Mark K
Veteran Member
Thank you for the clarification. I used to buy quite a lot Sigma lenses....but I have been undecided for years until the announcement of 24-70GMII..。
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
First pictures taken with Sony GM 24-70/2.8 Mk2
- Thread starter Vertumnus
- Start date
M
Malling
Guest
Wildlife in many cases uses primes like 300, 400, 500, 600 and 800mm, it certainly isn’t a make it a break it as it’s normal to have 100mm yes even 200mm between lenses for that field, the same with sports.
I never seen or heard anyone define a 50mm more or less as such as a break it especially as you can crop.
I have not once heard a landscape photographer define that as a make it or break it, there is some who gladly venture out with a 28- to something, I shoot mainly stuff like that and I can guarantee the times I had one over the other didn’t break it, I shot mainly landscape for 6 months with a 28mm lens, just as I have with 24mm and neither of times the lack of one of these has any results in missed opportunities.
lacking UW or Tele now that can really be a make it a break it in those genres and 35 and 50mm in others.
What I also wrote, it gives a slight difference in compression, but it’s not really that big, a different between a 20 and 24 yes that’s quite noticeable or a or a 24 and 35.
If you cannot back out a 24mm is rarely wide enough to begin with. Then you need a UW in the 12-24mm range either in form of a zoom or prime.
I rarely been in a situation where I was against a wall or a deep fall with 24mm and it was just wide enough, often it wasn’t or a 28mm would still be good enough. The difference is mostly just that different rather then a missed opportunity.
And I can crop a 24mm to become 28mm.. but I can't crop a 28mm to be 24mm...
It is for me. And many others I know. So there, you just heard one.
I've been doing this for 25 years... a bit more than 6 months.
M
Malling
Guest
It was 6months abroad where shooting was basically what I did other times it was while doing volunteer work , not just going out in your spare time. I’ve been shooting landscape since I was a teenager.
Last edited:
D
Dspider
Guest
tested my 28 75 Tg2 at the edges for group studio work and its sharp to the very edge its one of the main reasons i bought it as i have to shoot 9 meter wide backdrops and up to 40 dancers at a time.
Ds
--
The confusion starts when the scientists can't agree amongst themselves. Henry F
Last edited:
PWPhotography
Forum Pro
Guess you don't get my points. If you only carry one lens that I'd agree 24mm is wider than 28mm. But I carry multiple lenses and two bodies into trips, this 24mm has no special magic but just another FL. In my setup, 16-35 GM or 14 GM default on camera 1 (A1) and Tamron 28-75 default on camera 2 (A7r IV), so you see Tamron starts from 28mm has no issue at all but only advantage in less FL overlapping and still much lighter. 16mm is truly much wider than 24mm compared to 24mm vs 28mm. Once I get used to 16mm wide, 24mm is too 'narrow' in many scenes
You’re missing my points…
So why carry a 28-75? Why not just carry a bag of primes?
TO YOU.
You like having a range of 28mm to 75mm in one lens, it reduces lens switches for YOU. It’s right for YOU.
Being I DISLIKE 28mm…. 24-70 works a lot better for me. For ME, 28mm is useless. For ME, 24-70 works a lot better.
FOR YOU. Not everyone uses that setup.
16mm isn’t wide enough FOR me. When I want wide, I prefer 11-14. (Gave up 11 when I switched to Sony, so now 12-14). When I want wide/normal, I want 24mm. 28mm is useless to me.but only advantage in less FL overlapping and still much lighter. 16mm is truly much wider than 24mm compared to 24mm vs 28mm. Once I get used to 16mm wide, 24mm is too 'narrow' in many scenes
My simple point that you don’t seem to get — what works for YOU, doesn’t work for ME.
OKAY! Enough already. Your point is made! None of you guys is going to change the mind of the other. Let’s move on…You’re missing my points…
So why carry a 28-75? Why not just carry a bag of primes?
TO YOU.
You like having a range of 28mm to 75mm in one lens, it reduces lens switches for YOU. It’s right for YOU.
Being I DISLIKE 28mm…. 24-70 works a lot better for me. For ME, 28mm is useless. For ME, 24-70 works a lot better.
FOR YOU. Not everyone uses that setup.
16mm isn’t wide enough FOR me. When I want wide, I prefer 11-14. (Gave up 11 when I switched to Sony, so now 12-14). When I want wide/normal, I want 24mm. 28mm is useless to me.but only advantage in less FL overlapping and still much lighter. 16mm is truly much wider than 24mm compared to 24mm vs 28mm. Once I get used to 16mm wide, 24mm is too 'narrow' in many scenes
My simple point that you don’t seem to get — what works for YOU, doesn’t work for ME.
fboss
Forum Enthusiast
Focal length is definitely a matter of personal preference. There is no good or wrong choice.
I currently own the Tamron 28-75 G2, and it's a great lens, very sharp across the zoom range, fast and accurate AF, nice contrast and colors, etc. Not sure why the OP used the word "crappy" when talking about Tamron, they are making some very good lenses these days. The limiting factor is usually the photographer (creativity, technique, etc.)
Unless, and that's another preference matter, one has a higher sensitivity on a perfectly sharp corner to corner image , rather than an original/different picture.
With that said, I may consider switching to the 24-70GM2 at some point. I really like the multiple "small things" like the aperture ring (that I use all the time on my other GM lenses); the 24mm (although 28mm works well for me); the small opening in the hood to adjust the polarized filter, the MF/AF switch, etc. But still not sure if it's worth the price and weight difference with the Tamron.
( I owned the Sigma 24-70 DG DN and while the results were great, I didn't enjoy using it because of the size/weight/front heavy. Again, a preference thing, don't try to convince me it's a perfect lens; I know it's perfect for some
)
Last edited:
PWPhotography
Forum Pro
Whatever, pointless.
Yeah you helped me to realize I just cannot take photos from Tamron 28-75 simply because it doesn't start at 24mm ;-)
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
Yeah you helped me to realize I just cannot take photos from Tamron 28-75 simply because it doesn't start at 24mm ;-)
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
Last edited:
???? You can take as many photos as you want with the 28-75.... as long as you want to take photos in the range of 28mm to 75mm.
IF you want to take photos at 24mm, then the Tamron will not serve that purpose.
Different people have different needs. Which is why the Tamron may be the right choice for some people, and the wrong choice for other people. I'm a huge fan of the Tamron but found it wasn't for me, as the range was not useful FOR ME.
Exactly what I was trying to say.
Agreed.
Agreed again. The Tamron definitely isn't crappy. It's an exceptional lens. But I find a need 24mm in a standard zoom, so the Tamron wasn't for me. Lots of exceptional lenses aren't right for me, for a variety of reasons.
D
Dspider
Guest
Visited your flkr and couldn't find 1 24mm image ;-) you even cropped long focal length images to look like panos ;-)
Ds
--
The confusion starts when the scientists can't agree amongst themselves. Henry F
Last edited:
fboss
Forum Enthusiast
There are some, with the 14GM, 20G, 24GM, 12-24, etc.
example:
Some nice wide angle pictures.
Last edited:
I probably have a few hundred more taken between 24-25mm (many with the Batis 25mm), not all public.
--
Enthusiast Photography Blog | Tips, opinions and gear reviews
Tips, opinions and gear reviews
enthusiastphotoblog.com
PWPhotography
Forum Pro
What's point then?
Gee, this 24mm FL must have some magic AOV ;-) I know it's a holy-grail to some but just another regular FL to me, nothing special. Really as someone shown you above in AOV comparison, it's not that big difference between 24 and 28mm, but much bigger between 16 and 24mm.
Really that difference between 24 and 28mm is so big like day and night, sky and earth? ;-) You are exaggerating totally unproportionally.
All these photos taken from original Tamon 28-75. Thought it's incapable of taking photos in your definition ;-)
hand-held
hand-held
hand-held
hand-held
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
Last edited:
again, 28-75 works for you. Some very nice photos. Not my tastes, I prefer 24-70… why can’t you accept that different people have tastes?
Why don’t you just shoot everything with a 35mm? 35 is close to 28.. so why bother with a 28-75? I assume it’s because it’s a range you like. I owned the 28-75 for 2 years but found I was never using it, because I did not like being limited to 28 at the wide end. You’re happy with 28mm… good for you. I don’t judge your tastes. Why can’t you accept that I’m much happier with 24mm?
http://enthusiastphotoblog.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/havoc315/
Why don’t you just shoot everything with a 35mm? 35 is close to 28.. so why bother with a 28-75? I assume it’s because it’s a range you like. I owned the 28-75 for 2 years but found I was never using it, because I did not like being limited to 28 at the wide end. You’re happy with 28mm… good for you. I don’t judge your tastes. Why can’t you accept that I’m much happier with 24mm?
I’m exaggerating to say that I have different tastes then you? Why do you feel you can force your tastes on others? I don’t judge your preference for 28mm. Please don’t judge my preference for 24mm.
--All these photos taken from original Tamon 28-75. Thought it's incapable of taking photos in your definition ;-)
hand-held
hand-held
hand-held
hand-held
http://enthusiastphotoblog.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/havoc315/
Last edited:
M
Malling
Guest
You got those reply because you where exaggerating the importance of it in general terms from the beginning , you made it sound like a make it or break it range and you first added the my personal choice later on when someone confronted you with the exaggeration.again, 28-75 works for you. Some very nice photos. Not my tastes, I prefer 24-70… why can’t you accept that different people have tastes?
Why don’t you just shoot everything with a 35mm? 35 is close to 28.. so why bother with a 28-75? I assume it’s because it’s a range you like. I owned the 28-75 for 2 years but found I was never using it, because I did not like being limited to 28 at the wide end. You’re happy with 28mm… good for you. I don’t judge your tastes. Why can’t you accept that I’m much happier with 24mm?
I’m exaggerating to say that I have different tastes then you? Why do you feel you can force your tastes on others? I don’t judge your preference for 28mm. Please don’t judge my preference for 24mm.
All these photos taken from original Tamon 28-75. Thought it's incapable of taking photos in your definition ;-)
hand-held
hand-held
hand-held
hand-held
Few has issues, well I certainly don’t, with what you prefer and like, I think most can accept it. A rule is however almost always not make up or exaggerate things to underline and back up your personal subjective choices.
It would just have been enough to write I want to have 24mm coverage as that is a range I use a lot and is something I like to have and use. However making up reasons that can easily factually be contradicted one should always be aware about, especially if it end up making subjective preferences into objective parameters, objectively the difference between 24mm and 28mm isn’t very large.
Let me also point out I got both covered and you also see me find it annoying when a 14/16- something end at 28mm or 30mm although the difference is small because I personally like the 35mm range, but I’m aware it’s just my personal preference and objectively should not be stopped by a lens that is slightly short off it.
Last edited:
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum