[quote name='danida12' timestamp='1328273961' post='15437']
Well, they are smaller and lighter than the zoom mentioned later on. And cheaper.
[/quote]
Small and light = mirrorless. A full frame body negates all the advantage of a lens being small and light (in most cases), and come on, keeping yet another lens just for being small and light? Especially if it doesn't produce enough pictures of sellable quality to warrant the purchase...
I have one "small and light" lens (the 24-85 USM zoom) but only because it covers a range that I don't have covered otherwise (between 16-35 and 70-200) but don't need all that much to justify a 24-70. Even with that lens my camera body does not become portable. It would still be a brick with a tiny 45/2.8 Nikkor tested here, not very manageable no matter the lens - so I'm thinking of a mirrorless camera to have with me everywhere, everytime.
See below. I checked with SLRGear.com and there are reviews. Also a fair amount of user input.
In all fairness I can hardly understand people who have just spent $2000 on a 5D Mark II then start cutting corners by choosing dated lenses that were never meant to be high grade from the start. I could see these primes being a revelation for someone shooting film with a ubiquitous 35-80/4-5.6 zoom 25 years ago, then getting one and going WOW. Today they have no USP. There are modern, f/2.8 Tamron and Sigma zooms in the range for not much more and not any worse mechanically.
Mind you, I like the images my 50/1.8 produces but I got it for free - I wouldn't buy one myself. I've found out the hard way that low quality photo gear is a liability more than an asset because it's very hard to get rid of when you inevitably bump into its limitations (unless you sell it for peanuts like I did with a kit zoom once). But good gear is for the ages (like my 70-200/2.8 L IS lens that I'll probably be taking to the grave with me).
YMMV.
Both have been reviewed at SLRGear.com. Interesting that the 28 has one of the lowest user ratings - 43%. Sorry, I just don't see the USP (unique selling point) anymore. A 17-40/4 zoom looks far more practical and better value for money than a bagful of low tier primes. I can see a 28/1.8 being eminently useful (from the extensive discussions at Fredmiranda.com it appears that it's unusable wide open but a sharp area suddenly appears in the center at f/2.0). But f/2.8 isn't that fast in our times of Tamron and Sigma 17-50.
P.S. The Zeiss sure is an oddity but there's a diehard Zeiss fan crowd that doesn't count the money if it's about a new Zeiss lens. Me, I'd rather scrape and save for a 24/1.4 L, even the first version.
P.P.S. I second the idea of reviewing the "other two" T&S lenses. Bring 'em on! (and someday I might buy one for my wife to use on her NEX <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />)
Well, they are smaller and lighter than the zoom mentioned later on. And cheaper.
[/quote]
Small and light = mirrorless. A full frame body negates all the advantage of a lens being small and light (in most cases), and come on, keeping yet another lens just for being small and light? Especially if it doesn't produce enough pictures of sellable quality to warrant the purchase...
I have one "small and light" lens (the 24-85 USM zoom) but only because it covers a range that I don't have covered otherwise (between 16-35 and 70-200) but don't need all that much to justify a 24-70. Even with that lens my camera body does not become portable. It would still be a brick with a tiny 45/2.8 Nikkor tested here, not very manageable no matter the lens - so I'm thinking of a mirrorless camera to have with me everywhere, everytime.
Quote:That's what needs finding out.
See below. I checked with SLRGear.com and there are reviews. Also a fair amount of user input.
Quote:Well, I don't see the existing 28mm APS-C reviews indicating the zooms you mention are trashing the primes. For 24mm the alternatives to the existing 2.8 prime are outside the budget bracket.
In all fairness I can hardly understand people who have just spent $2000 on a 5D Mark II then start cutting corners by choosing dated lenses that were never meant to be high grade from the start. I could see these primes being a revelation for someone shooting film with a ubiquitous 35-80/4-5.6 zoom 25 years ago, then getting one and going WOW. Today they have no USP. There are modern, f/2.8 Tamron and Sigma zooms in the range for not much more and not any worse mechanically.
Mind you, I like the images my 50/1.8 produces but I got it for free - I wouldn't buy one myself. I've found out the hard way that low quality photo gear is a liability more than an asset because it's very hard to get rid of when you inevitably bump into its limitations (unless you sell it for peanuts like I did with a kit zoom once). But good gear is for the ages (like my 70-200/2.8 L IS lens that I'll probably be taking to the grave with me).
YMMV.
Quote:Fair to say about time being tight, but the "so little practical value" bit is a very subjective statement - especially without having a review to compare facts against. In my book a 24mm f/2.8 canon lens with a reasonable price is far more "practical" than a manual 25mm Zeiss at over a grand a pop... it's a nice lens for sure but just too expensive.
Both have been reviewed at SLRGear.com. Interesting that the 28 has one of the lowest user ratings - 43%. Sorry, I just don't see the USP (unique selling point) anymore. A 17-40/4 zoom looks far more practical and better value for money than a bagful of low tier primes. I can see a 28/1.8 being eminently useful (from the extensive discussions at Fredmiranda.com it appears that it's unusable wide open but a sharp area suddenly appears in the center at f/2.0). But f/2.8 isn't that fast in our times of Tamron and Sigma 17-50.
P.S. The Zeiss sure is an oddity but there's a diehard Zeiss fan crowd that doesn't count the money if it's about a new Zeiss lens. Me, I'd rather scrape and save for a 24/1.4 L, even the first version.
P.P.S. I second the idea of reviewing the "other two" T&S lenses. Bring 'em on! (and someday I might buy one for my wife to use on her NEX <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />)