Man of Honour
- Joined
- 30 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 9,515
- Location
- London Town!
For me, 24-70 mainly due to f/2.8. I don't think I could ever go back to slow glass. Just hacks me off too much as I always end up needing more light.There's only one thing more annoying than f/4 lenses ....f/5.6
, or the ones that are variable 3.5 - 5.6. Nah I'm being OTT, but for me apeture is king.
I'm always curious how much people mean that in reality. Really, 1 stop? I mean that's, say 1/30th you can shoot at rather than 1/15th (I'm assuming most people can hand hold down to 1/30th reliable in the 24-50mm range). Yes it's more light, and more bokeh but it's only one stop worth. I can't help thinking if it mattered that much it'd make more sense to buy the f/1.4 primes rather than than any zoom.
I know there has to be a balance and middle ground between the two but I'm not convinced for everyday use the 24-70 is that middle ground. I mean if you're shooting weddings then absolutely, the 24-70 is the one to have, but if you want a walkaround lens it's big and heavy for 1 stop extra.
Not saying you're wrong for your requirements but I question how much people really need/use the extra stop rather than just wanting it and justifying it so (and I say that with a bag full of f/2.8 pro zooms myself).
I'd also say it's much more clear cut on crop sensors, with not much great high ISO performance and less depth of field at a given aperture. On full frame though...I dunno. Just my 2p. On Canon I like the 24-105L a lot, the 24-70 not so much. But I am comparing it to Nikon's 24-70 too, which does it no favours in my view (primarily handling wise)
