A question that has been on my mind

[Kayaker72]

I mounted my 24-70mm II on my 5D II and it is my walk around kit now. This is the most accurate lens I have ever had on my 5D II.

However if I had to choose just one I would go with my 24mm F/1.4L II (or the TSE 24mm or Zeiss 21mm). This is why; my way of thinking and philosophy is that I would first want to have a lens that does what it does great. The reason I would go with the 24mm rather than other length is that I prefer landscape and streetscapes over human subjects. The subjects that require versatility are secondary to me. For instance I want the best picture I can take of the Tetons, but when I go to the Zoo I like to photograph everything and if I get a good one so be it. The Teton pictures I hang on the wall and show off. The Zoo pictures I may do something with, but are not first passion.

Edit; Brant you did mention my comment about the "Best shot of the day". The thing is while it was the best shot of the day IMO, it wasn't necessarly the most liked picture of the day. I think the 24-70mm was the best choice for that day. But then that type of photography isn't my favorite.

Rick...thanks for the response, some very good thoughts. I think you highlight the difference between the two options well. Both are excellent, but there is a very slight trade off between level of excellence and convenience. Having just gone FF, I am slowly mulling what I eventually want my kit to look like. I am probably in the phase where I will obsess over everything that Sean was describing. Ultimately, I ended up with the 24-105 f/4 due to its good reputation, but also because it was a heckuva deal as a kit lens. Once I have sold my APS-C gear, I should have some funds to do something. That could be buy a prime lens, upgrade to the 24-70 II, maybe something in the 70-200 mm range, or I may just wait for a bit as I like to shoot until I identify a need.

Thanks again.
Brant

Edit---thanks also to the others for your posts, and iND, I missed your post while writing this response. Thanks all...

[HDNitehawk]

Rick...thanks for the response, some very good thoughts. I think you highlight the difference between the two options well. Both are excellent, but there is a very slight trade off between level of excellence and convenience. Having just gone FF, I am slowly mulling what I eventually want my kit to look like. I am probably in the phase where I will obsess over everything that Sean was describing. Ultimately, I ended up with the 24-105 f/4 due to its good reputation, but also because it was a heckuva deal as a kit lens. Once I have sold my APS-C gear, I should have some funds to do something. That could be buy a prime lens, upgrade to the 24-70 II, maybe something in the 70-200 mm range, or I may just wait for a bit as I like to shoot until I identify a need.

Thanks again.
Brant

Edit---thanks also to the others for your posts, and iND, I missed your post while writing this response. Thanks all...

Brant,

I thought with all of your nice water fall pictures you would trend toward the primes rather than the zoom first. That would be my guess.

[Kayaker72]

Brant,

I thought with all of your nice water fall pictures you would trend toward the primes rather than the zoom first. That would be my guess.

I probably was/am, but then I kept reading about this zoom that was almost as good as primes


Also, I tend to shoot a lot of family functions and people, just rarely posting those here. Thus my interest in the 70-200 mm lenses. We'll see, I am only slowly posting my gear so it may be awhile before I get it all sold.