Printable View
Nate,
You'll be trading a stop of background blur, a stop of shutter speed, and a bit of AF precision in exchange for gaining back some cash, lighter weight, and IS.
Only you know whether that's a good trade-off for your subjects and style. I imagine the 24-70 won't be good for BIF. ;)
Probably one of the better lenses for Birds-Walking-By though :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidEccleston
Blasphemy! There's no such this as too wide! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinh Nhut Nguyen
You've been hanging out at the Gold Coast again haven't you Doc. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Dr Croubie
I have the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS, the 28-70mm f/2.8 L, the 24mm f/2.8 & the 40mm f/2.8. I wouldn't give up any of them. I especially like the aperture range between f/2.8 and f/4. Also, image stabilization doesn't help you when your subject is moving--but a shutter speed twice as fast (at any given ISO) certainly does.
Nate....I guess it all depends upon what you want to shoot. For awhile now I have been very happy with slower glass. And for a lot of uses, including a lot of my common subjects, you don't really need fast glass. But I am actually trying to head the other direction. There is a certain creative aspect to photography I think you need fast glass for.
As an example that is currantly motivating my thoughts on how to add to my kit. I attended several weddings recently and took a lot of photos. In comparing my photos to the photos from the wedding pros I am mostly pleased with my shots, but I am definitely noticing that mine look a little "snap-shot"-ish in comparison. They lack a certain "pop" in comparison to some of the shots form the wedding pros.
In comparing the differences in photos I've come up with four things...
1. The pros were using the 5dii's or 1DIV, and I think you can see the benefits. They also used combinations of 50 f/1.4 or a 24-70 f/2.8 with a 70-200 f/2.8 (depending on the wedding).
2. Their post processing was better, typically going higher contrast/saturation/vibrance than I typically do.
3. They had better DOF than I did. Not in every shot, which surprised me. But in certain shots it really stands out.
4. This surprised me, but the entire scene in most of the Pros shots was well lit, not just the subjects. I liked this a lot as it give a better feel for the event. I had counted on my 580EXII to properly light the subjects, which resulted in the scene behind the subjects being darker in my shots. I assume the effect from the Pros shots was a combination of faster aperture and higher ISO.
I guess that is a long way of saying, faster apertures certainly open up at least two avenues from above to being more creative with your photography and taking better photos. Whether you want that or not is up to you.
Good luck...and when are we going to see you post some birds :p
Brant
EDIT---I didn't mention the skill level of the pros, but that, of course, went into the quality of their photos.
I sold my 70-200 f/2.8 IS Mark I and bought a 70-200 f/4 IS. I LOVE the f/4. It feels like a toy in comparison to the f/2.8 version which I see as a great thing. I also added the 24-105 f/4 IS to back up my 24-70 f/2.8. The 24-70 f/2.8 rarely sees the light of day anymore so I guess I should sell it. If I want/need shallower DoF then I have primes for that. Like anything else in photography of course there are compromises, but for some people they make sense. For me they did and it sounds like they may for you.
If you have them I would keep them, even if you don't use wide apertures all the time they can come in handy and mabye you should try to take advatage of the thinner DOF.
I LOVE thin DOF and lots of background blur (or foreground blur as the case may be). Thats why I only have one zoom, but I would like to replace it with primes (Minolta MD 70-210mm f/4). Since I don't use it as much as my wider focal lengths I'm not in a huge hurry to replace it. Mabye because it's to slow for my liking.
John.
The new 24-70 actually looks quite exciting.
I'm actually considering selling the 100mm macro and 17-55 f/2.8 and going for the 24-70 F/4 IS (with possibly adding the 10-22 later). Where I'd want background blur, I find I more often use the 70-200 f/4 IS anyway, and have been using the 50 f/1.4 a lot for low light.