markhout wrote:
Interesting... point taken and noted. I will give that 35mm 1.4 a thorough test against the 24-70 once I get it in my hands...
(have just sent my 24-70 out for cleaning and adjustment)
I also found the 24G too wide to replace a lens like the 24-70 (the 35G may bet better in this regard)
Having the ability to stop down to 1.4 for light gathering and subject isolation is handy - but the trade off to me of not having the focal range was not worth it (especially shooting on a D3s)
domdog31 wrote:
I sold my 24-70 for the 24 1.4 and was the worst decision I have made. I sold the 24 1.4 after a month and looking to buy back a 24-70 ASAP. I didn't find the IQ to be any better than the 24-70 and thought I would need the f/1.4 but honestly I didn't.
The 24 was too wide for me, when I want wide I'd shoot the 14-24, I figure between the 35/85 that'll cover my normal range, the 70-200 for sporting stuff. I I know for a fact is use the 1.4. That should take care of almost every need I have. Maybe ill give another sigma 50 a try and pick up a 300 f4 in the future aa well.
Supposedly my local camera shop just sold there only 35 f/1.4 today she was going to sell it to me and when she went to the back it was gone..I asked her the "g" correct and she said yes...
Just out of curiosity, is there anyone who owns the 24f1.4 and plans on getting the the new 35? Just curious to see if anyone sees the value of owning both.
I currently own the 24 and LOVE it. Great lens, couldn't live without it. Back in my film days I shot at 35 a lot and am thinking about picking up the 35. But, I don't know if I want to try and use both 24 and 35 primes. I suppose I could try using the 35f2 and see how it fits in...
The 35 f/2 is great little lens. I plan on getting the 1.4 but will not get rid of my f/2.
For my style of shooting I need both 24 and 35. I shoot weddings and there are times when 35 is just not wide enough for the shot I want. I shoot mostly with the 35 and 85. Maybe 10% with the 24 but that 10% makes the coverage more exciting.
Mykal wrote:
The 35 f/2 is great little lens. I plan on getting the 1.4 but will not get rid of my f/2.
For my style of shooting I need both 24 and 35. I shoot weddings and there are times when 35 is just not wide enough for the shot I want. I shoot mostly with the 35 and 85. Maybe 10% with the 24 but that 10% makes the coverage more exciting.
I apologize for straying off topic. I'm curious why you go with the 24 & 35 instead of the 24-70. Do you shoot a lot at 1.4-2.8? Like I mentioned, I love my 24 and I think I would really like the 35 but have a hard time investing $3,800? into a 24 and 35 that could be covered by the 24-70. <--I love shooting at 1.4 though. I need to track down a new 85mm also.
Chris Langer wrote:
I have the Sigma 50 right now. So essentially, I could get the 35, 50, 85, 70-200 and be set for life? Prime heaven !!!!
I like that lineup. But I recently kicked out the 70-200 due to its size, weight and price. Bought a used almost-new 180 2.8 for $500 and could not be happier.
And I now kid myself that I have a budget for a 85mm
caad4rep wrote:
I apologize for straying off topic. I'm curious why you go with the 24 & 35 instead of the 24-70. Do you shoot a lot at 1.4-2.8? Like I mentioned, I love my 24 and I think I would really like the 35 but have a hard time investing $3,800? into a 24 and 35 that could be covered by the 24-70. <--I love shooting at 1.4 though. I need to track down a new 85mm also.
This website is driving me into the poor farm.
Weight was the number one factor for me. So I moved from shooting a D3 with the 24 - 70 to 2 D700 with 35 f/2 and 85 f/1.4. The two cameras are probably heavier however the weight is spread out.
I considered using just a D700 with the 24-70 however since I do not have the D3 with dual cards shooting backup I wanted to spread the coverage over two cameras/cards.
Being able to shoot at f/2 and wider is a bonus for me. The 85 is mostly at f/2 or wider.
Having fractured both wrist and having two bulging disc certainly catches up with you when you get over 40. I am always looking for lighter.
I guess we will see when its released..but that bad bokeh . The transition from sharp to out of focus needs to be much more gradual to create pleasing renderings.
caad4rep wrote:
I apologize for straying off topic. I'm curious why you go with the 24 & 35 instead of the 24-70. Do you shoot a lot at 1.4-2.8? Like I mentioned, I love my 24 and I think I would really like the 35 but have a hard time investing $3,800? into a 24 and 35 that could be covered by the 24-70. <--I love shooting at 1.4 though. I need to track down a new 85mm also.
This website is driving me into the poor farm.
I want the 35 bc a lot of stuff I shoot is in doors with no flash, night time stuff or just generally poor conditoons where my24-70 won't cut it and I need those extra stops of light for shutter speed.
I find it EXTREMELY odd that my estimated delivery date is THIS sunday... I mean I would be ecstatic if it really showed up on sunday but my gut is telling me its going to come monday...
Also, based on the d7000 release which amazon got shafted on... im worried about that as well..
Something is going on at Amazon but it may not be good. You can no longer pre-order the lens there. It just has an option to "Sign up to be notified when this item becomes available." Not sure what that means for existing pre-orders. I ordered one the morning it was announced and my order says "Delivery Estimate: November 18, 2010 - December 7, 2010"
