Jman13 wrote:
I have to say, I can’t think of a lens range that is less useful than this. Way too small a zoom range to bother with making it a zoom. If it was a 24-50 f/2, I could see it, as a replacement for the wide to normal fast primes. But at f/2.8, we’re now in zoom convenience territory and 24-50 just isn’t that convenient a range for such a lens. Heck, I regularly feel constrained by a 24-70, since 70 is too short, which is why I’ve always preferred the 24-120 / 24-104 f/4 lenses instead.
It makes sense because a lot of people are happy to carry around just a 28 or 35 or 40mm or a 50 (like me). We can crop a bit further to get to 70mm with current high res sensors. This lens covers those FL’s plus 24mm in an appreciably smaller package than the lenses you are describing.
I think there’s a pretty good reason he keep seeing 24/28 — 50/60mm zoom lenses the last serval years.
Jman13 wrote:
I have to say, I can’t think of a lens range that is less useful than this. Way too small a zoom range to bother with making it a zoom. If it was a 24-50 f/2, I could see it, as a replacement for the wide to normal fast primes. But at f/2.8, we’re now in zoom convenience territory and 24-50 just isn’t that convenient a range for such a lens. Heck, I regularly feel constrained by a 24-70, since 70 is too short, which is why I’ve always preferred the 24-120 / 24-104 f/4 lenses instead.
It makes sense because a lot of people are happy to carry around just a 28 or just a 35 or just a 50 (like me). We can crop a bit further to get to 70mm with current high res sensors. This lens covers those three plus 24mm in an appreciably smaller package than the lenses you are describing.
