Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
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?

 
Scrumhalf
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,203 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Likes: 3273
Joined Jul 2012
Location: Portland OR USA
     
Sep 07, 2017 00:23 |  #16

James Crockett wrote in post #18446331 (external link)
only thing bothers me is doesn't have image stabilization but I do like how versatile the lens is. I've considered this one and the 50mm 1.2L..

I've had the 24-70 II ever since it got released and I've never felt the need for IS. Getting to 1/FL or faster is easy on my 6D.


Sam
5D4 | 6D | 7D2 (2 bodies) | Reasonably good glass
Gear List

flickr (external link)
If I don't get the shots I want with the gear I have, the only optics I need to examine is the mirror on the bathroom wall. The root cause will be there.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
17,826 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 1668
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Sep 07, 2017 01:57 |  #17

all these you don't need IS because of high ISO comments are kinda ridiculous...no matter what situations you shoot in, there's a time where f2.8 and high ISO won't cut it...but a lens with IS would...he mentions wanting IS, so he probably knows what conditions he shoots in...it's not like anyone is saying, you don't need f2.8, because of high ISO, just go for the 24-70f4IS...when people are choosing between a 70-200f4IS, and 70-200f2.8IS...nobody says get the slower lens because high ISO makes up for the difference


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scrumhalf
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,203 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Likes: 3273
Joined Jul 2012
Location: Portland OR USA
Post edited 9 months ago by Scrumhalf. (2 edits in all)
     
Sep 07, 2017 02:17 |  #18

I gave my opinion based on my experience with this lens. When I have to go with a slow shutter speed, I have been able to use a tripod.

if you don't like my opinion, you can lump it.


Sam
5D4 | 6D | 7D2 (2 bodies) | Reasonably good glass
Gear List

flickr (external link)
If I don't get the shots I want with the gear I have, the only optics I need to examine is the mirror on the bathroom wall. The root cause will be there.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Avatar
7,610 posts
Likes: 2561
Joined Oct 2015
     
Sep 07, 2017 02:22 |  #19

I use slow zooms because I have fast primes. And they are cheaper, smaller, lighter. Mostly cheaper.


Tom

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PCousins
Senior Member
Avatar
576 posts
Gallery: 251 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 4063
Joined Nov 2014
Location: Weston-Super-Mare (UK)
     
Sep 07, 2017 03:54 |  #20

I Sold my 35L and 50L for the 24-70LII.....I do not regret it.....The 24-70L II Is a wonderful lens as good as the primes if not better....


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DaviSto
... sorry. I got carried away!
Avatar
1,927 posts
Gallery: 56 photos
Likes: 883
Joined Nov 2016
Location: Abuja Nigeria
Post edited 9 months ago by DaviSto with reason 'Typo'.
     
Sep 07, 2017 04:12 |  #21

DreDaze wrote in post #18446456 (external link)
all these you don't need IS because of high ISO comments are kinda ridiculous...no matter what situations you shoot in, there's a time where f2.8 and high ISO won't cut it...but a lens with IS would...he mentions wanting IS, so he probably knows what conditions he shoots in...

The OP stated he wanted to use the lens for portraiture. In this use, I can't see he will often want to use a slow shutter speed for motion blurring (panning shots or moving water). So the fact is that the ability to shoot at higher ISOs with modern bodies greatly reduces the need for IS, as long as shots are well exposed, in his usage.

As it happens, the OP's current camera is a 5Dii, which is not king of the hill for high ISO shooting. Bodies come and go for me (although I like them to stick around for a good while) but lenses are for the long-term. So my opinion would still favour a faster zoom over a slower one for the OP's purposes, even it comes at the expense of no IS.

It's just my opinion. 'hope it doesn't seem a ridiculous one.


David.
Comment and (constructive) criticism always welcome.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Avatar
7,610 posts
Likes: 2561
Joined Oct 2015
     
Sep 07, 2017 05:10 |  #22

PCousins wrote in post #18446475 (external link)
I Sold my 35L and 50L for the 24-70LII.....I do not regret it.....The 24-70L II Is a wonderful lens as good as the primes if not better....

@ 1.4?


Tom

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DaviSto
... sorry. I got carried away!
Avatar
1,927 posts
Gallery: 56 photos
Likes: 883
Joined Nov 2016
Location: Abuja Nigeria
     
Sep 07, 2017 06:13 |  #23

Bassat wrote in post #18446462 (external link)
I use slow zooms because I have fast primes. And they are cheaper, smaller, lighter. Mostly cheaper.

I agree. There's a lot to be said for a set of good primes instead of a top of the line zoom. 35mm f/2.0 IS, 50mm f/1.4 (... ... yes, I have heard all the criticism before already ... but I still think it's a more than ordinarily usable lens if you can get hold of a good copy) and 85mm f/1.8* would be a good set of modestly priced fast Canon primes that would make up a pretty complete portrait set, taken together with what the OP has already (arguably with some redundancy, since he already as a 100mm lens in there).

*Out of those, the 85mm f/1.2 would be the L range substitute I'd most want to have (and the second hand market for that lens should offer improving prices now that the 85mm f1.4 IS L is about to be released). It's not everybody's cup of tea but, when you get it right, the images have a unique quality that I find almost bewitching.

There are good non-Canon fast prime lens alternatives too, of course.

But this isn't answering the OP's actual question.


David.
Comment and (constructive) criticism always welcome.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
James ­ Crockett
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
175 posts
Likes: 36
Joined May 2017
     
Sep 07, 2017 06:44 |  #24

DaviSto wrote in post #18446525 (external link)
I agree. There's a lot to be said for a set of good primes instead of a top of the line zoom. 35mm f/2.0 IS, 50mm f/1.4 (... ... yes, I have heard all the criticism before already ... but I still think it's a more than ordinarily usable lens if you can get hold of a good copy) and 85mm f/1.8* would be a good set of modestly priced fast Canon primes that would make up a pretty complete portrait set, taken together with what the OP has already (arguably with some redundancy, since he already as a 100mm lens in there).

*Out of those, the 85mm f/1.2 would be the L range substitute I'd most want to have (and the second hand market for that lens should offer improving prices now that the 85mm f1.4 IS L is about to be released). It's not everybody's cup of tea but, when you get it right, the images have a unique quality that I find almost bewitching.

There are good non-Canon fast prime lens alternatives too, of course.

But this isn't answering the OP's actual question.

Thanks for the comment. chime in with anything. I have the 100mm macro and gave it some thought on selling it along with the sigma and go after a high dollar piece.. just a thought. Thanks everybody!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
aboudd
Member
174 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 83
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Arlington VA
     
Sep 08, 2017 12:53 |  #25

For portraits, primes. The Canon 50MM 1.8 and the 85MM 1.8. The 50 1.8 is amazingly sharp and cheap, and the 85 1.8 is one of Canon's finest optics, even though it has been around for awhile and is also inexpensive. Another factor, front ends on these lenses is small, 49MM filters on the 50MM and 58MM filters on the 85 1.8. Finally, right in weight, both together lighter than either the Siggy or the Beast.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Angmo
looks like I picked a bad week to give up halucinagens
Avatar
815 posts
Gallery: 22 photos
Likes: 553
Joined Dec 2015
Location: AZ-USA
     
Sep 08, 2017 13:07 |  #26

I'm totally invested in Nikon for 35mm.

I do feel Canon has slightly better optics than Nikon. At least that's how I've always felt. Not done any recent comparisons. Back in the film days, a film processor friend of mine saw the same thing. Obviously, he's seen way more than I ever will. I've not really compared with digital, I just assume Canon still maintains a slight edge with their better lenses over Nikons better lenses. IMO...


Nikons, Rolleiflexes, Elinchroms, Billinghams

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kf095
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,282 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 220
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Canada, Ontario, Milton
     
Sep 08, 2017 19:03 |  #27

Canon just because it works.


Old Site (external link). M-E and ME blog (external link). Film Flickr (external link). my DigitaL and AnaLog Gear.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TooManyShots
Cream of the Crop
10,203 posts
Likes: 512
Joined Jan 2008
Location: NYC
     
Sep 08, 2017 19:10 |  #28
bannedPermanent ban

It depends. A standard zoom is useful if you aren't sure what you are photographing.


One Imaging Photography (external link) and my Flickr (external link)
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Angmo
looks like I picked a bad week to give up halucinagens
Avatar
815 posts
Gallery: 22 photos
Likes: 553
Joined Dec 2015
Location: AZ-USA
     
Sep 08, 2017 22:27 |  #29

TooManyShots wrote in post #18447672 (external link)
It depends. A standard zoom is useful if you aren't sure what you are photographing.

...or why for that matter!


Nikons, Rolleiflexes, Elinchroms, Billinghams

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Goodform
Member
34 posts
Likes: 11
Joined Jan 2009
     
Sep 14, 2017 08:49 |  #30

I just went from a cropped sensor 7D setup to a 6DII full frame with a 24-70, so I'm hoping I made the right choice. I still have the 35L on 'want' list, will probably pick one up to see how I like it.




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

8,299 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?
Register to forums
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 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is brotherbear86
781 guests, 248 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.