That's a very good idea. Our 401K has not been performing at all. Very good idea.... Come to Daddy 24L...
Dave Jr wrote:
Ah yes, MTDC, always necessary when you don't have them convinced that your "Optical savings account" has outperformed the stock market over the last couple years.
I just made a spreadsheet showing my wife how my lens investments have held value much better than her 401k, no more problems .
Good news. I finally had a chance to test my 24-70mm up against the 35L after it came back from repair. The 24-70mm is now as sharp as the 35L by f/5.6 for sure, and it's pretty darn close at f/4.
That's good news Ben, I don't have a 35L yet but my 24-70 is killer...I'm still thinking about replacing my stellar 17-40 with the 16-35II for the 2.8.
I have used the 24TSE for some landscape work, and like it a lot. It has a reputation of being soft, and in truth it's not the sharpest lens out there, but it sharpens up nicely. On the flipside, it has an incredibly even image, unlike most other lenses, which I like very much. So while it doesn't travel with me every time or everywhere, I very much enjoy using it, including for landscapes.
Ben Horne wrote:
Good news. I finally had a chance to test my 24-70mm up against the 35L after it came back from repair. The 24-70mm is now as sharp as the 35L by f/5.6 for sure, and it's pretty darn close at f/4.
now those those who have had all three (16-35, 35L, 24-70), would you agree that i should keep the 24-70/35 or 24-70/16-35. i shoot both with a crop and FF bodies. my concern would be optics. i shoot weddings and fashion.
humaniverse wrote:
24L center sharpness is much better than 35L in all FL, same as 135L. At f8~11, 24L corner falls little bit short than that of 24-70L. However, nobody beats 24L at f1.4-f2.8. Truly low light lens. I can shoot almost in dark. For landscaping, I prefer 24-70L or even 24f2.8. I just did test last week to figure out if 24L is good for landscape and came out this conclusion.
I wouldn't say the 24L's center sharpness is "much better" than the 35L. It is perhaps slightly better, but optically mine are nearly equals. Super sharp, all the way across.
Ive had 35L and 16-35II at the same time, sold the zoom for 24L. The zoom really isnt in the same class with the primes. I have no need for zoom flexibility though.
gary thanks for clarifying
and shuko thats were im stuck now. there are times that im at 35 on the 16-35 and i quickly zoom to 16mm to get a wide shot but im afraid if i consolidate my gear and sell the 16-35, i might loose a shot.
i was also thinking of selling both and getting the 24L or keeping the 35L and buying the 24L although those two are pretty close in FL.
Any updates on what you ended up doing Thats Fresh?
I'm in a similar boat right now. Not pleased with my 24-70L on my 1DsIII. Trying to figure out if I go to the 24L and 35L instead, or give the 16-35II a shot. Pair either with my 85 1.8, and skip the 50 range for now. I'm wary of zoom IQ now. Sold my 70-200 2.8L after being disappointed in the 200-end sharpness.
.