Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 06 Sep 2017 (Wednesday) 18:31
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

which lens would you rather have?

 
kmilo
Member
Avatar
232 posts
Likes: 228
Joined Nov 2009
Location: Albany, NY
     
Sep 14, 2017 08:57 |  #31

I used to own the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L (v.1) and it was the best lens I've ever owned .... BUT .... It was so heavy I eventually sold it. Some people don't mind the weight, but I never wanted to carry it around (family photojournalism type stuff).


Kris
Insulting critiques always welcomed. flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Angmo
looks like I picked a bad week to give up halucinagens
Avatar
794 posts
Gallery: 22 photos
Likes: 494
Joined Dec 2015
Location: AZ-USA
Post edited 7 months ago by Angmo.
     
Sep 14, 2017 17:47 |  #32

kmilo wrote in post #18452022 (external link)
I used to own the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L (v.1) and it was the best lens I've ever owned .... BUT .... It was so heavy I eventually sold it. Some people don't mind the weight, but I never wanted to carry it around (family photojournalism type stuff).

... and I carried 30 pounds of camera gear in the Himalayas for like 60 miles. That was a hike. There's like no level ground in that country. Up up up. Even going down was up...


Nikons, Rolleiflexes, Elinchroms, Billinghams

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tyler ­ Moncrief
Member
31 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 115
Joined Jun 2013
Location: Saginaw, MI
     
Sep 22, 2017 22:47 |  #33

I've been loving my Sigma at the moment




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
James ­ Crockett
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
171 posts
Likes: 32
Joined May 2017
     
Sep 23, 2017 05:16 |  #34

kmilo wrote in post #18452022 (external link)
I used to own the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L (v.1) and it was the best lens I've ever owned .... BUT .... It was so heavy I eventually sold it. Some people don't mind the weight, but I never wanted to carry it around (family photojournalism type stuff).

This true about the 24-70 v1?

"The image quality difference is subtle -- but like most lenses, you wont notice an image quality difference if you're viewing images on a small display.  You'd have to view them at 100% size."

 

"The original 24-70 is a "reverse zoom".  When the lens is extended it's 24mm.  When it's fully retracted it's 70mm.  A reverse zoom has an advantage when being used with a lens hood since the hood stays in place but the lens pulls back as you zoom in (but that's when the angle of view is narrower).   You'll notice the hood on the version II is much shallower -- it's designed to work at the 24mm end but that means the hood is not providing much help at the 70mm end."




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mdvaden
Goldmember
Avatar
2,193 posts
Gallery: 21 photos
Likes: 525
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
     
Sep 25, 2017 22:39 |  #35

James Crockett wrote in post #18446280 (external link)
I have a 135l f2 100mm macro and the 35mm sigma 1.4 art. I've thought about selling the sigma and get the 24-70 2.8...

I enjoy hypothetical stuff. Let me share my facet.

My shooting is half portraits, lots of forest, and a few weddings. If I happened to have the same lenses you just wrote, and needed to make a choice, this is what I would end up with when all was said and done:

1. 100mm macro (L)
2. 35mm 1.3 Art
3. Canon 24-70mm 2.8

I love my 135mm but given these options, would sell the 135mm and use a 100mm macro for long portrait and macro. Then the 24-70mm would give versatility on top of wider angle I need for forest, ocean, groups, etc.. And the 35mm art would provide one fast prime.


vadenphotography.com (external link) . . . and . . . Coast Redwoods Main Page (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wallstreetoneil
Goldmember
Avatar
2,085 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Likes: 1196
Joined Nov 2014
Location: Toronto Canada
     
Sep 25, 2017 23:09 |  #36

Sell the 135L, the 100L and the Sigma 35 1.4

and

Buy the new Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC and the new Tamron 70-200 F2.8 VC

If you are hand-holding / non-tripod shooting portraits, these two lenses will give you better usable sharpness than your current 3 lenses and also better usable sharpness than the Canon 24-70 F2.8 II (that doesn't have IS / VC).

I give the above feedback as a wedding pro that owns the Canon 24-70 F2.8 II and will only use it on my 1DXii as it is useless on my 5DSR as it doesn't have IS. The new Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC has better edge to edge sharpness than the new Sigma 24-70 F2.8 and with its VC, basically makes it a better lens than the equivalent Canon that doesn't have IS - and it is cheaper.

This Tamron zoom pair also covers my personal portrait focal lengths (50, 85, 125, 200) - and can be done all day long tack sharp at 1/60-1/100 (and the Tamron 70-200 isn't white so will be less noticeable than the big white Canon).

I have been very happy with my Tamron Primes (45 & 85 1.8 VC) and these are my main primes when not using my Canon 24-70 F2.8 II and Canon 70-200 F2.8 II IS.

This may sound crazy to some but I have actually been looking to swap my Canon 24-70 F2.8 II for the new Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC - just looking for the right swap price, as I place enormous value of handholding and want the IS.


Hockey and wedding photographer. Favourite camera / lens combos: a 1DX II with a Tamron 45 1.8 VC, an A7Rii with a Canon 24-70F2.8L II, and a 5DSR with a Tamron 85 1.8 VC. Every lens I own I strongly recommend [Canon (35Lii, 100L Macro, 24-70F2.8ii, 70-200F2.8ii, 100-400Lii), Tamron (45 1.8, 85 1.8), Sigma 24-105]. If there are better lenses out there let me know because I haven't found them.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tdlavigne
Senior Member
Avatar
326 posts
Likes: 99
Joined Mar 2015
Location: Los Angeles, CA
     
Sep 26, 2017 00:07 |  #37

24-70mm, much more versatile for me. I know some people can get by with one prime, and I even had to for a year or so way back...but for me 35 just isn't my fave focal length.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

8,090 views & 14 likes for this thread
which lens would you rather have?
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.0forum software
version 2.0 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Cliodiver
626 guests, 342 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.