02-07-2012, 08:37 AM
[quote name='popo' timestamp='1328536258' post='15526']
Since I arguably fall into that camp, I'll bite.
[/quote]
Nope, you do not. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> 35/2 and 50/1.8 are obviously a different case, being faster than any Canon-mount zoom on the planet. I own a 50 myself. However, discussing the 24 and 28 is obviously off now that the new versions have been released. I'm still skeptical because at that price I might as well get a 17-40L (though I obviously don't need one).
Well, there's a lot to be had here, why not? Looks like the 28-135 lens is decent enough (see SLRGear.com test). But I'm not sure any of the lower tier ones would do the 5D Mark II justice. I've seen the test results from a 28-105 lens (over at TDP) and they look horrible.
Maybe because camera bodies have a much shorter lifespan than lenses and so better glass is being bought "for the ages" in the anticipation of the inevitable upgrade? I did this with the 70-200/2.8 IS: I had a 30D at the time which I knew I'm going to replace with a 1D series body in the end (and so I did). The 70-200 slays on both and will likely outlive my current 1D body as well (I hope to get a 1D Mark IV sometime down the road). I know that unless I drown it in a river it'll serve me for many more years.
I don't need really a midrange zoom either so I'm fine with a 24-85 USM. However that might change depending on what I'm going to do with my photography in the near future, so the Tamron 24-70 already looks pretty darn interesting. Either of the 24-70Ls not as much (no IS, way too expensive).
Since I arguably fall into that camp, I'll bite.
[/quote]
Nope, you do not. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> 35/2 and 50/1.8 are obviously a different case, being faster than any Canon-mount zoom on the planet. I own a 50 myself. However, discussing the 24 and 28 is obviously off now that the new versions have been released. I'm still skeptical because at that price I might as well get a 17-40L (though I obviously don't need one).Quote:I looked at the cheap standard zooms for the 5D2 I recently got. When I get gear, it is to enable me to do things that I couldn't before, or to do it more easily. The 5D2 offers me shallow DoF usage beyond crop sensor capabilities. But sometimes, you want to do the simple things too. My crop sensor bodies will always be the "go to" cameras, with the 5D2 serving a narrow niche. I may occasionally call upon the 5D2 in a supporting role, where I just need a simple "good enough" lens. Not every shot needs a 4 figure priced L lens.
Well, there's a lot to be had here, why not? Looks like the 28-135 lens is decent enough (see SLRGear.com test). But I'm not sure any of the lower tier ones would do the 5D Mark II justice. I've seen the test results from a 28-105 lens (over at TDP) and they look horrible.
Quote:Look at it the other way. I can't see why people always want the lens to outperform the sensor. It's perfectly ok for a lens to be better than a sensor, but not the sensor to be better than the lens?
Maybe because camera bodies have a much shorter lifespan than lenses and so better glass is being bought "for the ages" in the anticipation of the inevitable upgrade? I did this with the 70-200/2.8 IS: I had a 30D at the time which I knew I'm going to replace with a 1D series body in the end (and so I did). The 70-200 slays on both and will likely outlive my current 1D body as well (I hope to get a 1D Mark IV sometime down the road). I know that unless I drown it in a river it'll serve me for many more years.
Quote:Having said all that, I do have a small itch for either a 24-70L or 24-105L to go with it... but I don't *need* either.
I don't need really a midrange zoom either so I'm fine with a 24-85 USM. However that might change depending on what I'm going to do with my photography in the near future, so the Tamron 24-70 already looks pretty darn interesting. Either of the 24-70Ls not as much (no IS, way too expensive).