Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by Fearan, Feb 29, 2008.
Which one would you get as a main lens and why?
24-70, 'cause i already have it. it's a great lens.
24-70 because f/2.8 > f/4
2.8 > 4
I've had both. Honestly, It depends on what you want to do and your style. The 24-105 was a great lens - if you need the extra reach or the IS, then get it. That said, I sold it in favor of the 24-70 due to the fact that I didn't need either of those two - and f/2.8 serves me a lot better than f/4. I never shoot it wide open except for low light concerts or on certain portraits.
if I was on a crop body neither of those and get a 17-55IS
40D. Going for a cheaper wide lens, Tamron 17-50 seems like a good deal for landscape photography.
So there's a lot of votes for the 24-70. Seems reasonable. Too bad it's heavier and lacks IS.
I haven't found a store that had the 24-105 in stock to actually try it out.
Rent both for a week and see which you like the most.
if you're doing landscapes get a 10-22
i would love to get a 10-22 and a 24-70, add in a 70-200 2.8 is and that would be my ideal kit
I have a 10-22 and I'd still rather have the 17-55 2.8 over the 24-75
go wide for the landscapes (10-20, 10-22, 12-24), then get the tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and a 70-200. I don't think the 24-70 is worth the money or having an extra lens unless you have a specific use for it. Otherwise, i'd rather use the 17-50 or the 70-200.
24-70, godly quality..
depends on what you shoot obviously. alot of wedding photogs have ditched their 24-70's in favor of the 24-105's, but then again, alot have gone the other way around. if your shots are static, i'd go with the 24-105. if not, 24-70