Next Lens: 24-70 or 24-105?
to the new plan
11-27-2008, 07:07 PM
#43
Drifting
iv'e got a 10-20..70-200L, & 50mm...now...so hopefully i can get the 17-55 IS to complete my set
11-28-2008, 12:01 AM
#44
Senior Moderator
I really hate to bring up a new option if you're so close to ordering, but have you considered the 16-35 2.8L? If you're keeping the 28-135, you can use that for when you need the zoom. The 16 is gonna give you some good wide angle for shoots, and also would help if you ever want to do panoramas or other type of landscapy type of shots. And, the 35 is decent zoom on a cropped. I don't know how its IQ stacks up against the 24-70, but given that it's a 2.8, I would think it has similar sharpness at 4.0. Would also like to hear feedback from anyone else regarding the 16-35. If it's not a good alternate recommendation, please let us know. 
I rarely shoot at 2.8 in the club, I am at 4.0 90% of the time. But I do use 2.8 here and there, and it's nice to have it for when I need it. Didn't you get a 50 1.8? If you ever get a craving for some crazy wide-open shots, use that.
If I could do it over again, I would have kept the 24-105 and bought the 50 1.4. I do miss the IS and the light weight for club work. I did have some AF "issues" when I first got the 24-70 but it didn't take me long (thankfully) to realize that it was pretty much all user-related.
My keeper rate atm is incredible, last night at Spybar I got 315 out of 342, for instance. By keeper I mean shots that aren't motion-blurred / OOF / flash-didn't-fire / etc. It could be badly composed due to any number of issues (hic) but that's easily combatable with cropping. Oh and just to be clear, by keeper I do not mean shots that I post - just because a shot "came out" (is a keeper) doesn't mean that it's a good shot. I'm also concentrating on getting keepers and therefore shooting less overall, which obviously helps me later on in the sorting and PP stages. When I started with the D70 at the club there were nights when I would do 1600 shots and get 200-300 keepers. 
terrible. /rambling
If I was looking to get a lens for "shoots" specifically on a FF (I mean not club work) - I think the 24-70 would be it. For a cropped, I would be also strongly considering the 16-35 2.8 and 17-40 4.0.
I rarely shoot at 2.8 in the club, I am at 4.0 90% of the time. But I do use 2.8 here and there, and it's nice to have it for when I need it. Didn't you get a 50 1.8? If you ever get a craving for some crazy wide-open shots, use that.
If I could do it over again, I would have kept the 24-105 and bought the 50 1.4. I do miss the IS and the light weight for club work. I did have some AF "issues" when I first got the 24-70 but it didn't take me long (thankfully) to realize that it was pretty much all user-related.
My keeper rate atm is incredible, last night at Spybar I got 315 out of 342, for instance. By keeper I mean shots that aren't motion-blurred / OOF / flash-didn't-fire / etc. It could be badly composed due to any number of issues (hic) but that's easily combatable with cropping. Oh and just to be clear, by keeper I do not mean shots that I post - just because a shot "came out" (is a keeper) doesn't mean that it's a good shot. I'm also concentrating on getting keepers and therefore shooting less overall, which obviously helps me later on in the sorting and PP stages. When I started with the D70 at the club there were nights when I would do 1600 shots and get 200-300 keepers. terrible. /ramblingIf I was looking to get a lens for "shoots" specifically on a FF (I mean not club work) - I think the 24-70 would be it. For a cropped, I would be also strongly considering the 16-35 2.8 and 17-40 4.0.
11-28-2008, 06:50 AM
#45
Earth-bound misfit
^^This really illustrates to me how much your subject matter and shooting style should be driving your choice. Rubin works in a close environment, where wider shots of people are the norm. A lot of reach just isn't necessary. 2 people who both use it for hiking could still have totally different needs, depending on what they like to shoot. I like details more than wide sweeping vistas, so I went with the 24-105, but I can easily see how someone could prefer the 17-*. It's all about your style, baby. 
I'll be back.
11-28-2008, 12:11 PM
#47
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
I can't justify getting the 16-35 since I have the 10-22.
I really hate to bring up a new option if you're so close to ordering, but have you considered the 16-35 2.8L? If you're keeping the 28-135, you can use that for when you need the zoom. The 16 is gonna give you some good wide angle for shoots, and also would help if you ever want to do panoramas or other type of landscapy type of shots. And, the 35 is decent zoom on a cropped. I don't know how its IQ stacks up against the 24-70, but given that it's a 2.8, I would think it has similar sharpness at 4.0. Would also like to hear feedback from anyone else regarding the 16-35. If it's not a good alternate recommendation, please let us know.
I rarely shoot at 2.8 in the club, I am at 4.0 90% of the time. But I do use 2.8 here and there, and it's nice to have it for when I need it. Didn't you get a 50 1.8? If you ever get a craving for some crazy wide-open shots, use that.
If I could do it over again, I would have kept the 24-105 and bought the 50 1.4. I do miss the IS and the light weight for club work. I did have some AF "issues" when I first got the 24-70 but it didn't take me long (thankfully) to realize that it was pretty much all user-related. My keeper rate atm is incredible, last night at Spybar I got 315 out of 342, for instance. By keeper I mean shots that aren't motion-blurred / OOF / flash-didn't-fire / etc. It could be badly composed due to any number of issues (hic) but that's easily combatable with cropping. Oh and just to be clear, by keeper I do not mean shots that I post - just because a shot "came out" (is a keeper) doesn't mean that it's a good shot. I'm also concentrating on getting keepers and therefore shooting less overall, which obviously helps me later on in the sorting and PP stages. When I started with the D70 at the club there were nights when I would do 1600 shots and get 200-300 keepers. terrible. /rambling
If I was looking to get a lens for "shoots" specifically on a FF (I mean not club work) - I think the 24-70 would be it. For a cropped, I would be also strongly considering the 16-35 2.8 and 17-40 4.0.
I rarely shoot at 2.8 in the club, I am at 4.0 90% of the time. But I do use 2.8 here and there, and it's nice to have it for when I need it. Didn't you get a 50 1.8? If you ever get a craving for some crazy wide-open shots, use that.
If I could do it over again, I would have kept the 24-105 and bought the 50 1.4. I do miss the IS and the light weight for club work. I did have some AF "issues" when I first got the 24-70 but it didn't take me long (thankfully) to realize that it was pretty much all user-related.
My keeper rate atm is incredible, last night at Spybar I got 315 out of 342, for instance. By keeper I mean shots that aren't motion-blurred / OOF / flash-didn't-fire / etc. It could be badly composed due to any number of issues (hic) but that's easily combatable with cropping. Oh and just to be clear, by keeper I do not mean shots that I post - just because a shot "came out" (is a keeper) doesn't mean that it's a good shot. I'm also concentrating on getting keepers and therefore shooting less overall, which obviously helps me later on in the sorting and PP stages. When I started with the D70 at the club there were nights when I would do 1600 shots and get 200-300 keepers. terrible. /ramblingIf I was looking to get a lens for "shoots" specifically on a FF (I mean not club work) - I think the 24-70 would be it. For a cropped, I would be also strongly considering the 16-35 2.8 and 17-40 4.0.
11-28-2008, 12:14 PM
#48
Senior Moderator
ooh. I missed that you had the 10-22.
11-28-2008, 12:47 PM
#49
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Not Las Vegas (SF Bay Area)
Age: 39
Posts: 63,196
Received 2,779 Likes
on
1,980 Posts
congrats on the 24-70 !
12-08-2008, 05:47 PM
#50
Drifting
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 3,365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 24-70 is a great lens, mainly because it's f/2.8. Obviously it's a mute point if you don't need the speed. The 24-105 is a great walk around lens because of the reach and the IS. One other thing that hasn't been mentioned, the 24-105 at 24mm exhibits more distortion than the 24-70 at 24mm.
24-70mm f/2.8:
24-105mm f/4:
Images courtesy of Welcome to Photozone!
I had the 24-70 and loved it, but sold it for the 16-35.
24-70mm f/2.8:
24-105mm f/4:
Images courtesy of Welcome to Photozone!
I had the 24-70 and loved it, but sold it for the 16-35.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Undying Dreams
Non-Automotive & Motorcycle Sales
16
02-18-2015 03:02 PM
