Is 24-70 II worth the price

Started Jul 30, 2012 | Discussions thread
OP DerStig Regular Member • Posts: 183
Re: You should revise your assumptions and work on your technique

You seriously have issues:) Don't you have a real job? You must be the P.I. of this forum looking at my posts from a year ago.

Can you tell me in your mind who should buy 5d mark 3 or 24-70 II? This camera and this lens is ADVERTISED for the same purposes I want to buy them for. Low light, focus, noise reduction, sharp images, dynamic range, etc. This is why I also want to buy them. But somehow you think my desire to achieve what I want in these areas is not warranted and thus you think I'm wasting my money. So tell me, under what circumstances this gear is not considered waste of money? On one hand, people say 5d3 is only "entry level" full frame camera and anyone wanting something "professional" should get 1DX, on the other hand, people who are not satisfied with the Rebel series cameras and wanting to go for more is considered idiots for buying the "entry level" full frame - where is the logic in that?

I have sat down last night and spent 2 hours taking hundreds of pictures. I have tried F1.4 to F2.2, with (bouncing with every single angle on its X, Y, and Z axis) or without Flash, with different white balance settings, with every single focus mode available. No matter what I have done, I cannot get the level quality and detail I want from this camera. The pictures look nice cropped in a laptop, but the minute you put them on a 40" LCD (which is what we do), you start seeing all sorts of problems with it. I could never take any of these pictures and have a large print made out of them. I have spent so much money for infrastructure (hard drives, backups, computers, websites, etc) to store/process/distribute these images, but because my camera equipment sucks, so does the end result. This is like driving an M3, but going cheap and buying $100 tires for it, instead of the $400 ones.

Canon releases these lenses so rarely that, I see this lens as an investment. This lens in particular will do wonders for many years. As 5d mark 3 is very new, I can say the same about that. Is it expensive? Yes, but the way I see it, the next best thing that I would buy is the 7D or the new 7D with L glass which would again cost me at least 3 grand. In the grand scheme of things, 2 grand extra to me is nothing, to me it is waste of money if I spend 3 grand on crop camera and get something that is barely different than what I have.

graphikal wrote:

Let's recap:

You've claimed that the T2i can't track your daughter well enough. However, others track their family well enough using similar cameras. You also posted in this thread in appreciation in shots of largely motionless children, saying that those are exactly the sort of shots you wish to take. The T2i is more than sufficient for these types of shots.

You've stated your belief that ISO 6400 on the 5D Mark III is superior to ISO 800 on the T2i, over a three stop difference. The real difference, as shown by controlled studio comparison images, is between one and two stops; this means that you will be sorely disappointed if you buy a 5D Mark III camera for your expected ISO improvement. It's a great camera, but it can't work miracles.

You've posted in this thread in a way showing that you're confused about the relationship between ISO, aperture and shutter speed. Your post history shows that you have a tendency to underexpose images and not to correct for white balance. You've claimed here that you've been using the T2i for 2.5 years, but your post history shows that you've been using DSLRs for less than 2 years. You're somewhat of a newbie-- this is not a harsh reality or an insult, just a simple fact.

Though you have changed your statements in some ways in this thread about what you want, let's assume that it's to be able to capture in-focus images of your daughter at relatively wide apertures. The 24-70L II, which hasn't hit the streets yet, will do this approximately as well as the version I. This tends to show that you simply want to "throw money at the problem"-- in this case, poor results caused by poor technique.

The answer to your set of issues is relatively simple, and has been discovered by many before you. Inform yourself and practice. When you get poor results, learn how to improve them. Photography (the technical side) is in huge part about hands-on practice, informed by knowledge perhaps, but the practice is essential.

If you want more light, you should learn how to use a flash properly in order to find out whether that would suit you. Your posting history within the last year showed a preference for using flash to expose indoor images at f/11, a far cry from the proper use of flash at wide apertures to shoot candids of the family indoors.

In addition, you can try much simpler techniques such as simply turning on a light or two when it gets dark, or opening the drapes. Many people don't think to do that, and you seem to fit that category.

Your situation really isn't about needing pro-level gear, and advice about what gear to get. Your situation doesn't call for it. That doesn't mean you can't get pro-level gear-- but it's not the heart of the problem.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
BAK
BAK
BAK
(unknown member)
HSU
BAK
BAK
BAK
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
BAK
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow