Upload & Sell: On
| p.1 #3 · Got the OK for the 24-70mm MKII - is there are better lens for the price |
The "received wisdom" from the "Masters of FM" generally claims that no zoom can achieve the same quality as a well-crafted prime. It's difficult to evaluate this assertion as it is made by so many folks working in such a diversity of disciplines and conditions. By all reports the new 24-70 is a truly excellent lens. I have the previous version and it has served my well for some time. Having said that I also have a 35mm f/1.4, the 24mm f/3.5 II TSE, the 65mm MP-E and the lowly but superb 85mm f/1.8.
I find that my need for/and use of primes and zooms do not really overlap. In other words having primes and zooms in the same range - for me - is not redundant. Outside sport, wildlife, and some landscape is the province of the zooms. I also do virtually all of my reporting photography with the 24-70. Indoor sport, landscape, macro, shooting in dark conditions, ultra wide angle, I generally use a prime. So basically zooms give immense flexibility whereas primes provide special functions, much wider apertures, and often crisper images. If you need a fast lens then you have to go prime. I can't even imagine what say an f/2.0 24-70 would weight
If you don't have any primes in the range then I'd go for the 24-70 and make sure you take your lady out to dinner some place very nice.