Forums > Photography Talk > Would you go from the 24-70mm f/2.8 to 1.8 Primes

Photographer

Phantasmal Images

Posts: 616

Boston, Massachusetts, US

D M E C K E R T wrote:

your link goes to version 1. which routinely shows up for less than $1k on CL or gear sale sites.

amazon lists the mkII at $2049 new, and even on fred miranda it's not dipping 60% from there.

just sayin'

I thought we were discussing the OP wanting to sell his 24-70 to buy primes. He didn't mention it being the mkII version, so I assumed it was the mkI.

Apr 21 13 01:06 am Link

Photographer

alessandro2009

Posts: 7541

Florence, Toscana, Italy

Ky Goulden Photography wrote:
What are your thoughts on this ?
I shoot Fashion+Beauty, Model, Commercial and Weddings.

I think isn't wise sacrificing the flexibility of a zoom in general and on certain field as wedding i think became even more critical.
While if it is possible to add prime during the time you can have the best of both worlds.

Apr 21 13 05:09 am Link

Photographer

Ky Goulden Photography

Posts: 73

Johannesburg, Gauteng, South Africa

I think it should be stated that I am not referring to a 24-70mm f/2.8 L MK II , I am talking about the MK I version.

Also... since budget is a big problem, I need to kind of stick to one over the other. Financially I am not at the point of getting enough cash flow in to afford getting all sorts of gear.

Hence my dilemma smile

Apr 24 13 04:47 am Link

Photographer

Jayc Yu

Posts: 526

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

I have a 100mm f/2.8 and bokeh effect sort of disappears when the focus is beyond 3 meters.
Secondly, a 100mm loses a lot of wide-angle effect, thus it's less dramatic. This goes for the 85mm as well.
The minimum focus distance of 95cm on my 85mm is also very annoying. You might have to consider the closest distance you can be to your subject as well, since you shoot at venues.

Apr 24 13 08:11 am Link

Photographer

David Nelson Photograph

Posts: 348

San Antonio, Texas, US

Ky Goulden Photography wrote:
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.

Is it the Canon 24-70 2.8?  I tried the Tamron 24-70 2.8, it had been recommended as a less expensive, but equally as good, alternative to the Canon.  The first one I bought "front focused," so I sent it back and the next was little better, the images were not nearly as crisp as the Canon and I sent it back.  I'm sticking with Canon lenses

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 24 13 08:25 am Link

Photographer

Dragos Codita

Posts: 83

Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania

I will go with 100 macro. You get macro and also a nice portrait lens. Sure, if you have enough space it can do also full-body.

Apr 24 13 09:35 am Link

Photographer

Kevin Stenhouse

Posts: 2658

Calgary, Alberta, Canada

I use fast primes and f4 zooms. Just bought a 35 1.4 next purchase will be 70-200 f4. For me, the 2.8 zooms are a compromise with negatives that I don't like.... Heavy or limited zoom range. Sharpness is never really an issue.

Apr 24 13 09:49 am Link

Photographer

MC Photo

Posts: 4144

New York, New York, US

Ky Goulden Photography wrote:
I think it should be stated that I am not referring to a 24-70mm f/2.8 L MK II , I am talking about the MK I version.

Also... since budget is a big problem, I need to kind of stick to one over the other. Financially I am not at the point of getting enough cash flow in to afford getting all sorts of gear.

Hence my dilemma smile

If your budget will allow upgrading the mkI to the mkII, that's the move that will give you the best glass across all of the focal lengths you're considering.

Apr 24 13 12:41 pm Link

Photographer

o k u t a k e

Posts: 4660

New York, New York, US

I get what your saying with the jack of all trades thing. The 24-70 rarely leaves my bag, but I always keep it around as a backup. It's a great all around lens and wouldn't hesitate to use it on any shoot, but there are lenses I definitely prefer. If I'm shooting a portrait, I'll grab my 85L even though the 24-70 would still do an excellent job. It may not be the master of any trade, but it's really damn close.

I wouldn't ditch my 24-70 for a few consumer level primes. It's a solid very dependable workhorse lens that delivers every time. If you're a professional photographer. Stick with your professional level glass. If you're more of a hobbyist/part-time, then consumer grade glass will do just fine. I'd start with the 85.

Apr 24 13 01:23 pm Link