Which 24-70 would you recommend?

[ac12]

I think we are back to light. Or how much or little light is available.
If you have enough light, the f/4 lens will work, less light then the f/2.8, even less light the f/1.8 primes.
Even less light, and I pull out the flash.

The next factor is, what is the event and how fast are the subjects moving.
The faster they are moving, the more the fast lens is needed.
I can shoot presentations and concerts with a f/4 lens at 1/60, cuz the people are standing/sitting still, vs. needing the f/1.8 primes for basketball where I have to be up at 1/800.

While a prime can be inconvenient, it works. In my early film days, I used primes for many years before I got my first zoom. When it is the only thing you have, you make it work.

Today, what I find irritating is that phone cameras have a wide angle lens. So the people shooting a phone camera are very often closer than the distance I need to cover a group shot with a normal lens, and they are blocking MY shot. So they are forcing me to also use a wide lens, to avoid being blocked by them.

 

[Stefana M]

85 indoors? I think that's tight - can't always zoom out with your feet at a party or church without someone getting in your way. Not a bad choice but I would get the 50 or 35 first and see if more reach was needed. But really she is asking for a zoom recommendation no???

I have a 50 and did a baptism and it's not fun. I mean it's great when you have light problems but otherwise it's way too difficult to constantly move around, as you said too. I even lost an important moment because of the zoom problem.

 

[Stefana M]

She did:

"events like baptisms, kids parties, restaurant parties."


Sounds like indoor portraits.

The more I think about it, perhaps two or three f 1.8 primes in this order: 85, 50, 35.

Prime is not easy to use on an event where you constantly need to move and be fast. I have a 50.

 

[ac12]

The prime alternative to a zoom is to carry two cameras, each with a prime; like 35 and 50.
I've done this, both with primes and zooms, when moving and constantly change lenses are issues.

 

[SquarePeg]

A mid range 2.8 zoom with good image stabilization should allow you to keep your ISO low enough and get the compositions you need. In the end, a slightly noisy photo is better than a photo of the back of somebody’s head when they wander into your scene at the key moment because they didn’t see you 20 ft away with your prime. Also noise suppression software has come a long way in the past 5 years.

 

[Meehow]

I used to have Sigma 24-70 2.8. It was ok to start with. Very bulky. I guess it depends what you're gonna use it for. I switched to prime lenses later on and never regretted it.

 

[StevenW]

If you can compromise some, the legacy Nikkor 28-70 2.8 is a great lens. I have never been an advocate for third-party glass because of build quality.

 

[ntz]

24-70mm is classic .. if you're shooting indoors, you would probably really want f/2.8 version .. if you're landscape photographer then f/4 will be sufficient .. Somebody suggested f/1.8 or f/1.4 primes, that's reasonable advice .. to have 35mm and 50mm f/1.x set in your bag won't definitely hurt and I am sure you will find yourself using them more than 24-70 zoom lenses for certain events .. and also they are relatively cheap ..

it's all about budget .. you can have f/2.8 used for ~$1000 but it could be gamble a bit ... You can also go with 3rd party brands but in case of Sigma and Tamron it's gamble too even buying new lenses , they differ piece by piece but in general Sigma Art is good .. My personal trust goes towards Tokina lenses, I'd consider to get somewhere 24-70mm f/2.8 Tokina lens for Nikon F-mount

 

[Braineack]

The 24-70 is the most boring lens I've ever owned.

 

[ntz]

The 24-70 is the most boring lens I've ever owned.

not that much .... it contains 35mm and 50mm in one package however I understand very well, what you mean .. depends on what you're shooting ..

 

[Braineack]

go shoot a 35mm 1.4 or a 50/58mm 1.4, then a 24-70 2.8 and come back and tell me it's anywhere close to the same result.

the 24-70 is a compromise lens, with compromised optics and a not very useful compromised zoom range.

 

[ac12]

go shoot a 35mm 1.4 or a 50/58mm 1.4, then a 24-70 2.8 and come back and tell me it's anywhere close to the same result.

the 24-70 is a compromise lens, with compromised optics and a not very useful compromised zoom range.

All depends on purpose.
I will take the f/1.8 primes in the gym over the f/2.8 zooms, but that is for low light sports.
In general, for shooting basketball players, I would rather use the f/2.8 zoom, were it not so dim in the gym.

24-70 seems a reasonable range.
If it does not reach far enough, a 24-120/2.8 would be a nicer lens, but BIG and HEAVY. So maybe not so nice to lug around all day.

 

[photoflyer]

go shoot a 35mm 1.4 or a 50/58mm 1.4, then a 24-70 2.8 and come back and tell me it's anywhere close to the same result.

the 24-70 is a compromise lens, with compromised optics and a not very useful compromised zoom range.

Everything is a compromise (trade-off) even primes. Better optical quality and speed but less flexibility in focal length. This thread got me to thinking about the new Canon 28-70 f 2 L RF. It appears to be unbelievable in terms of optical quality and not that much slower than primes in that range. I think the reason Canon priced it at 3K USD is not based on cost but that it will cannibalize some prime sales in that range. Having said that, if one is in the studio for example, there is no substitute for a fast high quality prime.

 

[Braineack]

3.15lbs. ROFL.

Yes, it's versatile, but I always find myself pegging 70mm -- especially for things like portraits or other shots where compression can help isolate. It's not quite enough range to be a single lens solution. Shooting a 28-105mm, imho, was a much better compromise.

 

[ac12]

Everything is a compromise (trade-off) even primes. Better optical quality and speed but less flexibility in focal length. This thread got me to thinking about the new Canon 28-70 f 2 L RF. It appears to be unbelievable in terms of optical quality and not that much slower than primes in that range. I think the reason Canon priced it at 3K USD is not based on cost but that it will cannibalize some prime sales in that range. Having said that, if one is in the studio for example, there is no substitute for a fast high quality prime.

oooooh, man that would be a GREAT lens to shoot basketball in dim gyms.