How good is 24-70mm f2.8 lens
- Thread starter addroger
- Start date
It is more of a question if we missed any comparison point.
Trinity lens does not necessary be the most suitable lens, economical viable or practically suitable for "unprofessional" usage.
I know 24-70 is good and even compared against the other makes of the same range sometimes. I own a crop while my friend a FX.
Trinity lens does not necessary be the most suitable lens, economical viable or practically suitable for "unprofessional" usage.
I know 24-70 is good and even compared against the other makes of the same range sometimes. I own a crop while my friend a FX.
To answer your question, yes but not one right after another. But did play with the different lens.
Perhaps we should list the considerations for comparison of any lens purchase or use instead of this confusion...
Example:-
1) weight
2) price
3) range
4) style of shooting
5) day/night
6) travel or frequent usage
7) professional/amateur
8) Body use
9) calibration between the lens and body
soeypixels
Senior Member
To answer your question, yes but not one right after another. But did play with the different lens.
Perhaps we should list the considerations for comparison of any lens purchase or use instead of this confusion...
Example:-
1) weight
2) price
3) range
4) style of shooting
5) day/night
6) travel or frequent usage
7) professional/amateur
8) Body use
9) calibration between the lens and body
David Kwok
Senior Member
There is nothing related between professional and non-professional between lens and photographer skill.
You have the purchasing power and you are willing to spend, go ahead and spend on the best lens you can afford.
If you are not willing, then just go for other alternatives.
Technically if you are on DX go and get the 17-55 f/2.8, if you are on FX get the 24-70 f/2.8
Professional photographers can produce works using iPhone. It is just a tool, so don't be so attached over it.
More important is what you can deliver with the tool you have, not what the tool can do.
For such medium range zoom, VR or not makes little difference. VR won't stop your subject if they are moving.
If you are moving, then practice on your breathing technique and posture when taking photos.
Many times I uses 24-70, I don't find I feel handicapped because it doesn't have VR. On the other hand
shooting on the long end of 70-200 makes big differences.
Choose the tool that is best to work for what you need, not choose a tool and then adapt to it. Though the later situation does exist at times; Given a choice, the former is wiser.
You have the purchasing power and you are willing to spend, go ahead and spend on the best lens you can afford.
If you are not willing, then just go for other alternatives.
Technically if you are on DX go and get the 17-55 f/2.8, if you are on FX get the 24-70 f/2.8
Professional photographers can produce works using iPhone. It is just a tool, so don't be so attached over it.
More important is what you can deliver with the tool you have, not what the tool can do.
For such medium range zoom, VR or not makes little difference. VR won't stop your subject if they are moving.
If you are moving, then practice on your breathing technique and posture when taking photos.
Many times I uses 24-70, I don't find I feel handicapped because it doesn't have VR. On the other hand
shooting on the long end of 70-200 makes big differences.
Choose the tool that is best to work for what you need, not choose a tool and then adapt to it. Though the later situation does exist at times; Given a choice, the former is wiser.
Last edited:
What comparison point? If you need 2.8 and need this focal length range 24-70, this is the only choice.
If you cannot afford it, then you have to compromise by either going 3rd party, different focal length range, or no constant F2.8.
Not sure what you are trying to ask here...
BTW, yes, trinity lenses may not be the most suitable. But no one can tell you what is most suitable for YOU... only YOU can answer that question.
Last edited:
The built quality, some has more metal parts.
The optics, some has less distortion or vignetting, less susceptible to flare and glare.
The seals, some has better seal hence more resistance to dust and moisture.
The aperture, of course always much more expensive to have big aperture.
The optics, some has less distortion or vignetting, less susceptible to flare and glare.
The seals, some has better seal hence more resistance to dust and moisture.
The aperture, of course always much more expensive to have big aperture.
Kit
Senior Member
1) 16-35mm f4VR = bus
2) 28-300mm VR = taxi
3) 18-200mm VR = train
4) 24-120mm f4VR = aeroplane
I'm not sure if any meaningful comparisons can be drawn......
DeawesomeTong
Member
Just my 2cents worth, get a 50mm f/1.4G and you are good to go. Just move one step back or forward. It's the same as a 24-70 but with a wider aperture.
Best walkabout lens IMO.
Use the $1800 you saved and go get something else!
Cheers!
Best walkabout lens IMO.
Use the $1800 you saved and go get something else!
Cheers!
Blur Shadow
Senior Member
DeawesomeTong said:
It's a little hard to "leg zoom" the 50mm to 24mm leh.
I'm getting used to prime lenses these days, but the 24-70mm remains attractive due to its sheer capability and versatility.
DeawesomeTong said:
You can't zoom with your feet from 50mm to 24mm, but you can do a tight crop from a wide angle shot.
DeawesomeTong said:
Leg zoom 50 to 24? LOL. How to shoot in tight spaces? Step backward and walk through walls ar?
DeawesomeTong
Member
Hahaha you guys got a point. But I'm comparing in terms of price + functionality
24-70 f/2.8 vs a set up of maybe 24mm f/2.8D + 50mm f/1.4D or G
If time is an issue for you (eg doing an event etc.), 24-70's convenience is awesome without a doubt.
However if it isn't and you have the luxury of switching lenses, then I'd opt for the prime lens set up.
It's lighter, saves you money on those 77mm filters, and produces equal or better results in low light.
I could point you to the review: Nikon 24mm f/2.8 AF-D, particularly on the section 'Compared'.
$1,000 is alot of money to be spent on convenience in my opinion. Hahahaha I'm a poor thrifty photographer =\
:cheers:
24-70 f/2.8 vs a set up of maybe 24mm f/2.8D + 50mm f/1.4D or G
If time is an issue for you (eg doing an event etc.), 24-70's convenience is awesome without a doubt.
However if it isn't and you have the luxury of switching lenses, then I'd opt for the prime lens set up.
It's lighter, saves you money on those 77mm filters, and produces equal or better results in low light.
I could point you to the review: Nikon 24mm f/2.8 AF-D, particularly on the section 'Compared'.
$1,000 is alot of money to be spent on convenience in my opinion. Hahahaha I'm a poor thrifty photographer =\
:cheers:
if shoot for money, the cost of the lens is justifiable.
unless you are shoot weddings for $500 with D3s plus trinity lenses, that will take long long long time to recover the cost..... lol
unless you are shoot weddings for $500 with D3s plus trinity lenses, that will take long long long time to recover the cost..... lol
You and your friend may be missing the point of why when in trying to compare lens sharpness over those ranges. If it is just discussion that interest you guys I suggest to add some prime lens to the mix, it should keep the 2 of you entertained for a longer while. When you get bored start discussing which brand is better. Frankly from what you have posted no one here can really help you with your question(s) as they are beyond most of us.
Not a problem if that difference in $ is already made back in the 1st job the lens is used for.
convenience and versatility is very important in some genres of shooting, where you have to capture the moments and deliver. If you can afford the time, the miss chances, or shoot static subjects, the prime route may be better. Or you can get another camera body...
David Kwok
Senior Member
DeawesomeTong said:
That is a fallacy, understand what different perspective lens give at different focal length and you will know that wide angle lens give powerful perspective that is not done but a 50mm when walking back far enough to cover the same frame that a WAL will give you. Besides even with the same framing, the placing of the objects in the scene caused by perspective distortion on a WAL can potentially set different mood and focus.
I would love to recommend you take some time to review on really good perspective done with a tokens 11-16 f2.8 when going really close in. I am not saying that 24-70 f2.8 will give u the same output, but that is what 24-70 can mildly do too when you use it right. This medium zoom is not totally about robustness. The flexibility and versatility that comes with these zoom range really make working with it in situations where you don't warrant for lens change an ease. Even a second body wouldn't give you an edge over it.
As for whether the price worth it is up to you. How much you want it and how much money u r keen to part with. I am quite sure a portion of the price is definitely hype up by the demand and popularity.
Last edited:
