Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       end
  

Archive 2014 · How many 24-70 shooters moved to a different lens.

  
 
AnthonyRay
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #1 · p.3 #1 · How many 24-70 shooters moved to a different lens.


ggreene wrote:
I don't understand why they don't stop playing games and slay the market with a 24-105 f2L. If it had near macro and was optically as good as the 24-70 V2 it'd sell like mad.


Paul Mo wrote:
I'd like to see Canon do it but I don't want to see the price. Not sure how well it would sell. People didn't even want to spend $2300 on the 24-70 II never mind the $6000+ this bad boy would go for.


Don't forget there's still a rumor out there about a Sigma 24-70 f2.0 OS. Nothing could get me to sell my 24-70 II except perhaps something like that. And, it will be a moose of a lens!

A 24-105 f2.0 would be crazy big - especially if it had image stabilization. Would you want to carry around a 3lb. 24-105? That's about the only thing I really like about my 24-105 - is it's sort of lightweight. And it's nothing like my Sigma 17-50, which is a potato chip comparatively.



Feb 23, 2014 at 01:09 AM
trumpet_guy
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #2 · p.3 #2 · How many 24-70 shooters moved to a different lens.


Robert,
I recall your 24-70/2.8 mkI to be a very good copy. My advice is to keep it.
You wouldn't get top dollar for it, now that the mkII has been shown to be
superior and lighter. But the mkI is still a _very_nice_ people lens. Do you ever
do wedding shooting these days? It's great for that.

It's handy when you need it, and if you are getting reliable focus with it on your
bodies, then it will be more than adequate when used at portrait distances.

Regards,
Tim



Feb 23, 2014 at 01:18 AM
OntheRez
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #3 · p.3 #3 · How many 24-70 shooters moved to a different lens.


trumpet_guy wrote:
Robert,
I recall your 24-70/2.8 mkI to be a very good copy. My advice is to keep it.
You wouldn't get top dollar for it, now that the mkII has been shown to be
superior and lighter. But the mkI is still a _very_nice_ people lens. Do you ever
do wedding shooting these days? It's great for that.

It's handy when you need it, and if you are getting reliable focus with it on your
bodies, then it will be more than adequate when used at portrait distances.

Regards,


Tim,
I have nothing to compare it to, but I can't find anything wrong with my copy. Of course at 24mm there is field curvature, but that's called physics (optics) and anything wide is going to have it to some degree. As for weddings, I did it twice. It takes a braver man or woman than me! Let's just say that bridezilla lives and roams the earth As noted earlier for reporting it is the main people lens.

When I look at what I could get for the 24-70 v1 compared to the cost of v2 and consider lenses that could make a fundamental difference for me (like perhaps the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 if it proves to AF well), buying the the 24-70 v2 is well down my list. Like many people I keep watching the Tamron 600 and hoping, but it appears to be or questionable value.

Besides I'm still trying to get my 1Dx to function properly. It's been in the shop for a week now, so I have no clue when it will come back and how it will work.

Robert



Feb 23, 2014 at 11:43 AM
asiafish
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #4 · p.3 #4 · How many 24-70 shooters moved to a different lens.


I used to use the Sony Carl Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8 (fantastic lens) with an A850 a few-years-ago, but when I moved to Canon I skipped the big f/2.8 and heavy camera body and went straight to the 6D and 24-105 L.


Feb 23, 2014 at 06:24 PM
RobertLynn
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #5 · p.3 #5 · How many 24-70 shooters moved to a different lens.


Yeah I shoot weddings. I took less gigs intentionally last year with me being in college and starting my real estate career as well.

I do have a quite remarkable 24-70. I know I wouldn't get a "sharp copy" premium lol, but that would be nice. Does anyone remember the guy that was trying to sell his 100-400 at a premium for checking it out to make sure it was a sharp copy?



Feb 23, 2014 at 08:07 PM
Paul Mo
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #6 · p.3 #6 · How many 24-70 shooters moved to a different lens.




AnthonyRay wrote:
A 24-105 f2.0 would be crazy big - especially if it had image stabilization. Would you want to carry around a 3lb. 24-105? That's about the only thing I really like about my 24-105 - is it's sort of lightweight. And it's nothing like my Sigma 17-50, which is a potato chip comparatively.


It does sound obscene in the age of miniaturization, but if it were as good as the 70-200 f2.8L IS II...



Feb 23, 2014 at 09:17 PM
Shield
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #7 · p.3 #7 · How many 24-70 shooters moved to a different lens.


Does moving from a 24-70 II 2.8 to a 24-70 F/4 count? As that's what I just did.


Feb 24, 2014 at 01:21 PM
OldSchool1948
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #8 · p.3 #8 · How many 24-70 shooters moved to a different lens.


Shield wrote:
Does moving from a 24-70 II 2.8 to a 24-70 F/4 count? As that's what I just did.

Out of curiosity, why?



Feb 25, 2014 at 06:57 PM
mrphotographer
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #9 · p.3 #9 · How many 24-70 shooters moved to a different lens.


I've been thinking to move to the 35mm 1.4, but I hear with the 5d iii, some people move the other way because they gain the iso performance... no way to judge except trying it out for yourself I guess...


Feb 26, 2014 at 01:32 AM
Paul Mo
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #10 · p.3 #10 · How many 24-70 shooters moved to a different lens.


I think the gain in ISO performance is overrated. I know we all shoot different things differently, but fast glass AND gains in high ISO performance are preferable to 'f4 and 12,800iso'.


Feb 26, 2014 at 02:26 AM
OntheRez
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #11 · p.3 #11 · How many 24-70 shooters moved to a different lens.


mrphotographer wrote:
I've been thinking to move to the 35mm 1.4, but I hear with the 5d iii, some people move the other way because they gain the iso performance... no way to judge except trying it out for yourself I guess...


I have a 24-70 ver. 1 which as I note above gets heavy use and frankly I have no complaints about it. I also have the 35mm f/1.4L. Why? Two stops. While some people beat the 35mm up (claiming for example that the Sigma is worlds better), I find it very useful both for its FL and its speed. I use it mostly for indoor sports in extremely poor light were the f/2.8 24-70 would require me to go to some absurd ISO like 12800. Despite being "old" I think it is an excellent lens and see no reason for Canon to add IS or some such garbage to it. I have not found the existence of good zooms (24-70, 70-200 both at f/2.8) to preclude the need for and usefulness of faster primes in the same FL range. (I have the 24mm TSE - obviously for it's specialized functions plus it is crazy sharp - the 85mm f/1.8, and the 135mm f/2.0. All get regular use.)

As for pairing it with the 5DIII, I just got the camera so haven't worked it with the 35mm yet, but, to put it bluntly, in my experience wider aperture nearly always trumps higher ISO when it comes to IQ. No doubt that higher ISO is improving (I get excellent results at ISO 6400 on the 1Dx), but I can't see how that makes a fast lens less valuable.

Robert



Feb 26, 2014 at 10:22 AM
1       2      
3
       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.