Get the 24-70 II first, and if you need something faster later at a particular focal length, then supplement the zoom with a prime. Plus it's always easier to get the less expensive items piecemeal later.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Considering the new Sigma 30mm f1.4 Art lens is coming soon, is there any info as to when that will be released?
I can hold off on it for a little while if needed or get another lens. Reading up before impulsively buying anything.
Edit: It is available already, just not many reviews. Sounds like the corners may be sharper, but its $100 more at $500. First amazon review had a focus issue that needed to be recalibrated.
was there a forum post on this lens already?
So I guess one really should use a tripod with TS for optimal results. How would one work as a walkabout lens?
Me so sad. I was hoping that it might be a worthy consideration to the canon. Anyone else noted the bulbous front lens element?
Flash is cheap.
I'll definitely have to think more about this. First step, maybe I should see if I can get by with the 24-70 II indoors. I do have a 430 EX flash I sometimes use with a "black foamie thing" (as recommended here: http://neilvn.com/tangents/about/black-foamie-thing/), but frankly I don't like the extra bulk of flash.
The other question is whether I can live with a max aperture of 2.8 between 24-70mm from a depth of field perspective. In Justin's review of the Sigma 35/1.4 on this site, he says "The fast aperture and shallow depth of field will capture special moments with amazing clarity while isolating distracting backgrounds." I wouldn't have that ability with the 24-70.
That said, maybe the solution is to go with the 35 & 85 right now, since those are the focal lengths I think I'll use most, and get the 135 later. The 50 & 100 might not make as much sense if I plan to get the 135 eventually.
Dylan, after getting the 24-70 MKII do you feel you have been using the 16-35 less and less for landscapes and wide shots? Or, the 16-35 still gets used quite often? I am asking because I have the 16-35 II, and wondering if I will end up using the 24-70 MKII more for landscapes than the 16-35 II and may end up giving up the wider focal length for better resolution.
Good for Canon to upgrade the lens, but as for everyone else, I wonder about the price.
Nikon is charging a ridiculous amount of money for their 80-400G (though prices are going down quickly). However, they could do it because the new lens is much better than the old 80-400.
Canon 100-400 is quite good. Can they do a so-much-better lens optically? I don't know, and if they do the price will be exorbitant. Certainly it will feature better IS, and I think they're going to smoothen the bokeh too - the biggest problem of the current version. So while I'm sure it will be a better lens overall, the margin could be slight to justify the difference in price. I think the MK1 will look like a much more attractive package to the most.
Talking about alternatives... never heard of Sigma 50-500? I'm holding on for my purchase of an expensive telezoom until Sigma and Tamron announce something in this range. In the meanwhile I enjoy the cheapolicius Tamron 70-300.
I still love mine and wouldn't sell it. Even if I got a 24-70II I would likely keep it as a secondary versatile lens. Looking at your lenses there would be a gap in your setup if you sold it for a 35.
Many shooters have this same decision, until they shoot with 24-70 II