Help me talk this out - 24 f/1.4 vs 24-70 f/2.8

tgelston

I know - two VERY different lenses. I used a rented 24 f/1.4 at a recent wedding(I was assistant) loved it, I mean I LOVED it on my 7D. So I bought it- money is tight but resale value seems good enough that I can always pass it on w/o much loss, hardly more than renting it a few times will add up to. Been using it, been happy but well yea, it is a prime so I wondered am I an idiot I don't have the 24-70 a much more versatile lens - so I rented that, have it with me and it is certainly loads more versatile but I am not impressed with sharpness wide open - it gets beat by a tamron 28-75 and is not THAT different from my old Sigma 18-50 crisply speaking. So - I am still in the return window for the 24, I could buy the 24-70. . I could. . .

I shot a 2nd gig, catering gig with the 24 - used it almost 100% of the time and was quite happy, it gets nice and close for food details but can also grab a person and their plate of food- one weird thing - almost all of my keepers - 94% - were portrait orientation. . .I don't shoot nearly the high a percentage portrait with any of my other lenses.

My Other lenses 50 f/1.4, 70-300 f/4.5, Sigma 18-50 f/2.8

Share your opinions please.

Thanks,
T

ThatCanonGuy

If it's not that much different than your Sigma 18-50, why not keep the 24? Another way to look at it is this: you can have 18-50 + 24mm or 18-50 + 24-70.

I'd go with the 24mm f/1.4. It lets in 4 times as much light as the 24-70. Unless you feel that the 24-70 is way better than your 18-50, and that the 24-70 gets better photos than your 18-50 does, I'd keep the 24 1.4. It's such a special lens that the 24-70 just can't match.

Matthew Saville

ThatCanonGuy wrote: »

If it's not that much different than your Sigma 18-50, why not keep the 24? Another way to look at it is this: you can have 18-50 + 24mm or 18-50 + 24-70.

I'd go with the 24mm f/1.4. It lets in 4 times as much light as the 24-70. Unless you feel that the 24-70 is way better than your 18-50, and that the 24-70 gets better photos than your 18-50 does, I'd keep the 24 1.4. It's such a special lens that the 24-70 just can't match.

"4 times as much light" is just two stops, of course, not four. And at 24mm, honestly I hardly ever find myself lacking for light because the focal length is already so forgiving on shutter speeds.

In my opinion, the 24's best use is simply for achieving shallow depth at wider angles, which is not easy to do especially on a crop sensor. Unless you find yourself shooting in pitch-black environments ALL the time, in which case yeah I do prefer f/1.4 over f/2.8 any day.

Personally as a full-time professional, here's how I see it: The f/1.4 primes are a luxury, and usually they are used to make the artistic images that truly make your heart sing, HOWEVER a good f/2.8 zoom is still often necessary to get the job done. Especially if you're a 1-camera shooter on a job like a wedding.

So, it depends what you shoot. Do you shoot mostly whatever you wish, and just pursue your artistic passions? Or do you currently (or aspire to) shoot weddings full-time as the main photog-in-charge? Of course as a professional, the hope is that eventually you can afford both and then just use whichever you prefer. But that's in the long run. (And hey, I'm not talking down here, heck I don't own either of those lenses and I shoot full-time!) ...Anyways, in the short run I'd say stick with the 24, or at least DON'T get this 24-70. It sounds soft. The 24-70 L does have a reputation for soft copies, but there are plenty of tack-sharp copies out there too.

Oh and of course, also as a professional you will find that the 24-70 L is just rock-solid compared to either the Sigma or Tamron alternatives. This might not be as important as sharpness to you now, but if some day you find yourself shooting 2nd / lead EVERY SINGLE WEEKEND, then the rugged quality of your lenses will begin to matter a LOT.

=Matt=

puzzledpaul

Matthew Saville wrote: »

"4 times as much light" is just two stops, of course, not four.

Just curious about where (the need for) this came from?

pp

Matthew Saville

puzzledpaul wrote: »

Just curious about where (the need for) this came from?

pp

It just sounds like four stops, unless you're used to the whole concept of light stops. I just thought I would clarify that. But, two stops is quite a bit of light, for sure. It's the difference between 1/30 sec and 1/120 sec, which could make all the difference in the world for sharpness at longer focal lengths on an un-stabilized lens. :-)

=Matt=

rainbow

If, like me, photography is a hobby and not a main source of income, then reread your original post for the answer. You LOVE one lens and have doubts about the other (including the similarity to one you already possess). You gave the lens a second trial and used it 100% of the time and was "quite happy".

What does versatility have to do with it when love enters the picture? The return time frame is unimportant as the lens should hold resale value while you enjoy it. Then if the need arises for practicality, you can still sell it. Better yet, you could buy the other and still keep the 24.

Matthew Saville

rainbow wrote: »

If, like me, photography is a hobby and not a main source of income, then reread your original post for the answer. You LOVE one lens and have doubts about the other (including the similarity to one you already possess). You gave the lens a second trial and used it 100% of the time and was "quite happy".

What does versatility have to do with it when love enters the picture? The return time frame is unimportant as the lens should hold resale value while you enjoy it. Then if the need arises for practicality, you can still sell it. Better yet, you could buy the other and still keep the 24.

I would agree, but the OP mentioned shooting a wedding. That is where versatility enters the picture. It doesn't matter how much you love a certain focal length, if you're covering an event, especially for money, then you gotta cover your butt. Versatility is often an absolute must.

True, some artists who are incredibly gifted can do with just a couple primes. But for us mortals with only an average artistic capability, versatility is one of our good friends. :-)

=Matt=

rpcrowe

My 24-70L was tack sharp
I was extremely happy with the sharpness of my 24-70L (it was an older model produced prior to the introduction of the 24-105mm f/4L IS lens). The reason I sold mine was certainly not sharpness, it was that the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 70-200mm f/4L IS combination on a pair of 1.6x cameras is a super setup and the one I went with...

Manfr3d

Why not get the Tamron? It's lighter, sharp, cheaper, has great closup capabilities (macro 1:3) and does f/2.8 and includes a 5y warranty

quantumhelp

As you get more involved in shooting weddings, anniversaries, sweet 16's and Mitzvahs, you will find the need for versatility. You should concentrate is getting lenses that constantly do not overlap each other. Try to get constant f/2.8 f/stop lenses. Look at something like a 16mm-24mm, 24mm-70mm, 70mm-200mm for starters. Then fill in with the primes. 24 f/1.4, 50 f/1.4, 105 f/1.4. Use these as you speedos with good bokeh.

Matthew Saville

Manfr3d wrote: »

Why not get the Tamron? It's lighter, sharp, cheaper, has great closup capabilities (macro 1:3) and does f/2.8 and includes a 5y warranty

In my opinion as a full-time professional, I can't say that a plastic lens with oldschool autofocus technology is a very good long-term investment. Yes, the 28-75 is a great lens. And if you shoot weddings professionally, you could even argue that when you eventually save up for the name-brand 24-70, it's a good idea to have a backup for such a versatile, bread-and-butter focal range. But either way, my point is that if you're aspiring to be a full-time professional, you're gonna need rock-solid reliable lenses.

=Matt=

Manfr3d

Matthew Saville wrote: »

In my opinion as a full-time professional, I can't say that a plastic lens with oldschool autofocus technology is a very good long-term investment. Yes, the 28-75 is a great lens. And if you shoot weddings professionally, you could even argue that when you eventually save up for the name-brand 24-70, it's a good idea to have a backup for such a versatile, bread-and-butter focal range. But either way, my point is that if you're aspiring to be a full-time professional, you're gonna need rock-solid reliable lenses.

=Matt=

100% agreed. That precisely what I had in mind when recommending the Tamron.

The OP needs to ask himself if he has enough money and the need to go L right from
the beginning, or if it wouldn't be smarter to upgrade gradually as his business grows.

Matthew Saville

Manfr3d wrote: »

100% agreed. That precisely what I had in mind when recommending the Tamron.

The OP needs to ask himself if he has enough money and the need to go L right from
the beginning, or if it wouldn't be smarter to upgrade gradually as his business grows.

All the high-end wedding photographers that I know have almost an entire backup kit, indeed. A car-stashed 5D and a Tamron 28-75 could save your ass, if (heaven forbid) some wedding crasher walks off with your camera or your entire bag. Believe me, it happens! So that is why I'm never totally against someone buying the "cheaper" version of a bread-and-butter lens first. As long as you don't totally break the lens in the process of building your business as a pro, the lens will make a great backup in the long run.


=Matt=