NO Images - but a serious question.
This isn't a general question like "What lens should I buy?" It's very specific for opinions from y'all.
Right now my two main lenses are a 24-105 f4L and a 70-200 F4L IS. I also have a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 which, frankly, I rarely use because it just doesn't match up to the "L"s for sharpness or IQ.
I'm considering the Canon 28-70 f2.8 L
95% of what I shoot is model portfolio work, outdoors from April to November and in studio (with strobes) from November to March.
Obviously I have the focal length covered by my 2 "L"s so the question is:
For approximately $1,000 (used), what will one extra stop (f 2.8 ] do for me that I can't do now?
I'm dead serious here about wanting opinions from the members here. I can afford the lens but I'm old school enough not to waste the money for no incremental value.
What say you all??
Right now my two main lenses are a 24-105 f4L and a 70-200 F4L IS. I also have a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 which, frankly, I rarely use because it just doesn't match up to the "L"s for sharpness or IQ.
I'm considering the Canon 28-70 f2.8 L
95% of what I shoot is model portfolio work, outdoors from April to November and in studio (with strobes) from November to March.
Obviously I have the focal length covered by my 2 "L"s so the question is:
For approximately $1,000 (used), what will one extra stop (f 2.8 ] do for me that I can't do now?
I'm dead serious here about wanting opinions from the members here. I can afford the lens but I'm old school enough not to waste the money for no incremental value.
What say you all??
Bilsen (the artist formerly known as John Galt NY)
Canon 600D; Canon 1D Mk2;
24-105 f4L IS; 70-200 f4L IS; 50mm 1.4; 28-75 f2.8; 55-250 IS; 580EX & (2) 430EX Flash,
Model Galleries: http://bilsen.zenfolio.com/
Everything Else: www.pbase.com/bilsen
Canon 600D; Canon 1D Mk2;
24-105 f4L IS; 70-200 f4L IS; 50mm 1.4; 28-75 f2.8; 55-250 IS; 580EX & (2) 430EX Flash,
Model Galleries: http://bilsen.zenfolio.com/
Everything Else: www.pbase.com/bilsen
0
Comments
2.8 will buy you better bokeh, more light, and the ability to use depth of field more effectively. Especially on a crop camera, these are all important, IMO.
If you're considering the 24-70 2.8 I, I'd say don't bother; save up for the Mk II. Frankly, I'm so frustrated with standard zooms right now I'm considering selling them both and going to a 35L. I have both the Canon Mk I and the Tamron VC - both of them are decent lenses, but I am SO SO spoiled by the outstanding IQ of the 70-200 mk II -or my fast primes - that I'm frequently disappointed. This is, effectively, more a problem with ME than the lenses, but there we have it.
I'd put the grand in the piggy bank and save up for the Mk II, or go with a wide prime.
Now for more creative work I would go with primes.
Canon's 135L 2.0 is fantastic! Canon's 85mm line up is also superb, and don't forget the Sigma 85 1.4.
Sam
I wonder about the 135 and 85mm primes on my 1.6 and 1.3 crops. I had the 50mm 1.4 (still do but it's busted) and it was a good length on my 1.6 crops.
Canon 600D; Canon 1D Mk2;
24-105 f4L IS; 70-200 f4L IS; 50mm 1.4; 28-75 f2.8; 55-250 IS; 580EX & (2) 430EX Flash,
Model Galleries: http://bilsen.zenfolio.com/
Everything Else: www.pbase.com/bilsen
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
With the high ISO settings now the 2.8 light gathering capability is not necessary.
www.cameraone.biz
I think the 2.8 difference is notable on the 70-200 vs the f4 option, but I like subject isolation.
To be honest Hack, this is my thinking right now.
Jon, thanks. I have a 50mm 1.4 that I almost never used, even before the auto focus committed suicide.
Canon 600D; Canon 1D Mk2;
24-105 f4L IS; 70-200 f4L IS; 50mm 1.4; 28-75 f2.8; 55-250 IS; 580EX & (2) 430EX Flash,
Model Galleries: http://bilsen.zenfolio.com/
Everything Else: www.pbase.com/bilsen
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21695902@N06/
http://500px.com/Shockey
alloutdoor.smugmug.com
http://aoboudoirboise.smugmug.com/
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
On this note, I say kill several birds with one stone - keep the 24-105L, sell the Rebel, the 1D2, the 28-75, the 55-250, don't buy a 24-70/2.8L, and spend the money on a 6D.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Jason Scott Photography | Blog | FB | Twitter | Google+ | Tumblr | Instagram | YouTube
Well this is the 70-200 f4L IS at 116 mm. This isn't enough??
Now THAT's an interesting idea BUT I am falling in serious love with the 1D2 and I don't print about 9x12 so the megapixels mean nothing to me. Still, FF is intriguing.
Thanks for chiming in Jason. 135mm is a bit long for my APS-C and APS-H bodies. Zoomer may be closer with the 85mm but even that seems a bit long at 136 mm eq.
Canon 600D; Canon 1D Mk2;
24-105 f4L IS; 70-200 f4L IS; 50mm 1.4; 28-75 f2.8; 55-250 IS; 580EX & (2) 430EX Flash,
Model Galleries: http://bilsen.zenfolio.com/
Everything Else: www.pbase.com/bilsen
It would be creamier with a 2.8, OR shooting at 200mm, especially full frame.
I guess I don't see how the 135 would be too long on a cropped sensor. Since you shoot outdoors, just back up a little more. The longer the lens you use the less distortion you get for portraits. Photographers that do professional head shots and portraits will try to use 300 mm if they can.
FWIW, I use the 70-200 2.8 more than any other lens these days. Even indoors......
I guess I keep wondering: if you're happy wiht your current lineup WHY do you want a different lens? What's the reason for adding another? If you can answer that question, it will make the choice of gear much clearer
Jon, et al., you're right that 135 and 85 are not too long outdoors and I may consider one next year but I'm headed indoors and don't really have room for even my 70-200 indoors.
Canon 600D; Canon 1D Mk2;
24-105 f4L IS; 70-200 f4L IS; 50mm 1.4; 28-75 f2.8; 55-250 IS; 580EX & (2) 430EX Flash,
Model Galleries: http://bilsen.zenfolio.com/
Everything Else: www.pbase.com/bilsen
Yeah I went through that phase. I got over it though, especially when shooting over ISO 800. And unless you're shooting events for pay you don't need two bodies.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
After using a 1D3 (yes, I know ) for nearly 4yrs, I can see why ...
The only physical disadvantage that I (personally) experience from its form factor is that I can get lower with a non 1D body when paired with a smaller dia lens than the 500 I normally use.
pp
Flickr