p.2 #1 · Anyone ditch their primes for the 24-70II?
Sven Jeppesen wrote:
No way the Vegas casino's will let you shoot candids of the people gambling in their casino with your DSLR and 135 lens.
I could see that either. No way.
p.2 #2 · Anyone ditch their primes for the 24-70II?
its an interesting topic that comes up. I have generally never considered the use of primes for their image quality. most modern zoom provide excellent image quality for majority of applications, (may be not landscape always)
Primes, to me are about the extra light, the size of the lens, and more control over DOF. Zoom is about convenience, and when you dont need the faster aperture.
p.2 #3 · Anyone ditch their primes for the 24-70II?
Invertalon wrote:
A few weeks ago I was just zooms... 24-70 II and 70-200 II and 17-40L.
I recently did a change that will be complete when the UPS man drops off my 135L and 400L today Selling the 70-200 II and going to the two primes instead.
I was also thinking about *maybe* unloading the 24-70 II and going with the 24L II instead. I would be messing out in the 24-135 range, so I thought about adding the 85 1.8 to fill in that void.
Wow 24-70 II for 24 1.4 II?? (The only things the 24 1.4 II does better are getting below f/2.8 and having a bit less distortion. The zoom has a bit LESS LoCA actually and doesn't do the stars to seagulls thing as much.)
Hmm you are going almost the opposite direction I did. I got rid of my 85 1.8 long ago, the 135 is so specialized I only use it here and there while even a slow 70-300L gets constant usage.
p.2 #4 · Anyone ditch their primes for the 24-70II?
garydavidjones wrote:
Have the 70-200 II and 24-70 I. Have entertained getting the 24-70 II.
However, for candid shots of people such as gamblers in a Vegas casino
the 135L is superb. Small, black, and inconspicuous. Telescopic
enough to get close-ups of subjects who never what "hit" them.
Part of the fun of visiting Vegas 2 or 3 times a year. We drive from LA.
It's our easy vacation mode. NO planes, foreign exchange fees, etc.,
which we encounter on our yearly trip abroad.
How do you manage that? Casinos have ten million live video feeds and they don't like candids being taken of their gamblers.
p.2 #5 · Anyone ditch their primes for the 24-70II?
I worked on two project in Vegas and though I carried my cameras with me, as that was my work, I was asked to not take any images in the casino, whatever one I entered. Some didn't say anything but I think they knew I knew not to take images. They will escort you out real fast.
p.2 #6 · Anyone ditch their primes for the 24-70II?
I think it really depends on how you shoot and what your preferences are. I have the 24-70 II and in terms of IQ at f/2.8 I see little difference between it and my Sigma 35/1.4 or Sigma 85/1.4 (or the Canon 50L I had until recently). However, I chose to keep the 35/1.4 because it offers two things the zoom cannot: a lower ISO with a shutter speed high enough to freeze movement indoors, and the ability to isolate my subject more from the background. I didn't love the 50mm focal length, so that's why I let the 50L go.
The Sigma 85 and 85L II are both special lenses with super shallow DOF, and they can't really be replaced IMO by the 24-70 II, as good as it is.
I love the zoom for its flexibility. If I'm headed outdoors to take pictures of my family, that's what I'll grab. But I also find that I have more fun and often make better photos with primes. I'm really happy to have both.
Selling the 70-200 II and going to the two primes instead.