Comments on: I hate the 24-70/2.8

By: Ed Z

Ed Z — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 21:41:04 +0000

Rich,
I love the 50/1.8 as well, and the 35L is simply a spectacular lens (haven’t used the 24L). On your xsi it will be approximately a “normal” b/c of the crop factor, but oh what a normal Hey if it was good enough for Cartier-Bresson, it’s good enough for me!

By: Rich

Rich — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 21:17:59 +0000

I just bought a new Canon xsi a few months ago and was trying to decide which expensive zoom lens I was going to get as an everyday walkaround.
But my wonderful wife bought me a 50mm f/1.8 lens for Christmas, and now I think I might be on the prime lens bandwagon. I love the simplicity, low weight, and especially the small size of the prime lens. So now I’m thinking my next lens might actually be a 24mm or 35mm L for a more versatile focal length, and keep the kit lens for a while longer when I need the zoom range.
Thanks for the insightful post!

By: MarcoTogni.it

MarcoTogni.it — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 14:29:57 +0000

When I have read the title I though “he’s crazy” but after reading, I can say that you wrote exactly what I think about lenses.
Unfortunately many people who I know doesn’t think the same of me and so I am often the black sheep.
Nice post, congratulations.

By: Tom

Tom — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 09:44:15 +0000

See, you guys are missing the point slightly. I was in a similar position to what is described above – got a bit of cash to burn on getting a better lens, but went for 2.8L over 4L for exactly the same reason.

You can bump up the ISO whenever you need to work in lower light, so don’t need IS, but you can never get a 2.8′s bokeh on an F4 lens.

I agree that 24-105 F4 with an 50 F1.4 for whenever bokeh is needed would be better still, but sometimes jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none is simpler… In summary: each to their own

Let the flames begin…

By: Stephen

Stephen — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 23:25:52 +0000

Preaching to the choir on this one!

My EF 24-70mm f/2.8L is gathering dust at this point. The only body it seems to be used on anymore is my old EOS 1N.

I mainly use my primes and am planning to upgrade two of them to L primes in the coming year. I may keep the zoom around for certain types of events, but I’m also strongly considering just selling it.

By: Jeff Lynch

Jeff Lynch — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:18:12 +0000

Even though I shoot mostly landscape and nature work I agree completely. In the field I’d rather carry an f/4L over the huge f/2.8L’s any day. For example, the 70-200mm f/4L versus the 70-200mm f/2.8L lens. The f/4L is one third smaller and lighter and less than 1/2 the price. It’s the same in telephoto primes. The 300mm f/4L IS is much much smaller and lighter than it’s cousin the 300 f/2.8L IS.

For me, image stabilization offers a much better bang for the buck and when I really need low light coverage I just set the ISO to 800, 1600 or 3200.

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 02:22:12 +0000

Well let’s be honest. Those who know, know that prime lenses are just better. Better quality, better images. I’m not exactly a gearhead, but I know this for sure.

By: Alex

Alex — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 22:55:42 +0000

Also, if you’re on APS-C (majority of enthusiast shooters), the 17-55 makes a lot more sense IMHO. It’s much wider, and also comes equipped with IS. It’s functionally much more useful than a 24-70.

By: He hates the 24-70 f/2.8 lens! | Ben's Photography Thoughts

He hates the 24-70 f/2.8 lens! | Ben's Photography Thoughts — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:55:52 +0000

[...] it is the “brick” how could one hate it! Read why Ed over at f/1.0 hates the 24-70 here then come [...]

By: Matthias Wassermann

Matthias Wassermann — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 18:23:42 +0000

I use my 35/2 most. Thic lens gives me all I need. It brother is the 85/1,8. These have never failed me! When I have time and can walk around for better perspective etc. these two lenses will work for me!

I am buying a fast 28-70 for my concert and event photgraphy.

By: Brian Auer

Brian Auer — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 18:19:26 +0000

I’m with you on this one. I may even be more biased toward the primes than you.

For my digital, I typically use my 50/1.4 or 105/2.8 (I absolutely love these two lenses). The only zoom I use anymore is the 10-20/4-5.6 — sure it’s pretty slow, but the difference between 10mm and 20mm is pretty huge and I like that flexibility (plus I can get some cool distortions at the 10mm end). I also have an 18-200 zoom that I used when I first got a dSLR, but I haven’t used that lens for well over a year now.

On my film SLR, I lean more toward my 135/2.8 but I also use my 50/1.4. I have a 70-200 zoom, but I’ve only used it a couple of times. The rest of my film cameras are all fixed focal length (and fixed lens), so there’s not much of a choice there.

I’d say that the 50/1.4 is probably one of the best lenses to own. Like you said, just take a couple of steps forward or back and you’ve got a decent “zoom” capability. The longer lenses are nice to have, but they’re more limiting in what you can capture and you have to take a lot more steps to get the “zoom”.

One thing to consider though, with the faster zoom lens vs the slower zoom lens — even if it’s just one stop faster, that’s letting in twice as much light for your autofocus to utilize. Slower lenses have a hard time focusing in low-light conditions.