New 50mm Sigma ? There are other options !

[Andrew Davies Photography]

Interesting theories regarding the price drop. I believe there has to be some truth in the fact that these lenses were originally intended to be quite high market and fill the gap between Ls which have not yet come out ( 35 1.4L II , 50 1.2 II L ) etc and sit above the entry level primes. It seems owning both the 24 and 35 IS that the 35 is ahead of the game glass wise. I have also owned the new 40 2.8 which i did not click with and ended up selling a month or two after getting it. Did not have the sharpness or unique quality that the 35 IS has.

Someone mentioned wondering why i posted two shots that werent at F2 , well simply because a large majority of shots at a wedding are not F2 as its just too shallow at close range. however the abililty to use the F2 when i want to artistically produces better results than the 24-70 2.8 and the added benefit of the IS makes it a great low light lens during church ceremonies and for detailed shots without flash. There is also the added bonus of its great close up ability and its light weight along with its very good build quality and fast af.

Someone else mentioned they were surprised I have just noticed primes. Thats not really the case i have a house full of old cameras with primes and adapters to fit them to my DSLR i have played with for years. It was the leap from the safety of a zoom to the primes which require a little more thought which was always the hurdle. For years i told myself that the 24-70 2.8L was the best lens for weddings ever - probably following the flock a little ! I cannot comment on the new 24-70 2.8II L though as i have not used it so whether that can get close to the prime someone else will need to answer.

This is a list of the lenses /Cameras I have used extensively from which i am using to judge this 5d3+35 IS combo from when i started with digital around 2004

Pentax istD
Pentax istDS
Pentax k100, k200, k10, k20
Canon 5Mk1
Canon 5Dmk2
Canon 5dmk3

Tokina RMC 17mm - amazing lens for its age
Sigma 10-20 - staple diet wide angle for many years
Sigma 105 macro - noisy but good if it didnt scare your subject away or squash it
Sigma 70-300 - absolutely diabolical
Sigma 50mm 1.4 old one - poor back focussing issues
Pentax 16-55 - really good expensive lens
Pentax 18-55 - noisy and cheap but did the job
Canon 17-40L great lens but took a wack and fell to bits !
Canon 24-70 2.8L mk1 - fab lens used it for years just a bit on the heavy side and could be sharper
Canon 24-105 F4L still own this one - very sharp and very versatile just struggles in low light , used in the second photographers kit
Canon 50 1.2L never really got on with this one wasn't a range i liked but the glass was good
Canon 50 1.4 still have this as a back up as its not really worth selling , used in the second photographers kit
Canon 40mm 2.8 STM impulse purchase which i ended up sellling again , pretty average on all counts
Canon 85mm 1.8 part of current kit really like this lens lovely bokeh fast focus
Canon 70-200 F4 still have this in our kit good for longer distance work very fast light and sharp
Canon 200mm 2.8L owned this ahead of its time when i just started out and didnt really understand primes that well , wish now i had never sold it as it was a lovely lens and will probably buy another !
Canon 35mm F2 IS - current main lens absolutely love it sharp fast low light and close ups quality equal to Ls
Canon 24mm 2.8IS good landscaper and for wider interiors , glass not as good as the best L stuff but still good

That hopefull demonstrates where i am coming from with the judgement on the 35 f2 IS

Bokeh of the 35 f2 IS is very good , i am not sure i would say it is the best - to be honest i have a Super Takumar from the late 1960s 55 1.8 which has the creamiest bokeh i have ever seen in a lens - if it was AF i would use it all the time ! I would not be suprised if the sigma 35 and 50 art have slightly better bokeh but then i would be looking more for 85 135 or 200 anyway if bokeh was the main concern. For me the main concern was being able to shoot in low light, and thats what this lens is the master of - 35mm F2 with four stop IS , not sure if that will be better any time soon ?


Cheers
Andrew
www.andrew-davies.com

 

[sagittariansrock]

That hopefully demonstrates where i am coming from with the judgement on the 35 f2 IS

Call me slow, but I still have no fricking idea how that has anything to do with the new 50mm Sigma.
One of the most directionless threads I've come across on CR.

 

[Northstar]

Interesting theories regarding the price drop. I believe there has to be some truth in the fact that these lenses were originally intended to be quite high market and fill the gap between Ls which have not yet come out ( 35 1.4L II , 50 1.2 II L ) etc and sit above the entry level primes. It seems owning both the 24 and 35 IS that the 35 is ahead of the game glass wise. I have also owned the new 40 2.8 which i did not click with and ended up selling a month or two after getting it. Did not have the sharpness or unique quality that the 35 IS has.

Someone mentioned wondering why i posted two shots that werent at F2 , well simply because a large majority of shots at a wedding are not F2 as its just too shallow at close range. however the abililty to use the F2 when i want to artistically produces better results than the 24-70 2.8 and the added benefit of the IS makes it a great low light lens during church ceremonies and for detailed shots without flash. There is also the added bonus of its great close up ability and its light weight along with its very good build quality and fast af.

Someone else mentioned they were surprised I have just noticed primes. Thats not really the case i have a house full of old cameras with primes and adapters to fit them to my DSLR i have played with for years. It was the leap from the safety of a zoom to the primes which require a little more thought which was always the hurdle. For years i told myself that the 24-70 2.8L was the best lens for weddings ever - probably following the flock a little ! I cannot comment on the new 24-70 2.8II L though as i have not used it so whether that can get close to the prime someone else will need to answer.

This is a list of the lenses /Cameras I have used extensively from which i am using to judge this 5d3+35 IS combo from when i started with digital around 2004

Pentax istD
Pentax istDS
Pentax k100, k200, k10, k20
Canon 5Mk1
Canon 5Dmk2
Canon 5dmk3

Tokina RMC 17mm - amazing lens for its age
Sigma 10-20 - staple diet wide angle for many years
Sigma 105 macro - noisy but good if it didnt scare your subject away or squash it
Sigma 70-300 - absolutely diabolical
Sigma 50mm 1.4 old one - poor back focussing issues
Pentax 16-55 - really good expensive lens
Pentax 18-55 - noisy and cheap but did the job
Canon 17-40L great lens but took a wack and fell to bits !
Canon 24-70 2.8L mk1 - fab lens used it for years just a bit on the heavy side and could be sharper
Canon 24-105 F4L still own this one - very sharp and very versatile just struggles in low light , used in the second photographers kit
Canon 50 1.2L never really got on with this one wasn't a range i liked but the glass was good
Canon 50 1.4 still have this as a back up as its not really worth selling , used in the second photographers kit
Canon 40mm 2.8 STM impulse purchase which i ended up sellling again , pretty average on all counts
Canon 85mm 1.8 part of current kit really like this lens lovely bokeh fast focus
Canon 70-200 F4 still have this in our kit good for longer distance work very fast light and sharp
Canon 200mm 2.8L owned this ahead of its time when i just started out and didnt really understand primes that well , wish now i had never sold it as it was a lovely lens and will probably buy another !
Canon 35mm F2 IS - current main lens absolutely love it sharp fast low light and close ups quality equal to Ls
Canon 24mm 2.8IS good landscaper and for wider interiors , glass not as good as the best L stuff but still good

That hopefull demonstrates where i am coming from with the judgement on the 35 f2 IS

Bokeh of the 35 f2 IS is very good , i am not sure i would say it is the best - to be honest i have a Super Takumar from the late 1960s 55 1.8 which has the creamiest bokeh i have ever seen in a lens - if it was AF i would use it all the time ! I would not be suprised if the sigma 35 and 50 art have slightly better bokeh but then i would be looking more for 85 135 or 200 anyway if bokeh was the main concern. For me the main concern was being able to shoot in low light, and thats what this lens is the master of - 35mm F2 with four stop IS , not sure if that will be better any time soon ?


Cheers
Andrew
www.andrew-davies.com

Andrew...after looking through your list of lenses used, I would suggest that you're missing two of Canon's best...24-70ii and 70-200ii.

These two lenses truly are "prime eliminators"....unless you need the extra light below 2.8.

 

[pwp]

...each to their own, personally I have outgrown my zoom lenses and prefer the quality the prime provides and have the ability to think about the composition and use my feet.

Certainly each to their own. But I have to disagree about simply using your feet. The walking zoom is fine in some situations, but at a wedding in particular, you're often locked into tight positions either dictated by discretion or sheer physical mass of guests or objects.

While in no way denigrating the brilliant properties of the EF 35 f/2is, the 24-70 f/2.8II is the events shooters best friend, along with the undisputed champion of the world, the 70-200 f/2.8isII. In my view, for events work and indeed a great deal of all commercial work, these two extroidinary zooms make primes an inconvenient irrelevance.

At a wedding or any commercial job that is dynamic (vs static) I have total responsibility to my client to deliver the magic moments by the boatload. Classy zooms are the strongest tools in my kit.

-pw

 

[Northstar]

...each to their own, personally I have outgrown my zoom lenses and prefer the quality the prime provides and have the ability to think about the composition and use my feet.

Certainly each to their own. But I have to disagree about simply using your feet. The walking zoom is fine in some situations, but at a wedding in particular, you're often locked into tight positions either dictated by discretion or sheer physical mass of guests or objects.

While in no way denigrating the brilliant properties of the EF 35 f/2is, the 24-70 f/2.8II is the events shooters best friend, along with the undisputed champion of the world, the 70-200 f/2.8isII. In my view, for events work and indeed a great deal of all commercial work, these two extroidinary zooms make primes an inconvenient irrelevance.

At a wedding or any commercial job that is dynamic (vs static) I have total responsibility to my client to deliver the magic moments by the boatload. Classy zooms are the strongest tools in my kit.

-pw

Just reviewing my post (right above yours) and noticed that we're "in sync".

 

[pwp]

That hopefully demonstrates where i am coming from with the judgement on the 35 f2 IS

Call me slow, but I still have no fricking idea how that has anything to do with the new 50mm Sigma.
One of the most directionless threads I've come across on CR.

...yet it has over 60 replies. In fairness to the OP, he introduced the thread as a discussion on alternatives to the much hyped new Sigma 50.

-pw

 

[sagittariansrock]

...yet it has over 60 replies. In fairness to the OP, he introduced the thread as a discussion on alternatives to the much hyped new Sigma 50.

-pw

Does that surprise you, considering you have over 1400 posts on CR?
Apart from detailed debates about the 35/2 IS I have not seen any discussion on alternatives to the 50A (and sorry, the 35/2 IS is not an alternative- not in FL, speed or use). Maybe you spotted something I didn't.
Of course, it doesn't matter. It is a weekend pastime anyway
I shouldn't have been so harsh to criticize the thread.
Cheers!

 

[slclick]

That hopefully demonstrates where i am coming from with the judgement on the 35 f2 IS

Call me slow, but I still have no fricking idea how that has anything to do with the new 50mm Sigma.
One of the most directionless threads I've come across on CR.

...yet it has over 60 replies. In fairness to the OP, he introduced the thread as a discussion on alternatives to the much hyped new Sigma 50.

-pw

I think a 35mm lens is an alternative to a 50mm lens when you own those two lenses and no others. I agree with Sag, this is strange and I don't care if he has 500 responses, it's just weird wording.

 

[helpful]

Each to their own, personally i have outgrown my zoom lenses and prefer the quality the prime provides and have the ability to think about the composition and use my feet.

This is one of the best points I have seen on CR. I am glad to see someone else who has outgrown zoom lenses.

Someone else pointed out in this thread that "the time needed to change lenses" is a downside to using primes. That's not the way it works. Like the OP here suggests, the prime photographer works with multiple camera bodies, each with its own prime attached. Two or three camera bodies provide perfect coverage of every pre-planned vision as well as preparedness for spontaneous moments, and a fourth and fifth body are always nearby, each with its own lens and perfect settings for that lens's focal length. Primes are not necessarily evil, but "the time needed to change lenses" is simply not a factor in the professional workflow regardless of using primes or zooms.

Perspective (i.e., the photographer's position in relation to the subject and scene) is one of the most important elements of photography, and constant zooming is like a disease that can infect any photographer and inhibit their sensitivity to this part of our art.

Zooming easily makes a photographer concentrate on getting the best out of the current situation but be blind to seeing the best situation. Zooming can give the illusion that we are perfecting a composition when in fact we are only compromising it.

 

[zlatko]

Each to their own, personally i have outgrown my zoom lenses and prefer the quality the prime provides and have the ability to think about the composition and use my feet.

This is one of the best points I have seen on CR. I am glad to see someone else who has outgrown zoom lenses.

Someone else pointed out in this thread that "the time needed to change lenses" is a downside to using primes. That's not the way it works. Like the OP here suggests, the prime photographer works with multiple camera bodies, each with its own prime attached. Two or three camera bodies provide perfect coverage of every pre-planned vision as well as preparedness for spontaneous moments, and a fourth and fifth body are always nearby, each with its own lens and perfect settings for that lens's focal length. Primes are not necessarily evil, but "the time needed to change lenses" is simply not a factor in the professional workflow regardless of using primes or zooms.

Perspective (i.e., the photographer's position in relation to the subject and scene) is one of the most important elements of photography, and constant zooming is like a disease that can infect any photographer and inhibit their sensitivity to this part of our art.

Zooming easily makes a photographer concentrate on getting the best out of the current situation but be blind to seeing the best situation. Zooming can give the illusion that we are perfecting a composition when in fact we are only compromising it.

Some great insights there. I think you've summed it up some potential disadvantages of zooming very well. I only disagree with the notion of "outgrowing" zoom lenses. They still retain some advantages, no matter how experienced one is. Not everyone can have quick access to up to five camera bodies, each with a different prime. One can reduce the number of bodies and happily use both primes and zooms, being cognizant of the advantages & disadvantages of each. Also, a photographer can learn to treat a zoom as a collection of primes.

 

[pwp]

There is no intention here of fanning yet another prime vs zoom flame war here. They both have completely valid places in image making. Whether the shot you deliver to a client was made with a 35 f/2is or 24-70 or whatever, they're not really going to care so long as it's a hot, memorable shot.

For any events work, I'll stand firmly with the Z team. 8)

Each to their own, personally i have outgrown my zoom lenses and prefer the quality the prime provides and have the ability to think about the composition and use my feet.

This is one of the best points I have seen on CR. I am glad to see someone else who has outgrown zoom lenses.

Hmmm...do you "outgrow" zoom lenses or just alter your preference?

Someone else pointed out in this thread that "the time needed to change lenses" is a downside to using primes. That's not the way it works. Like the OP here suggests, the prime photographer works with multiple camera bodies, each with its own prime attached.

Of course lens changes take time. Even a moment can mean a missed shot. Plus, outdoors photographers know that every lens change means potential sensor dust bunnies. And zoom shooters will have either a 16-35 or 24-70 on one body and a 70-200 on another...

Two or three camera bodies provide perfect coverage of every pre-planned vision as well as preparedness for spontaneous moments, and a fourth and fifth body are always nearby, each with its own lens and perfect settings for that lens's focal length. Primes are not necessarily evil, but "the time needed to change lenses" is simply not a factor in the professional workflow regardless of using primes or zooms.

At an event, fourth or fifth bodies "nearby" isn't really practical. Most photographers will successfully manage two bodies on their person, and occasionally three without getting tangled up occasionally. At a wedding things happen at the speed of light. A magic moment will be past while one photographer is making even a very skilled lens change while the zoom shooter will have half a dozen frames in the bag.

Zooming easily makes a photographer concentrate on getting the best out of the current situation but be blind to seeing the best situation. Zooming can give the illusion that we are perfecting a composition when in fact we are only compromising it.

Errrm....what a funny thing to say! ???

-pw

 

[Dylan777]

Interesting theories regarding the price drop. I believe there has to be some truth in the fact that these lenses were originally intended to be quite high market and fill the gap between Ls which have not yet come out ( 35 1.4L II , 50 1.2 II L ) etc and sit above the entry level primes. It seems owning both the 24 and 35 IS that the 35 is ahead of the game glass wise. I have also owned the new 40 2.8 which i did not click with and ended up selling a month or two after getting it. Did not have the sharpness or unique quality that the 35 IS has.

Someone mentioned wondering why i posted two shots that werent at F2 , well simply because a large majority of shots at a wedding are not F2 as its just too shallow at close range. however the abililty to use the F2 when i want to artistically produces better results than the 24-70 2.8 and the added benefit of the IS makes it a great low light lens during church ceremonies and for detailed shots without flash. There is also the added bonus of its great close up ability and its light weight along with its very good build quality and fast af.

Someone else mentioned they were surprised I have just noticed primes. Thats not really the case i have a house full of old cameras with primes and adapters to fit them to my DSLR i have played with for years. It was the leap from the safety of a zoom to the primes which require a little more thought which was always the hurdle. For years i told myself that the 24-70 2.8L was the best lens for weddings ever - probably following the flock a little ! I cannot comment on the new 24-70 2.8II L though as i have not used it so whether that can get close to the prime someone else will need to answer.

This is a list of the lenses /Cameras I have used extensively from which i am using to judge this 5d3+35 IS combo from when i started with digital around 2004

Pentax istD
Pentax istDS
Pentax k100, k200, k10, k20
Canon 5Mk1
Canon 5Dmk2
Canon 5dmk3

Tokina RMC 17mm - amazing lens for its age
Sigma 10-20 - staple diet wide angle for many years
Sigma 105 macro - noisy but good if it didnt scare your subject away or squash it
Sigma 70-300 - absolutely diabolical
Sigma 50mm 1.4 old one - poor back focussing issues
Pentax 16-55 - really good expensive lens
Pentax 18-55 - noisy and cheap but did the job
Canon 17-40L great lens but took a wack and fell to bits !
Canon 24-70 2.8L mk1 - fab lens used it for years just a bit on the heavy side and could be sharper
Canon 24-105 F4L still own this one - very sharp and very versatile just struggles in low light , used in the second photographers kit
Canon 50 1.2L never really got on with this one wasn't a range i liked but the glass was good
Canon 50 1.4 still have this as a back up as its not really worth selling , used in the second photographers kit
Canon 40mm 2.8 STM impulse purchase which i ended up sellling again , pretty average on all counts
Canon 85mm 1.8 part of current kit really like this lens lovely bokeh fast focus
Canon 70-200 F4 still have this in our kit good for longer distance work very fast light and sharp
Canon 200mm 2.8L owned this ahead of its time when i just started out and didnt really understand primes that well , wish now i had never sold it as it was a lovely lens and will probably buy another !
Canon 35mm F2 IS - current main lens absolutely love it sharp fast low light and close ups quality equal to Ls
Canon 24mm 2.8IS good landscaper and for wider interiors , glass not as good as the best L stuff but still good

That hopefull demonstrates where i am coming from with the judgement on the 35 f2 IS

Bokeh of the 35 f2 IS is very good , i am not sure i would say it is the best - to be honest i have a Super Takumar from the late 1960s 55 1.8 which has the creamiest bokeh i have ever seen in a lens - if it was AF i would use it all the time ! I would not be suprised if the sigma 35 and 50 art have slightly better bokeh but then i would be looking more for 85 135 or 200 anyway if bokeh was the main concern. For me the main concern was being able to shoot in low light, and thats what this lens is the master of - 35mm F2 with four stop IS , not sure if that will be better any time soon ?


Cheers
Andrew
www.andrew-davies.com

Andrew...after looking through your list of lenses used, I would suggest that you're missing two of Canon's best...24-70ii and 70-200ii.

These two lenses truly are "prime eliminators"....unless you need the extra light below 2.8.

+1...plus 85L II(a magical portrait lens for wedding pros) + 135L

 

[wickidwombat]

personally i'm a 2 body with a zoom on 1 and prime on the other kind of guy

typically for events i'll shoot 16-35 L II on a 5Dmk2 with the sigma 85 1.4 on the 5Dmk3

and for travelling i am either using the eos-M with 11-22 and the 85 or 135 or the tamron 150-600 on the 5dmk3
or the 16-35 on the 5d mk3 and the sigma 35 f1.4 on the M giving about 56mm

depends what i'm shooting if its night or day or if i'm indoors or outdoors

1 thing is for certain I almost always take the 85 and 135 over the 70-200L II

but I agree for certain events the 70-200 is best and for fashion runway it has no equal.

 

[cellomaster27]

I'm wondering if the op is one of those photographers who gets in the way.. right smack in the middle of the aisle taking photos.. swapping this and that camera running around. I'm sure they get the shots! btw the shots posted are posed/static photos. :
I totally agree with having zooms for events. I don't know about you guys but the photographer should not become an attraction to an event. yes? If you've been part of the wedding family or attendees, you don't want to be talking about how annoying the photographer is. Just saying this from too many observations....
primes vs zooms.. I love primes and think that they are extremely capable of being creative and unique. But zoom TOTALLY have a place for most photographers. Most photojournalists that I've seen carry zooms. (70-200) why? well, they capture moments. You don't exactly have time to run, compose and capture. back to weddings.. capture the good stuff and doing that with zooms... there's a good reason.

 

[Sporgon]

Plus, outdoors photographers know that every lens change means potential sensor dust bunnies.
-pw

You make a very plausible case for the advantages of zooms at dynamic event work, but I just wanted to point out that someone who uses just primes and changes a lot will get a lot less dust in the camera than someone who is using zooms which change their physical length, and the most popular ones do: 24-105, 24-70 etc. These zooms are constantly pumping air in and out of the camera, and although it's having to pass through the brush weather seal around the barrel, it's far from a dust filter.

 

[Viggo]

I had zooms , then went for primes, because "I outgrew my zooms" but now have a mix of them. If you think a 35 IS is a better choice then a 2470 mk2, then wow.. I use my zooms like I use my primes, I choose my focal for the intended perspective, and then I move my feet in the same way I do with a prime. To me the blistering AF of the zooms often outweighs the faster aperture of a prime. But the 2470 can't do what the 85 and the 200 f2 does and they sure is heck can't do what the 2470 can. I'm going to take a wild guess here , but I guess this is why Canon make all the different lenses they do?

A 35 IS will never ever replace a 50 f1.4 for me. And I am one of the worlds biggest fans of the 35 1.4's, but I also happen to be that for the fast 50's also, and they are VERY different.

 

[Loswr]

Each to their own, personally i have outgrown my zoom lenses and prefer the quality the prime provides and have the ability to think about the composition and use my feet.

This is one of the best points I have seen on CR. I am glad to see someone else who has outgrown zoom lenses.

Canon knows that the best, most highly compensated photographers have all "outgrown" zoom lenses. That's why they released one costing close to $12,000. :

I use both zooms and primes, but I'm happy say that I don't need to use a prime lens to force me to think about composition and to put myself at the proper distance from the subject to achieve the perspective I want for the shot. I can do that all by myself, even with a zoom lens. In fact, because zoom lenses allow one to vary composition/framing while maintaining perspective, they offer an additional creative tool that prime lenses don't provide, since 'zooming with your feet' changes both framing and perspective at the same time.

But if those who have "outgrown" zoom lenses need the crutch of a fixed focal length to goad them into thinking about composition, that's fine for them…

 

[Andrew Davies Photography]

Each to their own, personally i have outgrown my zoom lenses and prefer the quality the prime provides and have the ability to think about the composition and use my feet.

This is one of the best points I have seen on CR. I am glad to see someone else who has outgrown zoom lenses.

Canon knows that the best, most highly compensated photographers have all "outgrown" zoom lenses. That's why they released one costing close to $12,000. :

I use both zooms and primes, but I'm happy say that I don't need to use a prime lens to force me to think about composition and to put myself at the proper distance from the subject to achieve the perspective I want for the shot. I can do that all by myself, even with a zoom lens. In fact, because zoom lenses allow one to vary composition/framing while maintaining perspective, they offer an additional creative tool that prime lenses don't provide, since 'zooming with your feet' changes both framing and perspective at the same time.

But if those who have "outgrown" zoom lenses need the crutch of a fixed focal length to goad them into thinking about composition, that's fine for them…

Excepting that we are not talking about composition specifically we are talking mainly about quality, and in that respect the prime lens offers the client the best quality possible - which is why there is all the fuss around the Sigma 50 , because everyone wants a prime lens in their arsenal.

I as most good photographers can, am also easily to compose with or without a zoom after all you are looking through the same viewfinder so why would you think you need a prime or a zoom to compose ? that's all about you and what you want and see from the shot - i think they call it having 'the eye' not having the lens.

 

[Loswr]

Excepting that we are not talking about composition specifically we are talking mainly about quality, and in that respect the prime lens offers the client the best quality possible

Actually, you were talking about both quality and thinking about composition as advantages of having 'outgrown zoom lenses', but if you want to change your story now, that's ok.

The Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II and 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II deliver image quality equal to or better than many prime lenses at equivalent apertures in their respective ranges, particularly when considering real world output and not laboratory test shots. Many primes offer faster apertures, if you're willing to sacrifice some of the maximum IQ of the lens, and if shallow DoF is appropraite for the shot. Many prime lenses are also cheaper than those zooms which deliver excellent IQ.

The generic 'primes have better IQ than zooms' mentality is a bit dated when considering modern lenses.

 

[Sporgon]

The generic 'primes have better IQ than zooms' mentality is a bit dated when considering modern lenses.

+1

It took me many years of being dragged from the '70's to accept this, but there is certainly no practical IQ loss with the top end zooms. In fact even the 24-70 f4 IS is as close as makes no difference, especially in something like wedding photography were the detail within the frame is large and quite close. ( Not talking about large brides here ).

Primes certainly have their place and will continue to do so. (Generally) cheaper, smaller, lighter and faster. Perhaps it is no coincidence, but in the UK at least you can buy a 24 2.8 IS, a 28 2.8 IS, a 35 f2 IS, a 50 f1.4 and an 85 f1.8 all for the price of one 24-70 f2.8 II.

And if you carry them all together they are about the same weight too

And now I'll wait for the first person to come along and say that's not surprising because the 24-70II is better than all those primes put together anyway ;D