edwardkaraa wrote:
I'm not sure how much heavier is the 24-70 than 3 primes.
Well... on the camera of course Anyways, it's always weight vs versatility vs. quality. None of the the top quality zooms are really light... the new Sigma 24-70 HSM is the lightest zoom in that category, but as I said, I am not confident about its quality. I would settle for something like a 24-105 f4, but even that lens in its class, as good of a reputation it has, isn't something what I'd call top quality on FF.
wayne seltzer wrote:
Nice shot Edward with my favorite ZA 135 lens.
Looks like this was shot up in Ayutthaya at one of the temples I visited?
Or am I wrong?
Already missing Thailand, Cambodia and Lao. Need to get back there again soon!
Thanks again for everything and I really enjoyed getting to meet you and your lovely girlfriend.
Did you buy an A850 to go with your A900?
Hi Wayne,
It was really a great pleasure meeting you too and having all those photography related discussions
I see you're becoming an expert in Thai archaeology You are correct, this was taken in Ayutthaya at the Wat Yai Chai Mongkol.
I didn't get an A850 but the IQ should be identical to the A900 until proven otherwise.
edwardkaraa wrote:
I'm not sure how much heavier is the 24-70 than 3 primes.
Aye, good point, but it must have to do with my shooting style. I don't mind a little additional weight in the bag if the lens on the camera is lightweight and less conspicuous, because the majority of the shooting I do is at 50mm anyways. Granted, I usually go the two lens route with the 50 and 20, because the 85 is big, too. All of that being said, I certainly use the 24-70 when a zoom is needed.
To be honest I am used to heavy cameras as I used 1Ds 1/2 before the Sony.
When I'm out shooting, I'm more concerned about the weight of the gear bag on my shoulder than the weight of the camera in my hand
When I'm doing a job, the bag is not on my shoulder but the camera is always in my hand. After shooting for about three hours or so, a heavy camera gets old. The vertical grip would certainly make things more comfortable with a heavy lens I'm sure.
I am pretty sure my guides in Thailand and Cambodia thought I was crazy carrying all the lenses I brought along on the trip, need to weigh the bag sometime. I had 1ds3,ZA 135 1.8, Rokkor 58 1.2, contax N 50 1.4,Zeiss ZF 35 2, Minolta 28 2, Nikon 14-24G,Canon 17 TS-E. Used them all, no regrets!
I did daydream sometimes that I was only carrying around a micro-4/3 camera or a rangefinder.
All lenses seem light compared to when I am hand-holding my 500L. Only 8.5 pounds for the lens + 3 pounds for the 1ds3.
Yakim Peled wrote:
Do you like the bokeh of the 24-70? Some pictures I've seen (e.g. PZ) are simply horrendous.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
I have been using the 24-70 as my main lens for almost a year and I have never seen any horrendous bokeh. Certainly this lens is not known for great bokeh either but most of the time it is just fine.
We haven't seen any photos yet from your south east asian trip. Very curious to see them.
Finally getting some time to post process some of them.
Lot's of work ahead.Will pot some soon.
Funny,just saw that I took a similar shot of those buddhas with both the 135 and the Rokkor 58.
Yakim, I have never seen horrendous bokeh either with the 24-70 (this of course is one of the slipperiest slopes of subjectivity imaginable).... however, if I want bokeh, I usually use a fast prime. 2.8, personally, just int fast enough for the kind of bokeh i like in shallow DOF shots. (well, not in the 24-70 FL, tele lenses are another story)
I will have a look at some shallow DOF pics with the 24-70 and toss a pic or two in this thread.
I will say that the 24-70's bokeh at 70mm (where photozone tested it) can be dicey on occasion, but it's rare. Conveniently, photozone only started doing those bokeh tests in the last year or so, so we can't directly compare them to Canon.
Sean Mills wrote:
Yakim, I have never seen horrendous bokeh either with the 24-70 (this of course is one of the slipperiest slopes of subjectivity imaginable).... however, if I want bokeh, I usually use a fast prime. 2.8, personally, just int fast enough for the kind of bokeh i like in shallow DOF shots. (well, not in the 24-70 FL, tele lenses are another story)
I will have a look at some shallow DOF pics with the 24-70 and toss a pic or two in this thread.
I agree about the aperture issue but IMHO bokeh is about the quality of it i.e. detached from the aperture issue. Put a zoom and a prime on f/2.8 (similar to identical FL of course), and take one shots with each. Then compare the bokeh.
Specularist, interesting summary. I agreed with most but not this part:
Specularist wrote:
There are more EOS lenses than anyone could ever want, most of them also pretty crap. Some of them though, are better than any comparable lenses by anyone, bar none.
Why single out the EOS lens range as having some class-leading lenses? I can't think of any that are still in production (the long discontinued EF 200mm f/1.8 L USM was regarded as best in class but that's a rarity).
foto-z wrote:
Specularist, interesting summary. I agreed with most but not this part:
Why single out the EOS lens range as having some class-leading lenses? I can't think of any that are still in production (the long discontinued EF 200mm f/1.8 L USM was regarded as best in class but that's a rarity).
Far from being a Canon supporter, I might add that Canon's 300mm and 400mm lenses are perhaps class-leading. Of course, I don't use those lenses. ;-)
Some will also say that the recent 24mm Lll T/S lens is class-leading (not, me, but some will) but of course, there are very few makers of a lens like that (so there is not much of a class to lead).
foto-z wrote:
Specularist, interesting summary. I agreed with most but not this part:
Why single out the EOS lens range as having some class-leading lenses? I can't think of any that are still in production (the long discontinued EF 200mm f/1.8 L USM was regarded as best in class but that's a rarity).
85L II, 17TS-E, 135L, and 24L II can all be considered class-leading and are current-production.
I might agree about the 17 and 24. However, the 135L is no 135 ZA. I've yet to meet a dual 85L/85ZA user that doesn't prefer the Zeiss, but the Canon does have the speed advantage, and I'd probably call that a draw.
Anyways, it's always weight vs versatility vs. quality. None of the the top quality zooms are really light... the new Sigma 24-70 HSM is the lightest zoom in that category, but as I said, I am not confident about its quality. I would settle for something like a 24-105 f4, but even that lens in its class, as good of a reputation it has, isn't something what I'd call top quality on FF. 
You are correct, this was taken in Ayutthaya at the Wat Yai Chai Mongkol.