Ok, I'm planning to purchase a 24-70 2.8 (They are in stock everywhere in Canada...) in preparation for my move to full frame. Currently I have the 18-70 which is ok but I'm looking for better quality. The thing is I currently have a 10-20 Sigma which I think is just great. Getting a 24-70 will not leave much missing and surely a few steps can make up for this.
However, a 28-70 Beast has just come up for sale at $1000. It is $1000 cheaper, and the question is will I miss that 8mm?
Unless the price point is an issue, buy the 24-70. It is the perfect fit with the 14-24. I would miss the 4mm. Basically, it is my most used lens and I use it through out its range--shoot a lot of images using 24-27.
Dunno if it would be that big of a deal. The 24-70 is an excellent lens, but the 28-70 is no slouch. You won't be losing 8mm in reality anyway. You'd only be losing the 4mm difference between the 24-70 and 28-70.
It really depends on what you shoot and how much WA you shoot. You still have your 18-70, which is small and light, so not a big deal to carry instead of the 10-20, which could cover the 10mm you're missing from 18-28mm. IOW, you've got a lot of options that you can consider.
Yes, you will miss the 4mm in my opinion. In terms of angular coverage the difference is not insignificant (you can look this up on the specs for yourself). My experience with 28mm is that is not quite wide enough for many applications, whereas 24mm works 9 times out of 10.
andrewd01 wrote:
Yes, you will miss the 4mm in my opinion. In terms of angular coverage the difference is not insignificant (you can look this up on the specs for yourself). My experience with 28mm is that is not quite wide enough for many applications, whereas 24mm works 9 times out of 10.
+1
andrewd01 wrote:
Yes, you will miss the 4mm in my opinion. In terms of angular coverage the difference is not insignificant (you can look this up on the specs for yourself). My experience with 28mm is that is not quite wide enough for many applications, whereas 24mm works 9 times out of 10.
+2
I don't miss the wider end of the 24-70mm. My current 28-70mm copy is sharper wide open than any 24-70mm I've owned...and I've had several and all were good/sharp. It was $599 at KEH several months ago.
Since you are open to non-Canon lenses, why not get your 12-24mm, a Tamron 28-75mm, and a 35/1.4L? Kinda-sorta similar pricing scenarios. The 35mm is dreamy on any full-framed body.
Oh my...I just realized I am on the N-n-n-n-n-i-k-o-n board. Talk about being in the wrong neighborhood!! Sorry for the non-applicable advice.
Yes, you will miss the 4mm in my opinion. In terms of angular coverage the difference is not insignificant (you can look this up on the specs for yourself). My experience with 28mm is that is not quite wide enough for many applications, whereas 24mm works 9 times out of 10.
+3. Every millimeter counts.
In my limited film-camera usage of my dad's 28-70 f/2.8, I found that when I wanted to get wide, 28mm wasn't wide enough, and I'd often switch out "The Beast" for his 24mm f/2.8 prime. (I admit... I was spoiled as a kid by having full access to his lens bag )
On a DX body (which it sounds like you're using if you've got a 10-20 UWA Sigma...), the difference between 28mm and 24mm is a bigger deal... 24mm really isn't "wide enough" for my needs, but a zoom starting at 28mm is just a strange range to be stuck with in terms of composition. The 28-70 is effectively a normal perspective, with medium telephoto reach at 70mm. The 24-70 gives you a hint of wider than normal perspective on DX with the same long end reach.
IMO, you WILL miss that 4mm range, and it's a focal range where if I had a 10-20 + 24-70 setup I'd be switching lenses inconveniently often. Go full frame at the same time that you get the 24-70. Sell your 10-20 and previous DX body to help finance the move.
Well the consensus seems to be that I will miss the 4mm but remember I will have the 14-24mm. Perhaps what I need to do is see a graphical example of this. I remember once there was a web site (Sigma?) that allowed you to plug in the lens fl and it would show you the field. Anyone know where this is?
You know, saving a $1000 is alot, I could get an 85 1.4 as well
Thanks
I shoot with the 14-24 and 28-70 on the D700 -- I do not miss the 4mm difference, If the 28-70 is not wide enough, then I just do a quick lens change, and all is good. I find myself shooting the 14-24 a lot at 24mm these days, but also a lot at 14mm. Depends completely on the look I am going after.
tomb18 wrote:
I got lucky. It's like new, checked by Nikon and $1000 canadian $'s.
I'm going to go for it. If I don't like it, I'll get my money back I'm sure.
Sounds good -- I paid $800 for mine in mint condition. I put a scratch in the glass window last year when I was hiking the crack trail at Killarney Provincial Park
andrewd01 wrote:
Yes, you will miss the 4mm in my opinion. In terms of angular coverage the difference is not insignificant (you can look this up on the specs for yourself). My experience with 28mm is that is not quite wide enough for many applications, whereas 24mm works 9 times out of 10.
+3
It avoids switching even when you do have the WA lens with you and it's a big deal when you don't have it with you.
?
)