24-70's are all crap

The opinion of this photographer is that the 24-70's are a crap lens choice, it's like you have a Swiss army knife in you drawer and a pair of scissors, and you use the Swiff army knife to cut a piece of paper instead of the scissors. So it's not my opinion, it's just a funny article with some heavy discussions

This guy bought a 1.4 prime and he found out why others had such crispy pics, it was like turning on the light
http://www.diyphotogra​phy.net …o-24-70-crap-lens-choice/

But I know someone who said : midrange zooms are a waste of money. i.e. the 24-70.
Not wide enough to really be a "wide" lens, and not long enough to be a tele.
I rented a 24-70 once, it spent it's entire existence on my camera all the way out at 70.

Someone else said : For the fast lenses to be truly useful they need to be stopped down to F2.8 or more anyway,
so you are almost wasting money with a prime on the wide aperture (IMO)

=> Tomorrow I have an appointment with someone to exchange my 35 1.4 Art (I have the 50 1.4 Art allready) for a Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC.
This makes me doubt again... it's only for 1 wedding, don't know if the 35mm will be wide enough in church, but fast it is in dark circumstances if you can't flash + bokehlicious

On the other hand I can still re-sell it after the wedding if it's too boring

Primes will do that for you. I've sold every single zoom I've ever had. Tried them all but always go back to primes, not just for aperture but for IQ and the weight.

You have a 16-35 if its not wide enough

This article is just a giant troll. It is basically just him saying he doesn't like the 24-70 RANGE or use a prime.

The funny thing is, only 1 of those photos was taken within the 24-70mm range at that was the 50 1.4. You can't even compare those. Of course you can't get that shot. AND he was comparing the 50 1.4 on a FF to a 17-55 2.8 on a crop. Yea I would expect a difference too. And of course a prime is going to be sharper and have better bokeh. That's the endless debate between zooms and primes.

Nice useless article. I thought he was going to say something useful.

Looks like you have 1 body? I would definitely go with a zoom then. I would only ever consider primes if using 2 bodies.

The weight won't make much difference between the Sigma 35 Art & Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC I think.
Yes I have the 16-35 f4L IS, but would you take 3 lenses with you for a wedding ? Don't most use 2 lenses on 2 body's to stay "reasonable compact" ?

My first body is the 6D FF, as a second body I'm going to lend a crop camera (1000D or 650D - I have no other choice), but with a 35mm on this body it will be only a 49mm.
With the 24-70 on it, the 24mm will be 33.6mm, probably a big difference in church ?

Maybe I need to use the 16-35 f4L IS during the church ceremony and leave a 35 1.4 or 24-70 in my wife's handbag,
and give her the 16-35 after the ceremony to switch again with the 35 or 24-70 ?

Don't know which 2 lenses are used mostly in church ?

Obviously to each his own, but I strongly disagree that these lenses are "crap"

I second shoot a few weddings, roughly 12-15 a year, so while not a TON of experience I still have a bit of background to back this up..

I shoot with a canon 24-70 2.8 (version i). Is it the best IQ lens? Absolutely not. Is is the fastest lens at 2.8? Once again, no. Sure, there are a many primes in the range that will beat it in weight, focus speed, IQ and speed. However, what I have come to realize from my experience is that the vast majority of your wedding clients (and really just about any typical non-photogearhead) are not pixel peepers and wouldn't know the difference in the slight image quality increase, or the slight noise reduction (which can be done in post anyway to a certain degree). What I find they DO care about is getting the perfect shot at the perfect moment, something that a zoom lens allows you do to. There have been MANY occasions where I am shooting at the 70mm range when someone pulls the grandma out on the dance floor or goes for a hug, no time to walk back and recompose if youre shooting with a 50mm prime, or walk closer if you have a 35mm prime.

There are types of photography where having a prime lens just means you have a bit more set-up time between shots since you have to physically move around, in this case, yes, a prime all the way, I agree... this is the reason I am struggling with my "somewhat budgeted" lens set as I shoot cars, landscapes, etc as well.. things that don't really force me to have the versatility of a 24-70 zoom, but I can't necessarily justify buying a set of primes and also keeping the 24-70 for weddings..

So my thoughts on a 24-70 for wedding shoots, not crap by a long shot, but rather a trade-off that to me is a no-brainer..


ps: I also have the 100mm 2.8L macro that I pull out at times when I need a TAD bit more reach and when im second shooting the bride and the groom (since those shots are posed I have more time to get in position) to get close-ups of the face while the primary photog is capturing the winder angles.


and damnit... all this prime lens talk is making me consider something on the wider range of the spectrum.... maybe a 35 1.4... I have the 100mm for the long range (which I thought about changing to an 85mm lens but the IS on the 100 makes it difficult to walk away from) and today I am expecting a delivery of a Sigma 50 1.4 in the mail which covers my mid range... but a 35mm prime wouldn't hurt for some car photos...because you guys are right...it is VERY easy to get spoiled by the IQ improvement of a prime...

Why not take 3 lenses? You don't have to use them all.

CanonYouCan wrote in post #17736474
The weight won't make much difference between the Sigma 35 Art & Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC I think.
Yes I have the 16-35 f4L IS, but would you take 3 lenses with you for a wedding ? Don't most use 2 lenses on 2 body's to stay "reasonable compact" ?

I'm going to lend a crop camera (1000D or 650D - I have no other choice), but with a 35mm on this body it will be only a 49mm.
With the 24-70 on it, the 24mm will be 33.6mm, probably a big difference in church ?

Maybe I need to use the 16-35 f4L IS during the church ceremony and leave a 35 1.4 or 24-70 in my wife's handbag,
and give her the 16-35 after the ceremony to switch again with the 35 or 24-70 ?

Don't know which 2 lenses are used mostly in church ?

1st...bring ALL of your lenses. You never know when you might drop one or smack it on something or it just randomly fails. Those 2 crop bodies are not too great with high iso so, in lowlight, i would use the faster 35 on the crop with a wider aperture for decreased iso. When you have better available light, use the zoom on it.

Don't know if this will help you... but I shoot crop and I use a Sigma 18-35 1.8 and a Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS (IS). 90% of my total shots are with the 18-35. 90% of the CEREMONY shots are with the 70-200. I usually get a few shots of the dance floor and venue with the 10-18.

with regards to the lenses in church, it depends on what your access is and how big the church is. If its a little church, even from far away youre not far. But i've shot a ceremony from the balcony before where even the 70-200 2.8 II I had prior struggled...

If you have open access and can get close as well as being able to capture the entire scene you could stick with a prime and just do a lot of leg work, the lighting most of the times is much less than ideal (total crap in most cases) and the extra stops will def help. If not its 24-70 all the way.

Most weddings that I shoot I can probably get away with using only the 24-70, I only switch out (i shoot with a single body) lenses to the 100mm when I have a bit of downtime in between shots and want to get a bit more creative. But again, what you'll realize after a while is that more emphasis should go to getting the shot captured, no matter if its a bit noise, perfectly composed, etc than focusing on getting the most technically sound image. At the end of the day the people would rather see a "lower quality" image of a great moment, than see some really technically sound images that didn't capture many memorable moments.

When I see posts like this, all I read is that "I can't create interesting images without smashing the background.".

MNUplander wrote in post #17736495
When I see posts like this, all I read is that "I can't create interesting images without smashing the background.".

Cmon Now Brett. Just because you live in Gods backyard with photo opportunities doesnt mean you cant create interesting images w/o blowing out the background. You know better.

I for one dont like the 24-70 either. Im a wedding and portrait guy so isolation is key to great work for portraits...I blow out everything .......24-70 Sucks for what I do

But landscape like you do..Its F/8 and have a nice day

I think it all depends on what you shoot. Im rarely above F/3.5 anymore and often F/2.0-2.5. Like I say..I blow out everything

Agreed.

My first Canon was an old 28-70L. Sucked. Dull and lifeless.
Then i got a new 24-70 (I) and it was only 10% better.
I didn't expect the II to be much better.
I picked up an old, discontinued 24-85 non-L and loved it.
So I sold it and bought a Zeiss N mount 24-84 and it rocks.

Was it the lame 70mm? Maybe.
I really think that Canon makes boring glass from wide to normal lengths. Including the 50s.

I don't like the MKI 24-70, especially after having had 5 over the past decade, and only one seemed to be decent wide open. I just picked up a 24-70 II, and love it. It is visibly better wide open. I like that range, and it is one of the most popular ranges, enough to have an EFS lens in the same basic range for the APS-C bodies. (except that one has IS.... and the L doesn't )

I agree that if you have paying customers, most are not going to be able to tell what lens you used, and wouldn't be able to tell the different between bokeh, sharpness, etc. The advent of the camera phone has greatly dulled that public discernment as well, so it is even easier to shoot with a zoom over a prime.

Mike -

I'm not sure I follow what you mean on the first sentence of your reply or what I should "know better". If you meant that my location and photographic interests do lend themselves to more DOF, then I totally agree - I don't think we're far apart there. Maybe you meant something else? In any case, my response was more in jest over a closed minded, blanket thread.

Besides, I may not be a wedding guy but at mine and at those of many of my friends I've seen plenty of 24-70's in the hands of our hired photographers at least some of the time. The results were nothing short of stunning. I guarantee no one ever wished the images had been taken at f2 instead of f2.8.

So, it's totally fair to say that "I prefer primes or longer focal lengths over a standard zoom for how I shoot" but it's a simply a troll to say "all standard zooms suck".

A 24-70 is an crap lens choice in X situation like how primes are a crap lens choice in Y situation

Another click bait article about absolutely nothing. I like how he uses anecdotes & comparisons to push his opinion as fact