|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
Would you go from the 24-70mm f/2.8 to 1.8 Primes
Hiya yall, Long story short, I have a 5D MK II with a 24-70mm f/2.8. Ive had the lens for around a year and find the results... kind of lacking. Ive tried other 24-70mm f/2.8's and its not my lens in particular, its just... the lens itself. The results, of course, are dependant on how I use them but I find the overall soul of it kidna lacking. I love my 50mm f/1.8 and have played a bit with a 100mm Macro and Im really tempted to sell my 24-70 for a few primes. I found it never quite was enough of anything and just a bit of everything. Nice jack of trades, master of none. I know everyone has their preferences but... Hmmm. But what I am thinking of getting is : 20mm f/2.8 ( or the 28mm f/1.8 ) 35mm f/2 100mm f/2.8 MACRO ( or the 85mm f/1.8 ) What are your thoughts on this ? I shoot Fashion+Beauty, Model, Commercial and Weddings. Apr 19 13 10:02 am Link I like the 24-70mm. I also like primes. I have them both. You couldn't get me to choose between them. Apr 19 13 10:03 am Link I have both. Only recently bought the 85mm 1.8 and am still experimenting with it. I think I get what you are saying about the 'feel' the lens gives to an image. My 50mm 1.8 always seems to produce lovely 'creamy' shots. But that's probably just my imagination. I don't really think one is a substitute for the other. Apr 19 13 10:07 am Link For me to do that... I would have a lot more cash than i do right now. Apr 19 13 10:08 am Link I'm a fan of the 20mm f/2.8 and I have one. Mine is pretty sharp and I like the contrast from it. With that said, I shoot weddings and other events also and the 24-70mm is my go-to lens. I haven't used the 20mm in a while. The 24-70mm is not the best as far as image quality is concerned, but it's reliable. Only way I would get rid of it would be to get a 24mm f/1.4 or the 35mm f/1.4. I use two bodies but I still like a zoom, just in case. Apr 19 13 10:09 am Link The short answer is Yes and No. Apr 19 13 10:10 am Link Why not hire the 35mm and 100mm primes, try them for a while and see how you get on? Got to be cheaper than buying a lens and then thinking...Hmmmmm. Apr 19 13 10:10 am Link Ky Goulden Photography wrote: The decision has nothing to do with image quality and is only relevant in terms of how you shoot. Apr 19 13 10:17 am Link Each lens has a use, each lens is a tool. If you are not getting the results you need from that tool it does not mean it is the wrong tool it may be you are just using it wrong. 24-70 is a work horse for both Canon and Nikon. I have it but I don't use it for every shot but if you shoot weddings you NEED it. Apr 19 13 10:28 am Link Quick question: Have you fine-tuned the AF on that body? One I had had serious issues with the AF system and the outer 9 AF points. Never really thought that much about it until the Nikon guys started complaining about the D800 AF left-right issue. Mine has a serious left-right and top-bottom issue with the 9 points. Was worse than the Nikon D7000 DX body too once I delved into it a bit more. Even the D800E I have was better than the above two in the FoCal comparison. Might want to check into getting FoCal Pro software and running your 24-70 though it and check your near and far AF tuning numbers. Also run the AF multi-point sensor check and see if one or another is really bad. Canon had a lot of issues on that body which no prime lens may address if it is out of alignment. Good luck. Apr 19 13 10:29 am Link I did just that few months ago ... sold my 24-70 & 14-24 ... & keep 85mm 1.4 & 50mm 1.8 I also planning to let go my 17-35mm, 35mm 1.5 & maybe eventually 70-200mm 2.8 (still not sure about the later) mainly because I don't use them as much. Now, since I shoot mostly outdoor portraituire/nudes, 85mm pretty much stay on my camera at all time ...  Apr 19 13 10:32 am Link Ky Goulden Photography wrote: MC Photo wrote: I agree with you, but only partially. I think it is all about the way you shoot. For me, that is why I have both. Apr 19 13 10:39 am Link I don't think i could use one OR the other. I keep my 85 and 24-70 on my D3, and use a variety of primes/tele's on the other DX bodies. Lenses are like dessert ~ i gotta have it all, not JUST one type since i don't shoot ONE type of images. I don't personally know anyone that shoots JUST primes, or JUST tele's ~ m' Apr 19 13 10:46 am Link I only use the 24-70 when changing lenses would be impossible. Specifically cage fights. Otherwise I use the 20/50/100mm primes. I usually suggest the primes over the zoom as well. Apr 19 13 10:54 am Link The new 24-70 II is exceptional. Way better than than the first version. All that said, I love my primes too. I have 35L, 50L, 100L and 135L. Of them all the 100 is the best bang for buck IMO.. Apr 19 13 02:19 pm Link Whelp. If speed is the issue, then I would understand why people vote for the lens. Its very versatile. But none of the wedding photographers I know use zooms at all. We're not talking el-cheapo togs but big ones like Jasmine Star and the rest. Priming is possible with weddings and speed events, but my major question is this : Will the primes match that L lens in terms of quality ? I love the 1.8 and intense depth of field look as well as the idea of getting a nice 100mm macro lens for details and beauty close ups. If those primes are going to give me more in terms of range and quality, then I dont mind giving up speed and convenience. Like I said before, I shoot fashion, commercial and weddings. So its a mixed bag in terms of need. As for buying primes ALONG with my 24-70mm f/2.8, Im not quite getting enough work to do that. I jumped the job boat a year too soon, and am living comfortably but not quite enough yet to pay for a lot of gear. And thank you everyone for your feedback, It helps me greatly and I take every view very seriously. Apr 19 13 02:39 pm Link GPS Studio Services wrote: +1 Apr 19 13 02:46 pm Link I like prime lenses personally, but a lot of that has to do with the fact you can get a fast prime lens pretty cheap. If I had unlimited funds, I'd probably buy every lens ever made. Lol Apr 19 13 02:59 pm Link @R Marquez : You're right. Its a great lens. It just... doesn't look like anything. If you know what I mean. I always feel like, its an average lens. Im always wondering what it would look like with a wider aperture or wider mm ( in South African venues, 9 times out of 10, you are in an incredibly cramped space ). @Millar Studio I rented those lenses before, but it was a while ago. That being said, I loved using them, but I had a 24-105mm f/4 too. Luckily it was an outdoors wedding so light and space wasnt an issue. At the last wedding, there was absolutely minimal space with minimal light both when the bride was prepping and during the reception. I used some off camera flash to just fill the room a little but the hall where the dances was was HUGE and I only had a small softbox with me. I would've needed a frikken floodlight. That 24-70mm f/2.8 just fell short of all the requirements for that wedding. It handled the photoshoot and the rest well, but where I really needed some extra OOMPH, it fell flat.  @MC Photo : Regarding the style of my work, Hmm. How does one equate ones style with lenses... its hard to tell. But, I love softness and the more cinematic feel. If I could kit myself out with 1.4 / 1.2 's I would in a heartbeat. But... I cannot afford that and I would at least like to try to get the cheaper primes so I can start getting my flow with them. Apr 19 13 03:00 pm Link Hi Ky The 24-70 is a "master of one trade". Zooming around the wide to short (very short) tele. It's a huge benefit and IMO you should keep it. As far as a good inexpensive lens to add the 100mm f2 is a really good lens. Internal very fast focusing. Very clean and sharp. Also takes sharpening very well. I'd say it has all the IQ of an L lens. IF you do need to sell your 24-70mm the Canon 28-135mm is actually good option if you shoot a bit stopped down. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Revi … &APIComp=3 Canon 100mm F2 wide open.  Cropped from the same file:  100mm F2 in the studio: at F8. (with the 5D II)  Crop from same file:  It's a great lens. Apr 19 13 03:11 pm Link Ky Goulden Photography wrote: I shot with a Nikon F2 for decades with f2.8 prime lenses. I bought the 5D MkII with the 24-105 and I can't say I am happy with the lens. It's OK, but no where near as sharp as my old primes at the focal lengths I used - 24, 35, 50, 55 micro, and 105. Apr 19 13 03:23 pm Link I do love prime lens, but I learned back in the film day on Pentax; a whole lot of primes. Now I may consider that new Sigma f/1.8 zoom for my 7D (its crop only) if it turns out as good as their recent lens. Apr 19 13 03:30 pm Link Ky Goulden Photography wrote: A friend of mine did. She no longer uses her 24-70 f/2.8. She's got a 35, 85, and a 105 (though that is a 2.8 I think). Apr 19 13 03:33 pm Link Ky Goulden Photography wrote: I don't mean the visual style of your work. I mean the way you shoot physically. Apr 19 13 04:47 pm Link I would find shooting weddings/events very difficult without zooms as its very dynamic and things change constantly. The amount of time, light and space varies so you need to be able to work very fast with what ever situation your in. The 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8IS has been my workhorse for the past 8 years. Recently 25-105 f4 and then few weeks ago Sigma EFS 17-55 2.8 IS. I only keep the macro primes in the bag but 90% of shoots are with zooms. When it comes to more fashion/studio/product shots primes work well but also depends if you need the shallow DOP/Bokeh and sharpness. The majority of clients I'm shooting for these days need the shots for web and prints no larger then A4/A3 and so the extra sharpness of primes will not be noticed. Apr 19 13 06:54 pm Link I like the convenience of zooms but I wasn't impressed with my 24-70 either. You might want to try out the version II and see if you're more impressed with it than the original one you have. The reviews are excellent and people are raving about it. I've shot with a couple of wide angle L lenses and was very impressed with the quality. But I still like the convenience of a zoom. I hate swapping lenses in a hurry to try to get a shot. So it really depends on how/what you're shooting. It's a lot easier in a studio to use primes for example than a wedding. Apr 19 13 07:11 pm Link AJScalzitti wrote: +1 If the new Sigma is as good as it sounds and isn't outrageously priced. Apr 19 13 07:15 pm Link I think there may be a whole in your plan. Simply that the 24-70 Mark II is what a $900 lens? I don't think one of those lenses will be sold and cop you multiple Ls. That said, I have a 24-70 but I prefer my 24-105 greatly. But I use my 85 and 100 a lot. So keep the 24-70 and pile in a few more lenses. Apr 19 13 07:18 pm Link I have the 24-70 2.8L I have primes of 20:2.8, 35:2, 50:1.4 and 85:1.8 They are used for specific purposes. The 24-70 is generally an all around ever ready lens. You need as much arsenal as you can afford to be able to realize and translate your vision into images. . Apr 19 13 08:06 pm Link Yeah, I got rid of my zooms. I have a 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 105mm, and 180mm. I don't miss my zooms AT ALL, and I also shoot weddings. Apr 19 13 09:08 pm Link 1k-words-photograpy wrote: Do you buy your gear out of a guy's trunk? price of 24-70mm II is $2,299.00 Apr 19 13 10:03 pm Link Yingwah Productions wrote: That's the MSRP, Amazon list them as $1950 new, and $1050 used. You can probably find them even cheaper on ebay and craigslist. So $900 for a used lens is not that unlikely. Apr 19 13 10:22 pm Link Ky Goulden Photography wrote: Plenty of the top wedding photographers use zoom - as many as use primes. Apr 19 13 11:07 pm Link I have already gone from 2.8 zooms to primes, but I didn't go to 1.8 primes. I went to L primes: 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 50/1.2, 85/1.2, 100/2.8, 135/2, 200/2 from the original 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 IS. Never regretted making the change. I believe the Mark II versions of the 24-70 and 70-200 are significant improvements, so the comparison may be different now. Apr 19 13 11:44 pm Link GPS Studio Services wrote: +1 Apr 20 13 12:14 am Link de BUEN PHOTOGRAPHY wrote: This is going against my "primes only" philosophy of work, but ice cream cake is a pretty damn good invention. Apr 20 13 12:05 pm Link Phantasmal Images wrote: your link goes to version 1. which routinely shows up for less than $1k on CL or gear sale sites. Apr 20 13 12:46 pm Link 1k-words-photograpy wrote: If it was $900 it would be impossible to keep in stock. Apr 20 13 02:46 pm Link Phantasmal Images wrote: You've linked to the mkI, not the mkII Apr 20 13 02:47 pm Link Are you going on a trip, and are trying to minimize your travel gear? Why choose? Apr 20 13 02:54 pm Link |
