gdanmitchell Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · Sell three lenses and replace with one? Thoughts please :) | |
A few things to think about:
1. A critical question: How do these supposed optical shortcomings actually affect your photographs? (Or, stated a different way: Are you chasing the "better" just because it is said to be "better?")
2. Not unrelated to the first question, is the value of the possible improvement (or, in the end, not) from the 24-70 greater than the sum of things you will give up, including the ability to make photographs with focal lengths between 16mm and 24mm and between 70mm and 105mm and/or the functionality that IS provides?
I will agree that for many photographers owning the 16-35mm f/2.8 and the 35mm prime is redundant. For some, less so, and for others a different and less expensive 35mm prime may accomplish what they need.
A distinct "first world dilemma" (to use your excellent characterization) is that of being seduced by the newest and shiniest thing and then falling into thought patterns that grossly amplify the imagined wonderfulness and life-changing effect of said shiny thing, and amplifying the importance of the presumed shortcomings of the things we already have. This is a very real problem among certain classes of photographers.
Several things can serve as antidotes:
1. Focus more on the photographs - not the on-screen pixel peeping, but on the final product - and less on the acquisition of gear.
2. Once you make an absolute, certain, final decision that you "need" some new piece of equipment, resolve to sit on that decision for at least a full month before making a purchase. At any point if you start the internal debate once again, recognize that you did not really make an "absolute, certain, final decision," and re-set the one month clock. (The passions aroused during the decision-making phase often are hard to resist - and this technique can help you deal with that.)
Finally, I am absolutely certain that the new 24-70 lens is a very fine piece of equipment. I'm equally certain that the gear you have is also excellent and I know that it can and does produce wonderful photographs every day. (I have a photograph in an upcoming show in Yosemite Valley that was shot with the 24-105, and I consider it one of my best photographs and one of my best prints.) The search for the best gear, especially when all of this gear is really very, very good, is far less critical than continuous attention to improving the photographs we make with our gear. Even better, the more you move in that direction, the more that photography becomes a passion that is far more powerful and rewarding than gear collecting. :-)
Good luck with your decisions.
Dan
Bones74 wrote:
**in the face of my 1st world "dilemma" to follow I'd just like to say what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary earlier is a shocking tragedy and my thoughts are with the families affected. I also hope none of the FM forum members have been affected.**
I've been pondering over selling three of my "short" lenses (35L, 16-35 ii and 24-105) and replacing with the 24-70 ii, mainly for use on my 5Dmk3. I know each of those 3 lenses bring different attributes to the party, but here's my reasoning:
35L - Its a great lens, but I hardly ever use it. For me 35mm is a bit of a nowhere prime F/L. I don't find it long enough for what I may use it for which is mainly as a walk around lens. I also don't usually shoot wider/faster than f/2 so using the 24-70 @f/2.8, I'd only lose a stop and it can do 35mm if or when required for composition. Bokeh is a minor consideration in the equation, just to get that out of the way.
16-35 ii - at 16mm even stopped down the corners are noticeably softer than the centre and middle, so I don't often use it wider than 20mm, even for landscapes. On a 1Dmk4 it offers a more useful FOV as a walk around lens IMO, especially at the longer end, but the 1Dmk4 is not as common looking as a 5D shaped body so I don't use it on the street much.
24-105 - Its a good lens, we all know what it does, and its short comings, but F/2.8 it can't do and the 24-70 ii is obviously optically superior.
A further consideration is, I can't afford the 24-70 unless I sell those three lenses. The Tamron VR may be an option at half the price, but while very decent it doesn't quite match the IQ of the Canon so I'm probably going to rule it out.
For those of you who have had wider than 24mm and then sold that lens have you missed the extra 6mm, or have you just adapted and carried on with no regrets? In my mind I'm picturing the 24-70 ii as an excellent all round package for landscapes, walk around, and portraits. I'm pretty sure I won't miss the 35L. Am I on solid ground thinking this way or just being silly? ...Show more →
Edited on Dec 15, 2012 at 02:53 PM · View previous versions
|