dzing
Mostly indoor shooting.
Answer
for indoor its probably better to have a wider aperture. and indoor you wouldnt need the 105 focal length. so go for the 24-70
for indoor its probably better to have a wider aperture. and indoor you wouldnt need the 105 focal length. so go for the 24-70
Full frame lens dilemma, Canon 24-70 2.8L II vs the rest?
Jan
So my wife kindly agreed that I can upgrade my gear and get a 6D + accessories. I am now stuck with the traditional lens choice dilemma. I used to have the 24-70 L I but dont want to back there, due to its sheer weight. Nevertheless also my wife wants to keep it simple. On the long end I ll have a 70-200 f4 L IS USM - no questions asked, but on the shorter end I am still hesitating.
In lots of forums it was discussed whether the 24-70 II is worthy to replace the best primes - like the 35L 1.4, 50L 1.2 and 85L 1.2. Well to me those are lenses I couldn't afford to buy, while I have a very good offer for the 24-70 II on the table. Owning both primes and the 24-70 II is financially not a choice (perhaps in future).
So how does the 24-70 L II compares to the midrange primes? Like the 35mm f2 IS USM (so not the old 35mm f2) and the 50 or 80mm 1.4f's?
Any opinion? I do like portraits, but I spend a lot of time chasing my kids also, so some flexibility is very welcome. I used the Fuji x100s for a while and I am used to have a light 35mm as a walkaround but I sold it in order to afford the 70-200L. Dilemma dilemma....
Interesting asnwers so far. Thank you. I am probably leaning towards the Canon 24-70 L ii as the ultimate result. The Sigma primes are interesting at 1.4, but their cumulative weights (for 35 50 (85) would by far exceed the weight of the 24-70 L II (which is gladly 150g lighter than the Mark I).
I have also investigated the below mentioned Tamron 24-70, which has great results, with IS, though less sharp on the borders. The issue I have with Tamron is that their quality has not been consistent in the past and I am not much in the mood to test 3 different pieces before finding the right one.
Answer
I started with a 24-70 F/2.8 L. Way too heavy for my uses. I moved to primes (24mm + 50mm) Then I moved to analogue. Then to Leica rangefinders. (now i'm broke)
24-70mm is a good utility lens. The 2.8 is adaquate for most low light situtations. But the question is do you need more speed? Especially if your kids are running around in doors. How does it compare to the primes? 99% of the time, the difference is neglible.
At the end of the day, you need to shoot and use what you feel most comfortable.
My suggestion:
24-70mm f/4 L or
24-105mm f/4 L IS
These lenses are smaller and great performers. They will be great in general applications that you mentioned above. Then to supplement low light, I would recommend getting the nifty 50mm f/1.8 II
This combination of the 24-70 or 24-105; and the 50mm will give you the greatest amount of diversity. From outdoor utility, to low light speed.
I started with a 24-70 F/2.8 L. Way too heavy for my uses. I moved to primes (24mm + 50mm) Then I moved to analogue. Then to Leica rangefinders. (now i'm broke)
24-70mm is a good utility lens. The 2.8 is adaquate for most low light situtations. But the question is do you need more speed? Especially if your kids are running around in doors. How does it compare to the primes? 99% of the time, the difference is neglible.
At the end of the day, you need to shoot and use what you feel most comfortable.
My suggestion:
24-70mm f/4 L or
24-105mm f/4 L IS
These lenses are smaller and great performers. They will be great in general applications that you mentioned above. Then to supplement low light, I would recommend getting the nifty 50mm f/1.8 II
This combination of the 24-70 or 24-105; and the 50mm will give you the greatest amount of diversity. From outdoor utility, to low light speed.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
No comments:
Post a Comment