| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/02/2008 02:00:42 AM · #26 |
Thanks everyone! I really appreciate the guidance.
RE: the 85mm 1.8 - I already have the 50mm 1.4 and that's my main portrait lens. How does the 85/1.8 compare? I already had a tough time shooting in my small studio with a rented 85/f1.2L.
RE: Regretting selling the 16-35 - this may be true, but as mentioned I will probably regret it more if I get a full frame body which aint happenin soon and the 10-22, while not really a portrait lens, still works well in situations like scarbrd pointed out.
My main goal is to eliminate redundancy in my infrequently used wide-angle range and put the money into the most flexible, high quality lens I can get for essentially an even trade for the 16-35 plus what I can get for my 28-135. I am fairly convinced to go with the 24-105 f4L, MattO's comments about the 24-70 2.8L and wider aperture in general notwithstanding. |
|
|
|
09/02/2008 02:07:17 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Thanks everyone! I really appreciate the guidance.
RE: the 85mm 1.8 - I already have the 50mm 1.4 and that's my main portrait lens. How does the 85/1.8 compare? I already had a tough time shooting in my small studio with a rented 85/f1.2L. |
Yep I see - I'm more of an outdoor shooter I guess, wasn't thinking indoors so much - as you were - GRIN! |
|
|
|
09/02/2008 04:26:41 AM · #28 |
| Not 100% decided between the 24-105 and the 24-70 yet, but I am selling off the 16-35 2.8L and the 28-135 f3.5-4.5 if anyone's interested. |
|
|
|
09/02/2008 09:09:35 AM · #29 |
Good choice.
As to the decision between the 24-105 and 24-70...it's a tough one. I agonized over this and went with the 24-70 and will prolly get the the 24-105 too LOL. For low light, weddings, etc the 24-70 is great. I seem to want to shoot in my studio in the 50-100 range and keep swapping lenses. I don't need 2.8 there (most of the time anyway) so that was why I was flopping back and forth.
I really liked my 28-135 but in the studio I at times shoot at F4 and a faster lense will focus better in the low lighting of modeling lights so that was at times an issue.
IS is really nice. Unless you need 2.8 I'd be tempted to go with the 24-105 as it's a tad more versatile, especially if you've been used to the 28-135.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/18/2025 10:14:31 AM EDT.
