24-70 lens help!!

[sovietdoc]

24-70.....especially on a crop sensor camera is just excruciatingly boring and devoid of character.

"Boring" is a state of ones mind.

[Ads]

[HughGuessWho]

Don't get the 24-70, ...

24-70.....especially on a crop sensor camera is just excruciatingly boring and devoid of character.

I have never heard such a statement. You are certainly in the minority.

[o hey tyler]

"Boring" is a state of ones mind.

The 24-70/2.8 range is boring in general. Even on a FF camera IMO. It just lacks character and originality. It's a convenience focal range with a relatively large aperture. Most of the time, it generates a yawn fest for my girlfriend and I.

[The_Traveler]

I agree with the boring part.

Many's the hour I have sat at my desk, the 24/70 adjacent not saying a damn word!

Nothing, no jokes, no comments, doesn't care what music I play, inert to anything I do.


The only time that lens is any good is when I put it on a camera and shoot with it; then it's really terrific.

I guess I'll just live with the boring times.

[o hey tyler]

The only time that lens is any good is when I put it on a camera and shoot with it; then it's really terrific.

Which is solely your opinion. As the lens/focal length/max aperture is boring to both Switch and I.

IMO it produces middle of the road images with decent image quality.

[sovietdoc]

I don't believe in a generalization that a lens can be boring. Stating that it is boring, is just like confirming your own inability to create.


EDIT:

To clarify, I'd say that a lens as a object can be boring. Just like looking at a light post could be boring if you do it for 8 hours a day for 3 months. However, using any particular lens to create photos, doesn't automatically make the photos boring. It's all a matter of your vision and skill.

[o hey tyler]

I don't believe in a generalization that a lens can be boring. Stating that it is boring, is just like confirming your own inability to create.

No, it's just boring. I have plenty of ability to create. I just don't like using "convenient" lenses. I don't like using the "go to" lens because it's the "go to" lens. I like mixing it up and not using such pedestrian glass. It makes for more intriguing images.

[pixmedic]

I find we use our 17-55 f/2.8 far more than our 28-75 f/2.8, but im still a bigger fan of our 50mm f/1.4, or 35mm f/1.8.
our fast zooms are Tamrons, due to budgetary reasons, but I think they still deliver good results. eventually we will replace them with Nikkor.
I imagine a good and creative photographer can produce great results with whatever lens they are presented with. everything else becomes a matter of taste and/or convenience.

[The_Traveler]

I find lenses and camera bodies pedestrian and boring.
Even senors bore me.

I shall create images strictly through the power of my mind, directed by my enormous creative spirit, by causing various voltages to align themselves in suitable patterrns on a cf card.

I am also working on a strictly cereberal raw converter.

[o hey tyler]

I find lenses and camera bodies pedestrian and boring.
Even senors bore me.

I shall create images strictly through the power of my mind, directed by my enormous creative spirit, by causing various voltages to align themselves in suitable patterrns on a cf card.

I am also working on a strictly cereberal raw converter.

Cool bro. I hope your images are entertaining.

[sleist]

I find lenses and camera bodies pedestrian and boring.
Even senors bore me.

My next purchase will be the BIG box of Crayola crayons.
The one with the sharpener in the back of the box (prosumer model).

[djacobox372]

Nikon is definitely the best, but for a lot more $$.

You might want to consider the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, it's gives you the same zoom range as the 24-70mm f2.8 does on full frame.

IMO 17-50 is a better range then 24-70mm when you're using a crop body.

[Solarflare]

Nikon is definitely the best, but for a lot more $$.

You might want to consider the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, it's gives you the same zoom range as the 24-70mm f2.8 does on full frame.

IMO 17-50 is a better range then 24-70mm when you're using a crop body.

Depends upon what you like to shoot.

If Nikon would create an AF-S 28-85mm f/2.8 DX VR2 that is already great at f/2.8, has good Bokeh and fast autofocus, I would switch to that and never use any other lens again. Can cost 2000$ or more, I wouldnt care, just as long as I get the corresponding quality for that price.