Upload & Sell: Off
| p.1 #1 · Question: 24-70/2.8 VS 35 f1.4G |
I've been shooting for about five years now and a Pentax APS-C sensor (K-5 currently which has the D7000 sensor) has been fine thus far. It most likely still is, but now that photography has become a long term hobby I want to experience the world of FF, especially after seeing the specs and price of the D800. I would most benefit from the cropping capabilities. I will enjoy the better AF and flash. I am hoping FF has something special some folks tallk about, but I am not holding my breath on that.
I will be getting the 70-200/2.8 VR II. I am just not too sure of the 24-70/2.8. I've heard great things about it. Pretty much all of the review sites rate it well (photozone, lenstip, slrgear). Reviews on this site is splendid as well. But, frankly I haven't seen many "wow!" pictures taken with it. I have seen some wow! pictures taken with the 30/1.4G however. My ideal walk around focal length is 35mm.
So, currently I am torn between either getting the 24-70 or the 35/1.4G. Eventually I will be getting the 14-24/2.8. Of the three f2.8 zooms, only the 24-70 is giving me trepidation, may be because I enjoy that range the most and want to get the best lens I can. (Besides I don't think anything can better the 14-24, it defies logic. I've seen some great subject isolation with the 70-200 VRII and the rendering is sublime as well)
I started out being a prime shooter, but ended up being a zoom shooter with my Pentax APS-C camera (Pentax makes some sweet primes). But, now I am willing to go either way.
QUESTION: Those who own both the 24-70/2.8 and the 35/1.4G, what are your opinion on this?
I am not concerned with the two stop advantage or the light weight. I am strictly considering IQ.
I know reviews just don't convey everything one needs to know to evaluate a lens (but, frankly even among shooters what constitutes a good lens could vary, but I have found within brands there is always some consensus on some cult lenses that reviews just don't differentiate from the rest).
So, to compare the two, I am not asking about sharpness, but overall 'rendering". . You know how when you see an image taken with the 200/2, it just has something special about it, or some of the finer Zeiss lenses too. Review site might quantify these lenses but it just doesn't convey the magic that some lenses can create. Is there a rendering chracterestic that's special with the 35/1.4 that the zoom just cannot deliver?
REQUEST: I would love to see some quality photographs taken with both these lenses.