User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  0
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Would you give up 24-70 for the 24 1.4 ?

  1. #1
    Member kaiser's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Dec 2008
    Location
    Laidley
    Posts
    900
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Would you give up 24-70 for the 24 1.4 ?

    Well - I just bit the bullet and bought the Nikon 24mm F1.4 G lens.

    I am now considering whether I should let go of my 24-70 to help fund this new purchase and to simplify my kit. The 24-70 has been versatile, sharp wide open blah blah blah, I do notice however that I tend to take images at one extreme or another ie. more towards 24mm or 70mm.

    I already have the 10-17 fisheye, 50mm and the 135mm - so I'm thinking a 24mm, 50mm and a 135 still offer a fairly good coverage of the range?

    If I get rid of the 24-70, that makes my kit all primes (except for the fisheye, which I wouldn't consider an everyday use lens.

    For those who exclusively use primes - do you miss the convenience of a mid-range zoom?
    Nikon D750
    Olympus m/43
    Rolleicord IV


    My SmugMug

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Jul 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    274
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by kaiser View Post
    Well - I just bit the bullet and bought the Nikon 24mm F1.4 G lens.

    I am now considering whether I should let go of my 24-70 to help fund this new purchase and to simplify my kit. The 24-70 has been versatile, sharp wide open blah blah blah, I do notice however that I tend to take images at one extreme or another ie. more towards 24mm or 70mm.

    I already have the 10-17 fisheye, 50mm and the 135mm - so I'm thinking a 24mm, 50mm and a 135 still offer a fairly good coverage of the range?

    If I get rid of the 24-70, that makes my kit all primes (except for the fisheye, which I wouldn't consider an everyday use lens.

    For those who exclusively use primes - do you miss the convenience of a mid-range zoom?
    It really depends on your requirements. I use FF bodies for work.
    For me, the 24-70mm f2.8 is indispensible for fashion and model work.
    My 16-35mm f2.8 is a must for Architecture and Interior Design work.
    I have an 85mm f1.8 for fashion and portraits.
    I rarely use my almost new 70-200mm, and I am thinking of selling it...
    Cheers!
    "The greatest camera in the world is the one you hold in your hands when shit happens." ©2007 Raoul Isidro

  3. #3
    Ausphotography Site Sponsor/Advertiser DAdeGroot's Avatar
    Join Date
    26 Feb 2009
    Location
    Cedar Creek, Qld, Australia
    Posts
    1,890
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It's an interesting conundrum. I'm slowly heading to a mostly prime lineup and will likely get rid of my 17-40 in favour of a 17/4 TSE, and a 35/1.4 (with maybe a 24/1.4 as well). However, I still find the 70-200 indispensable for events and weddings.

    I'd say hang on to the 24-70 for a couple of months and see if it gets used.
    Dave

    http://www.degrootphotography.com.au/
    Canon EOS 1D MkIV | Canon EOS 5D MkII | Canon EOS 30D | Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM | Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM | Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM | Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM | Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM | Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L & some non-L lenses.

  4. #4
    Ausphotography Veteran
    Join Date
    08 Nov 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,303
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I haven't had a standard zoom for a few years.

    I cannot say I miss it, as the focal lengths just aren't useful to me; I like 'em wide and long, and not much in between. I also don't have a 50mm lens.

    The purchase of an ultra-wide zoom sealed the fate of my "walkaround" zoom; I never used it again and later sold it.

    My style, subject matter and interests evolved to a point that a standard zoom was not useful for what I do.

    Most of my lenses (seven) are primes (five), but my UWA zoom (16-35/2.8) gets used almost exclusively at 16mm, so to that end it might as well be a prime.

    If you're finding that you don't use your 24-70 beyond the outer focal lengths, and you don't need the versatility or focal lengths in between, sell it and go for fast primes.

    It all depends on the type of images you capture, and whether you're at a point where having a broad range of focal lengths "just in case" is no longer something you consider desirable or even necessary, as you may have done earlier in your photographic development (no pun intended).

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    04 Apr 2007
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    552
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    There's no right or wrong answer. It depends entirely on your needs and your needs will almost certainly not be the same as mine. I use all zooms for work yet I never take a zoom when I shoot for myself. When working I need to have the flexibility and speed that you get from zooms as pixel peeping image quality isn't essential (image quality is not an issue with good zooms). When I shoot for myself I have the time to stuff around with a selection of primes depending on my needs.

    JJ

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •