are you talking about me with the 2.8Originally Posted by Skywatcher, post: 198198
I will look forward to your reviews!
This is my personal feeling too. ok for wedding photographers I see why they have it, although 24-70 is the range that EVERYONE has (18-55 on all those guests kit lenses etc) so I wouldn't use it for that reason alone.Originally Posted by Skywatcher, post: 198198
It's one of those snobby lenses that everyone is told they need and then sits around because it's expensive, heavy and limited
oh it's better than the 18-55 optically for sure but next to my 70-200 f2.8 it was flat and boring. In fact to tell the truth, I took it back, told a little white lie and had it swapped out for another one. That one was exactly the same and convinced me there was nothing wrong with it, it just wasnt as WOW as the price suggests.Keith experience with the 24-70 is really interesting I would hope that I would notice a big improvement over the 18-55 for a lens that in some shops is going for nearly £1,200!!
Don't get sucked into thinking you have to cover everything from 24-1000mm seriously don't. I mean, why would you anyway? I've never ever been somewhere and thought AHARHGHHGHG no I only have 35mm and 100mm and I desperately need 50. You can walk forward/back for framing, you can crop the image, you can use a cheapy prime 50 in the middle and so on.16-35 I will look at but it does give me rather a 'hole' in my options id then have 16-35 and 100-400 Although 16 would be great for a good milky way shot
:lol Julie no I don't mean you at all - We have the same debate on the Astro thread whenever someone new comes on wanting to buy a scope the same people always reply with the same tired old argument that size of aperture is paramount ( I always imagine their thread read in a rather adenoidal tone) and I always point out that a huge lightbucket can be outperformed by a smaller scope with better optics or a tighter mirror- but they never shift.
Seriously I am tending at the moment towards the cheaper I will keep looking and will then almost certainly bottle it and buy a 100mm macro
have a look at the 16-35 before you do I've no idea how it performs for astro but in normal use it's interesting :)Originally Posted by Skywatcher, post: 198205
Out of the 24-70 and 24-105 if you asked me which was better value, of most use etc., 24-105 for sure.