Should you hold on to 24-105 L vs Primes

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX100

07/24/2012 04:03:14 AM · #1

I mainly shoot with my primes (non-L): 35/2, 50/1.8, 60/2.8, 85/1.8, 135/2.8. I recently acquired a 24-105L IS as part of 5DII kit but I plan to sell it as I normally use available light and main subject is portrait of kids. I got a SX40HS for travel/zoom/video. Any reason not to get rid of the L?

spiritualspatula

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

07/24/2012 04:56:11 AM · #2

Zooms are more versatile, far more useful for travel, and the F4 doesn't matter much since you're shooting with a 5DmkII so raising your ISO is inconsequential. Makes for a one lens kit. It's stabilized, so very useable in super low light conditions, while your primes are not. If you're happy with the P&S, not a ton of reason to keep it, though I gotta admit, that's a bit odd so far as a choice for a travel cam, since many travel shots are low light and that has a small sensor.

That said, almost all my lenses are lacking IS/VR and I love primes, but my 28-70 is the go to lens I bring if I want super quality and one lens. It's nice to have a lens like that, and a P&S with a relatively slow lens that's a mega zoom and with a smaller sensor isn't what I would do, personally.

MinsoPhoto

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

07/24/2012 05:53:03 AM · #3

Keep it, that lens is awesome. It is a great walk around and vacation lens.

07/24/2012 05:56:48 AM · #4

Well, i should add that i normally carry 2 bodies; either two rebels or maybe from now on one rebel and one 5dII. Agreed that zooms are more versatile, i am not sold on f4 being used to f1.8 and 1.4 (in Sigma 30/1.4 - sold) for past years. And if 5d can make f4 work, it can do better with faster primes. I don't travel much; mainly trips to amusement parks etc. where i am happy with my one rebel w/prime and the SX40 for reach. I doubt if 24-105 or even 24-70 L would give better IQ than the primes like 85/1.8 - practically speaking.

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX100

07/24/2012 05:58:36 AM · #5

Originally posted by MinsoPhoto:

Keep it, that lens is awesome. It is a great walk around and vacation lens.

Sure that would be best but economically selling it will help make my 5dII more affordable at $1850-$1900 USD.

spiritualspatula

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

07/24/2012 06:11:41 AM · #6

You're certainly not wrong in citing the 85 1.8 for better quality, but it covers one focal range, as does the 50, as does the 35.
Personally, I use far far more on the wide end. On an FX sensor, I'm way more at the 24-28 end, rarely more tele. There have been few times I've had my lx3 and thought, I wish I had more tele. With my F100, I am almost always happy with the 28-70, and if not that, the 80-200.

For me, for a "light" kit which will cover most all things, I like to take the 28-70, 30 1.4, and 50 1.8, + SB900 (10-20 if I know I need UWA). However, if I had a 24-105, I'd probably take the body, that lens, and the flash. The 18-200 does not fill in well enough for this, but I think the 24-105 would.

The idea of the 5d working better with fast primes is fine, but just recognize it means you bring more lenses along with you. Some hate that, some don't care, it's a personal choice. Some shoot exclusively with primes, some shoot only with zooms, but you gotta decide for yourself. As much as I love my 28-70, the shots from the 30 1.4 or the 85 1.8 are something else entirely.

MinsoPhoto

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

07/24/2012 01:20:00 PM · #7

Have you shot with it at all? I would check it out, you may fall in love with it. But if you would rather stick with primes (thought of going that route myself) I would look into grabbing the 50 1.4 to replace the 1.8 Depends on what you like to shoot, both hardware and subject.