24-70's are all crap

Talley wrote in post #17741754
Which is why web sharing photos you can get away with subpar IQ.

I'm trying to work out if your comment was aimed at the lens (which doesn't have sub par IQ) or generally?

Talley wrote in post #17741838
I agree to an extent. Sure a pro could take the cheapo 75-300 and produce nice images but the 70-300L would improve that drastically.

But he'd still be using a zoom to do it.

24-70 "are all" crap? Mine is the MK1 from Canon, seems to do a fine job with me in my field of photography, actually, it is the staple lens that I tend to use

Yes, 24-70 is crap if i buy better lens and i don't use it anymore, i have 24-105 as alternatives, but if i buy 24-70 mkII then my 24-70 mk1 will be a crap lens.

Even my 70-200 mk1 was a crap lens once i bought mkII, but when this mkII will be a crap lens as well???

My 1DsII and 5Dc are crap bodies now because i have 1DX and 1Ds3 and A7R, but that time, 1DsII and 5D were king bodies, and they are crap choices if i shoot sports when i have 1 series fast cameras.

So crap here is about the choice not the quality?

If I go by the author's logic, anything less than a 1dX is crap for my preference since I can't get a FF @ 12fps when I shoot motorsports with it.

All crap!

some guys need to shoot more and troll less.

ed rader wrote in post #17742469
some guys need to shoot more and troll less.

Nuf said, but the problem is, many guys buy more than they shoot ......

Tareq wrote in post #17742509
Nuf said, but the problem is, many guys buy more than they shoot ......

I'm one of them people.

...but it's my hobby not my job and sometimes your job gets too busy where hobbies suffer. Although I have shot about 4k photos in the past month I really feel I'm lacking and need to shoot more lol.

Talley wrote in post #17742516
I'm one of them people.

...but it's my hobby not my job and sometimes your job gets too busy where hobbies suffer. Although I have shot about 4k photos in the past month I really feel I'm lacking and need to shoot more lol.

I understand, and i miss photography because since last year i didn't shoot more often, i hope i didn't forget how to photograph.

In the past i was taken thousands or millions of the shots, but then from here this site or another sites, i got something that made me to think about why to shoot more.

well that's honest and most people simply don't have the time to shoot tho they do seem to find time to post on forums like a mofo .

ed rader wrote in post #17742665
well that's honest and most people simply don't have the time to shoot tho they do seem to find time to post on forums like a mofo .

Even sick people sleeping in hospital can post here and there, Photography needs more energy and move around and efforts, and don't forget the weight of gear that we bought, we are more lazy than before, so most are staying at home sitting their.... on the ....., and enjoy posting.

I'll have butter with my popcorn please!

I can see the argument from the standpoint that 24-70mm is a middle range, do it all compromise, and you must give up some convenience for perhaps "more creative" options.

On the surface, 24mm does not seem wide enough (although it is plenty wide on a full frame), 70mm does not seem long enough (and you will be wanting longer 85-135mm length lenses for portraits), and there are plenty of quality middle focal length lenses in between (28, 35, 50). But as been stated, it is a fine range for down and dirty use without switching lenses.

Perhaps a QUALITY 24-85mm would fit the bill better for those who feel 70mm is too short. I really like my old 24-85mm 3.5-4.5 EF lens from the 90's. I reach for it a lot, even though it is not as crisp as a 28-75mm Tamron I own-the extra reach to 85mm does it for me.

Hmm.. I just took a photo two weekends ago w/ my 24-70 that landed me a $1500 deal.

Never did that with any one of my other lenses.... but this is just a hobby. But for $1500 my 24-70 lens is paid for twice!-

Nick5 wrote in post #17738408
Gotta give JP the author credit for getting us to read his article.
The real "Crap" is that Canon does not offer a 24-70 f/2.8 L II with Image Stabilization.........​...

I am happy to tell you that Canon has gone one better than a 24-70 F2.8 L IS - they have made one WITHOUT IS! No waiting for IS to spin up, no fighting the IS when tracking and a slimmer better (IQ) lens as well. What more could you want?

I am still, 2 years, trying to find a use for the IS on my Canon 800 F5.8 L IS and 300 F2.8 L IS - so glad they didn't muck up my 24-70 F2.8 L V2 with it.