badlydrawnboy
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.3 #13 · Is the 24-70 II really a "prime killer"? | |
kevindar wrote:
Late to the party.
the question is, how many fewer or more magical moments of your daughter are you going to capture by switching.
I think the 24-70 2.8 II makes a phenomenol landscape lens, b/c of its corner to corner sharpness stopped down, and relatively controlled distortion (for a zoom). I think it makes an excellent but very overpriced taking pictures of my daughter lens. people pictures/portraits should have good sharpness, but no need to see every pore on the skin. do you own a 70-200 2.8 IS lens? if not, I would buy that before the 24-70 as a portrait lens, and keep my primes in wider range.
I have two daughters, 5 years and 5 months old, and for several years have owned 35 1.4, 50 1.4 (sigma) and 85 1.2, as well as 70-200 2.8 IS, as well as an excellent copy of 28-70 2.8L and have used my primes far more, followed by the 70-200. and one if it has been b/c image quality of one is suprior to the others. I find the sharpness to be more than adequate on all of those.
I think if you wanted a zoom in that range, I would buy the tamron vc now. maybe sell the 35 L in favor of the new sigma 35, though that would only net you around 150. I think for your intended purpose, if you have to sell your 85L to aquire the 24-70 II, you are spending too much for that lens....Show more →
Thanks, that's helpful. I wonder if you and I don't have different styles of taking kid pictures, though. I often find that 85mm is too tight, and don't find myself using the 85 much for that reason. I much prefer "environmental" portraits with more context/background, so I find myself using the 35 or 50 way more often. I don't think I'd have much use for a 70-200 right now, though I imagine that will change as my daughter grows up and becomes even more mobile.
I've already decided to keep the 35L or replace it with the Sigma 35. If I do replace it, I'd net about $150 as you suggest but that wouldn't be my motivation. I'd only replace it if I thought the Sigma was significantly better.
If I get the Canon 24-70 II, and I sell the 85L, I think I'd be able to stretch and pick up the Sigma 85 instead. Most seem to think that it's nearly the equal of the 85L, and has better AF to boot, so I'm not sure that's a terrible idea. I already have the 50/1.4, which I chose to keep over the 50L because I couldn't justify the price difference between the two.
On the other hand, if I go with the Tamron 24-70 I could probably keep both the 35L and 85L in addition to the 50/1.4.
In either case, I'd have a high quality 24-70 zoom, two very high quality primes (35 & 85), and a lightweight, compact prime (50/1.4) that isn't spectacular but gets the job done.
|
, Marco!