

[bodyjam]

Hello everyone,
This is my first post here at BobAtkins.com but I have been reading the reviews on the old site for a long time. I have owned a Canon 350D for a while with the kit lens, but recently I have been thinking about upgrading to a new camera / lens combo. After weeks of research online, I decided to stick with Canon (though I could have gone either way!). Because I will eventually upgrade to another Canon camera (the 50D and perhaps later go FF), I've decided to leave the body for later and concentrate on buying some lenses for the Canon 350D (I think in the US you call it the Rebel XTI).

I was almost ready to get the following:

EFS 10-22 + EF 24-70L

Despite both getting great reviews, I am concerned that the 24-70L is supposedly very heavy (I live in a small island in Spain and can't find a physical shop where they have this lens to take a look at it and make up my own mind). Now I'm wondering if it would be a better idea to get these 3 primes instead of the 24-70L:

1 - 35mm f2
2 - 50mm f1.8
3 - 85mm f1.8

There are few who don't rave about the sharpness of prime lenses - and these would all do well on a FF.

What is your advice?
Thanks a million...

[Bob Atkins]

It's a trade off. The zoom is way more convenient than 3 primes, but the three primes are faster by at least a stop. You'll probably get slightly better image quality from the primes, but if you're not making large prints that might not matter much. The primes will have lower distortion too, though that can be corrected digitally. It's a personal decision whether carrying 3 lenses and switching between them is worth giving up the zoom function in exchange for faster speed and slighly better image quality.

You might look at the EF 24-105/4L IS USM as well. Though it's a stop slower, it has a wider zoom range and it has Image Stabilization. It makes a good "general purpose" lens.