« on: June 26, 2012, 11:20:29 PM »
I wet myself reading this thread...I blame the 1DX...and I'm selling all my gear and moving to Nikon
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.
I just realised there is a 28mm 1.8. Is this a touch on the 24mm 1.4? Its a lot cheaper so i could get an extra lens if its decent!
The 28mm f/1.8 is a pretty bad lens, while the 24 1.4 is f'n amazing, no comparison whatsoever. But at the same time the 24 1.4 may feel a little wide, so the 35mm f/1.4 may be a better option. If you want something longer try the 85mm f/1.8, you can find them used for around $300 and they perform beautifully.
since you say your primary interest in a wide angle is landscape, why not consider the 17-40 f4. You probably won't be using f2.8 for many, if any, landscape work and the little video you may shoot may not be worth the price difference for 1MM on the wide end and f2.8. You could then have a head start saving some dough for a fish eye, or the 17mm tilt, or the 24 1.4, or the...well I am getting carried away now...
My pro friend did exactly that. He wanted the 24L anyways, regardless of zoom lens he was purchasing at the time. So instead of 16-35L II and 24L, he went 17-40 f/4L and 24L, for $800 cheaper. That $800 can go towards saving up for another prime lens if you want to, and the 17-40 does everything, at least in his case, that the 16-35 would have done. Besides, the 17-40 lens is an L lens too. I wasn't buying a 24 prime, so I bought the 16-35L because that suited my needs. You could have a killer zoom lens range if you had the 17-40, 24-70, and 70-200, OR the 17-40, 24-105, and 70-200. When purchasing future lenses, that $800 will be come in handly. The above is just my opinion of course, you need to determine what you NEED vs. what you WANT. I'm addicted too, don't worry! When I see a new piece of L glass come out I gotta have it, whether I NEED it or not!