| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/23/2010 03:40:03 PM · #1 |
When I go full frame... I was wondering which lens to get first?
I am definitely going to get the 14-24mm as I love landscapes, cars and wide angle shots, so that would be perfect. But on the other two I can't decide which one?
I tried them both out in the other day, and whilst I was impressed, the weight of the 70-200mm surprised me. So for those who use both, which is your favourite and why?
I was thinking, get the 24-70mm, and then maybe the AF DC 135mm f/2D for portraits and more zoom. What do you think? I just think the weight of the 70-200mm might put me off. |
|
|
|
01/23/2010 03:47:23 PM · #2 |
| You are looking at two very different lenses with different purposes. Which do you think you will use the most? |
|
|
|
01/23/2010 04:11:24 PM · #3 |
70-200mm plus a prime that's somewhere between 24mm and 70mm. You need the telephoto because you're moving to full-frame, which gives you better wide-angle and worse telephoto. Since you'll have a wide zoom (14-24mm) and a telephoto zoom (70-300mm), you can get a 35mm and a 50mm for in between rather than get a wide-tele zoom like the excellent but useless 24-70mm.
Message edited by author 2010-01-23 16:15:03. |
|
|
|
01/23/2010 05:38:18 PM · #4 |
The idea of the 70-200 and a 50mm prime is a really good one. You certainly will want to fill the 24-70 zoom range at some point, but you'll be better served getting the 70-200 first. You'll be surprised how nice a portrait lens a fast 70-200 is on FX.
ETA: I see you already have a 50mm prime, that makes it even easier...
Message edited by author 2010-01-23 17:39:24. |
|
|
|
01/23/2010 06:17:01 PM · #5 |
So, combining my suggestion with  kirbic's observation that you have the 50/1.8, I'd say 14-24mm + 35mm + 50mm + 70-300mm. Like I said before, no use for a 24-70mm. If you need slightly wider than "normal" (50mm), use a 35mm. Wide-tele zooms are for lazy people, and you can probably get the same level of sharpness from those two primes with a lot less expense (and wider apertures?). |
|
|
|
01/23/2010 06:35:29 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by george917:
...Wide-tele zooms are for lazy people, and you can probably get the same level of sharpness from those two primes with a lot less expense (and wider apertures?). |
Well, I wouldn't go that far ;-)
It's true, at 24mm I'll take the performance of my 24/1.4 over my 24-70 zoom any time, but it will actually cost a lot more to go with good, fast primes to cover the range of the 24-70. A 24-70/2.8 zoom is a workhorse; in fact, for general use, it's the lens that lives on my camera.
Message edited by author 2010-01-23 18:36:10. |
|
|
|
01/23/2010 07:01:33 PM · #7 |
| I have all three of the lenses (sort of, I have the 28-70 f/2.8) you're talking about and if I had to choose two it would have to be the 24-70 and the 70-200. The 14-24 is very wide on full frame, almost to the point of being a specialty lens. The 24 will be like a 16mm on the cropped sensor so in addition to landscapes, you can also use in in tight quarters. Personally, the 70-200 on full frame is my portrait lens. |
|
|
|
01/23/2010 07:41:30 PM · #8 |
I have all three on a full frame, and I would say looking through your profile that you'll get least use out of the 70-200 but absolutely love the 24-70 for the same reasons I do.
The 14-24 is just great fun, you can get everything in with it all the time! It's the lens I have had the least but since I got it it's hardly been off the camera!
My close next favorite is the 24-70. It's such a versatile lens, isn't too heavy, fantastic performance (though that is the case for all three) .
I hardly use the 70-200, though it was the first of the three I bought. It sounded like fun when I bought it, all that reach, shallow DOF etc, but it's just too big and heavy! To be fair most of what I do is street so carrying that around for hours on end is just difficult, but in general I don't find a whole lot of use for it.
I noticed you also have a few macro shots in your profile. Have you considered perhaps getting the 24-70 first as it has the most useful range of the three, then the 105mm Macro which would let you do all your macro stuff as well as give you a good portrait lens if you need something a bit longer than 70.
I know you say you like wide angles, but remember 24mm is pretty wide on a full frame! |
|
|
|
01/23/2010 07:59:45 PM · #9 |
So that's what I thought, 138 people on here owning the 24-70mm, and 609 owning the 70-200mm. The telephoto seems to win.
The reason I am confused is that:
I don't really have a specific "thing" that I photograph, so the focal length can be different all the time.
Secondly, the 24-70mm seems live a very good workhorse lens, but for some reason doesn't seem to be used that often, why is that?
And as much as I don't listen to what Ken Rockwell says, his quote seems to have stuck with me,
"You'll either want just one medium zoom lens, or if you want to get fancy you'll instead want a separate wide and another tele zoom, forgetting about the medium one. By all means if you get both a wide and tele zoom feel free also to get a medium zoom, just know that you'll really only be using the medium zoom if you have to run out with just one lens some day, or for party and wedding and event photos."
"Don't buy a midrange zoom. Carry a fixed 50mm instead, like a pro.
Pros don't use midrange zooms because they aren't needed, they are too heavy to carry around, they are too expensive. A fixed 50mm lens does the same thing, but better.
Pros use a wide zoom and a tele zoom, and walk forward or back to cover the middle range if it doesn't fit either lens. Pros only carry a 50mm lens in their pocket for if the light gets too dim.
Consider a midrange zoom if you only carry one lens, but never carry a midrange zoom if you're also carrying a wide and a tele zoom."
So maybe the 50mm 1.4 is the one to go for instead? |
|
|
|
01/23/2010 08:46:46 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by rob_smith:
So that's what I thought, 138 people on here owning the 24-70mm, and 609 owning the 70-200mm. The telephoto seems to win.
The reason I am confused is that:
I don't really have a specific "thing" that I photograph, so the focal length can be different all the time.
Secondly, the 24-70mm seems live a very good workhorse lens, but for some reason doesn't seem to be used that often, why is that?
|
The reasons more people have the 70-200 than the 24-70 have to do with 2 factors...
...The 70-200 has been available for a lot longer, so people have had more time to get it.
...There are some very good, much cheaper replacements for the 24-70. The 70-200, not so much. There are cheaper alternatives, but there's a noticeable difference in quality.
As far as which one to get? You're on your on for that one. They're both good. And expensive. |
|
|
|
01/23/2010 08:54:41 PM · #11 |
I seem to be going with the 70-200mm and a 50mm 1.4, they seem a good combination. So thanks everyone! I think I agree that the 24-70mm zoom can be easily substituted with the 50mm and some walking.
Does anyone with the 70-200mm find it too heavy for prolonged use? I found my arms aching after about 10 minutes! |
|
|
|
01/23/2010 10:44:27 PM · #12 |
I have used the 70-200 on a number of jobs. However for me I was shooting mostly sports. I love the lens and can't wait till the wife says I can get one. The weight issue has never been an issue for me as I've always had heavy gear. You should have seen what I lugged around as a Navy combat photog. the 70-200 is also a great portrait lens, so for my money go with the 70-200.
here is a portrait I took with the 70-200.
 |
|
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: 12/25/2025 06:58:45 AM EST.
