Can you justify buying the 24-70 even if you are an amateur?

Buy a great lens once and keep it for life.

Enjoy it every time you use it.

It's cheaper in the long run than buying multiple poor quality lenses.

Mike V wrote in post #2270952
It's cheaper in the long run than buying multiple poor quality lenses.

Thats for sure!

JimAskew wrote in post #2270917
Yes you can and you can learn to use it.

But let me warn that from personal experience I found out that buying a "L" lens will not improve your photography skills one iota!

I bought the 24-70 L about six months after I returned to SLR photography, slapped it the dRebel XT, and went out to capture magic photos. Guess what...it didn't happen

Now, two years later, lots of experience later, I take decent photos, and an occasional great one (as judged by my wife and daughters).

There is no substitute for practice and study. Quite frankly the first year of SLR shooting I got better results from my 28-105MM Mark II than my 24-70MM L.

So my advice is to buy affordable lenses, don't bust your budget, and study every photo you take good or bad to learn from the experience.

At some point in time upgrade to better glass when you feel you have mastered your current kit

well said

If you want it then just buy it,its your money.

belmondo wrote in post #2269232
Some people spend their money on fast cars and never exceed the speed limit.

Some people spend half of their money on a fast car and the other half on speeding tickets

Photography is actually a very cheap hobby.

If I get that 85/1.2 I've been lusting for all that time now, it's still a lot cheaper than that Porsche I'm craving for...

Best regards,
Andy

Another thing that you may or may not want to consider. The future is impossible to predict.

Two years ago, I used a Sony P&S and was not really interested in photography at all. I bought a 20D to use for astrophotography with my telescope. I started using the 20D instead of the Sony for everyday use and suddenly began to take more pictures. I bought a 70-200mm F4L and started taking pictures of my daughter's soccer team. I took pictures of other team members to give to the parents. The parents loved them so much they have hired me for the past two seasons to take the team photos. I am now talking with a friend about opening a small business just taking pictures of sporting events on weekends.

If you asked me if I would ever make money taking pictures two years ago, I would have laughed at you.

Cali,

If you can afford the lens and you really, really want it then go for it, don't waste time worrying about it. I have spent loads on good quality L series lenses thinking that its better to spend money on equipment which will produce excellent results and last for years like the 24-70L will. People often buy lenses and then upgrade which is a waste of time and money, I think its best to get the good quality option in the first place. In the long run you’ll save money and have fantastic results from the outset.

You have not mentioned what your preferences are but I have the 24-105L and I would seriously consider this lens too. It is very versatile and is hardly ever off my camera, however, if you want the extra stop go for the 24-70 and I’m sure you won’t regret it. I am an amateur also, good luck with your decision!

If you can afford to buy the lens without going hungry or unclothed, and you want it - well then treat yourself. It's your money that you earned, and as everyone has said, these lenses do not lose a great deal of value. If you buy a carefully looked after used copy you will probably lose no money at all if you sell it later.

If you have the money then yes, just like everything else, make sure your priorities are in the right place...

I feel the same way. I'm not pro at all, but I got hooked on photography at age 4 when I took my first photo. Now that I'm much older I feel like if I don't do things that make me feel good what's the point? But my thoughts have kept me awake with this same thing. Why spend so much when I don't make a living with it. Well this past summer I did something about that! I took tons of photos and entered a few contests and won! Total I only got about $100 but hey it was fun! I'e been toying with the idea of getting an expensive lens, but settled for the "less expensive" 17-40. I'm now in debt, but hey who cares? I pay all my bills on time, pay extra on the CCs and we're doing great. I reason this way because for the past 10 years I've spent so little on myself (being young and poor and now my husband is in grad school) I deserve a little bit too! If it means taking 6 months to pay it off, so be it! I'll be snapping away those 6 months happy as can be!

yes you can justify it - if you have the money to buy it without causeing hardship or taking a loan you might not be able to keep up with .
im an amature but like using the best gear, then it's up to me to get the shot and my fault if i dont ( apart from when the camera misses focus ) then its the camera's fault
Rob.

Sorry no as an amateur I just can't justify buying a 24-70 2.8L . Now on the other hand I could justify buying an 85mm 1.2 and a 50mm 1.2 as those are lens that I'd see myself gettng more use out of then the 24-70 due to what and how I shoot

Mike

BTW Its the pro's who really have to justify what they buy as it can effect their bottom line IE a small studio that nets 100K would have hardtime justify a Phase 1 Back. But for some lawyer clearing 750K a Phase 1 Back would be pocket change.

Mike

cali wrote in post #2268408
I've been thinking about this lately and I wanted to see what you guys think. I am an amateur and I have only been into photography for less than a year but I've been seriously considering buying an L series lens like the 24-70. The question I have is, is it worth it to spend the money on this lens even if you don't see yourself doing photography for a living but only as a hobby? After all, the lens a professional lens so I was wondering if it is overkill to buy one.

Well, I'm very amateur. When I decided to get out of the digital point and shoot world I decided to get pro level equipment because I had always been dissatisfied with the results with my prosumer equipment in the old SLR film days. Now I've no one to blame but myself.

Expensive, but there is a certain satisfaction in owning the best.

I also have another hobby that relies on optics: Varmint hunting. The targets are small and camoflaged. I've found over the years that only the best optics will do. I have spent over $1500 on binoculars, over $2000 on (one) rilfescope, and over $2000 on a top of the line spotting scope. But in the field, I'm seeing and shooting at targets that other people are not even aware of because of the limitations of their equipment. (I've had comments about this.) So good optics are worth it on every level to me.

And I think owning pro level equipment can sometimes get the shot that prosumer lenses just can't do.

In my opinion....

No. I can't justify it.

I have owned the Sig 24-70 (sharper wide open than the "L" and focus equally as fast)

I have owned the Canon 24-70 "L", extremely soft below F/4 until I shipped it to Canon service for calibration.

I now have the Tamron 28-75 and it surpasses the "L" in every aspect, except build quality. But I find the Tamron to be much more pleasant to use and great pics:
http://ronmayhew.smugm​ug.com/popular/1/11022​8600/Large

Get the Tamron and practice, practice, practice!

Hellashot wrote in post #2269304
I agree. Many account that IQ of these 2 lenses are equal. My Tamron 28-75 is great, and is sharp widen open. It sounds like you want to buy an expensive L lens for the same of buying one. It's not always needed.

i've owned both. the canon is a better lens and 24mm is far more useful than 28mm....24mm gives you P&S wide angle and 28mm gives you no WA.

the tamron has great IQ but color isn't as good as the L lens and AF isn't as quick or as consistent.

is the L lens worth the premium?

it is to this amateur .

ed rader