50 and 24-70 zeiss, does it make sense to own both ?

[Jb502]

Just like it says. I have both. Just wondering if I should sell the 50 and get some other lenses. Or continue on until I have all zeiss lenses.

Only reason I see to keep the 50 is for the 1.4 when I need it. Problem is at 1.4 dof is so shallow, I almost have to go to 2.8 anyways.

I guess it's also smaller too. So that's another reason.

 

[havoc315]

You answered your own question. If you sometimes want something lighter, or if you sometimes need extreme low light, it's worth keeping the 50.

 

[Alpha Tech]

The 50 is also a good base lens for testing camera malfunctions and comparisons with other lenses you acquire over the years.

 

[Evildogofdoom]

I have both and use both regularly on an A99. Size is definitely a factor, but the quality of the 50mm even at 1.4 is better than the 24-70 ( if you pixel peep!). I also love shooting with primes!

 

[MediaArchivist]

Problem is at 1.4 dof is so shallow,

Learn to use a shallow DoF. You have one of the best lenses in the world to work with, embrace it! Try to visualize the focal plane, in particular how the angle changes as the camera moves. You may find you get better results with your subject off center, where the angle of the focal plane cuts across the subject in a way where more is in focus.

It is not easy, and you have to do it a lot to get the hang of it— but you be rewarded with shots that otherwise would not exist. Hopefully, they will include many keepers

--
Want a roXplosion!?

 

[911Tyson1]

If you do low light photography then yes. I own both and there is no substitute. Each serves it's own purpose. Image quality of a prime is still hard to beat.

 

[Bucky1971]

I own both and truthfully, I'm sorry I bought the 50 prime. In my Nikon days I shot almost exclusively with the 50, and I love the standard lens. There is no question the IQ on the CZ 50 is incredible. However, I find that for $1500 it is not worth it, if you have the CZ 24-70.

The CZ 24-70 is just and sharp and I use a flash or bump the ISO if the light is too dark for 2.8. On my A99 the 24-70 is by far my most used lens.

For my type shooting (portraits and landscape) I prefer the 24-70. If I had to do it again I would go with CZ 85 or 135.

Good luck

 

[EinsteinsGhost]

Just like it says. I have both. Just wondering if I should sell the 50 and get some other lenses. Or continue on until I have all zeiss lenses.

Only reason I see to keep the 50 is for the 1.4 when I need it. Problem is at 1.4 dof is so shallow, I almost have to go to 2.8 anyways.

I guess it's also smaller too. So that's another reason.

IMO, a normal lens compliments a zoom better than be a substitute for it unless you also get additional primes to cover wider angles. With 24-70, the significance lies in 24-50mm FL which can be crucial.

The 50/1.4 may have very shallow DOF but can be quite useful when light gets really low or the subject farther (when DOF increases).

 

[nyoneway]

I have both. Picked up the 50mm recently. IMO the 50mm gives you a slightly better IQ and about 2 stops of light for those indoor shots. I wanted to shoot my moving baby, indoor, at <3200 iso without flash and that extra stop or two of light let me shoot at a faster shutter speed which increase my keeper rate.

In hindsight, I feel the upgrade wasn't worth the $1500 as an addition to the 24-70z.