Recent circumstances (that last over a month) prevent me from taking up the offer. Thanks. [ My heavy duty library will last me 3 lifetimes; & the free online courses offered by the few big-time univ's (if i care to sit down w/ pens & paper) ]
This video is a wonderful example of being intentional. The simple habit of returning the zoom to a fixed setting adds purpose to thinking about where you stand. Framing starts with seeing and moving, not zooming. Brilliant!
Funny that you mentioned that you like to make 35mm your default focal length on your zoom. It’s what I’ve been doing for years and always secretly wished that there could be a clickable/de-clickable zoom setting in steps of 24-28-35-50-70. Photographer friends always looked at me questionable of my sanity when I said this lol. Glad I’m not alone.
Hitchcock pioneered the video technique of moving towards the subject whilst zooming out and moving away whilst zooming in. Mystical weird effects. So, with any zoom lens you have a thousand different possibilities, you just need to look for them. Nothing wrong with a 24-70, it's what you do with it that counts.
I am happy that you mention the Nikon D750 because I have no reason to switch to any Z system yet because the performance of this tool is phenomenal. I have used it at 24 hours racing events and was astound the first time I saw what that machine can do in environments so dark that I had to guess what I see. Also for astrophotography it is amazing. Does it excel for portraits because of the colour rendering? I think so, because there is never a time I cannot boost the colours at which they become uselessly degraded. That matters because it will also allow me to choose other profiles and still get the colour scheme I am after. I don't wanna argue that Canon has the best colours for portraits, that is a useless debate, even when it is true. What is the best colour, depends completely on the photographer's taste. I love the D750 because of it's versatility and because of the large dynamic range, I have not bracketed a landscape photo in the last 3 years that I own this camera. I could go on and possibly annoy people who use something else, but nobody can convince me that this camera is not the best I have ever had.
Another great video. Martin, what I love about your videos, and why I keep coming back to watching them (I also look forward to every new one that drops), is that you inspire me to take pictures. And to understand my cameras and lenses, from a real world perspective of experience and a love of the art. Thank you. 🙏
I recently shot a weekend morris dancing event. I use dual camera harness and primes but it can be so much work. A 24-70 would have been great as sometimes the dancers were moving just outside of where I could frame them well. But also by now I have a good understanding of what focal lengths I want to catch certain shots so I think a zoom could be really useful to just have a bit of wiggle room based on movement
Good video! It's ironic to see this because I just spent 3 weeks in Scotland from the US with my m43 12-40mm (24-80 focal in ff terms) and started trying to use 25mm (50mm view) when I could make it work. I would also see if I could make 17mm (35mm) work instead of the mindset of starting with the entire zoom range.
Brilliant, learned so much from this video, I did not even have a strategy about how to use my zooms before, was going just on intuition before. Man, did you open my eyes ! Will put this to good use. Thanks a lot.
If one understands that near-far size perspective - how big nose looks relative face - then the value of a 24-70mm or 24-105mm becomes obvious, being able to shoot full-length to head-and-shoulders crops in-camera from the same -most flattering - shooting distance. A 24mm-105mm will allow for tighter headshot crop. Controlling near-far size perspective with shooting distance is most useful when dealing with asymmetrical faces, which most non-models have some degree. Models tend to have slender, symmetrical faces which look good from full, oblique, and profile views. Wider or uneven faces will be flattered more with oblique views, something I learned back in the early 1970s apprenticing with then assisting popular PPofA Master Photographer / Teacher / Author Monte Zucker. Monte taught me to analyze a face for symmetry by looking at it from the five ‘cardinal’ angles: right profile, right oblique, full face, left oblique, left profile to determine: 1) was it symmetical, and; 2) if not which angle was more flattering, usually one of the two oblique views. Then with an oblique view the camera distance is altered in and out from a starting distance of 8’ until the face appears most balanced. Then the focal length for the desired in-camera crop is selected. The 24-70mm is also a good range for photojournalism when using a ‘cinematic’ storytelling approach with a wide ‘establishing’ shot, ‘medium’ crops showing ‘actors’ in the context of the environment, and then action ‘close-up’ of hands doing things, facial reactions, and ‘cut-aways’ showing the scene ‘over the shoulder’ of the subject from their POV. When starting out doing PJ work in college in 1970-72 I used a pair of Nikon F bodies with 35mm f/2 and 85mm f/1.8 Nikor lenses. When I switched to Canon DSLR in 2004 with a 20D I started carried EF-S 10-22mm, 24-70mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8 and a pair of 580ex flashes in my shoulder bag and was able to handle any situation with the 24-70mm used for the majority of the shots taken.
I really appreciate this suggestion. I've begun to notice how the "wrong" focal length is detracting from my photos, especially when shooting models in tight spaces. It's also an issue when shooting tighter portraits and forgetting to use a longer focal length for the more flattering perspective. It's so easy to forget camera to subject distance when you can change your framing without moving.
When I shoot weddings with my Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 I sometimes start the lens at 17mm and use that and use 40mm for portraits. Then when I need to really get my candids I just zoom and go with it. Sometimes you're with a lot of people and something is happening fast and you just need that 28mm or even 24mm.
This is by far one of the most honest reviews I've seen in so much time. I started falling in love with my D3S again and happened to see your review on it, then it led me to this video. Your sample shots are simply stunning and breathtaking, those sample shots are what I strive for, amazing. This review is exactly what I needed on my search for finding a great zoom lens, especially one that I can utilize more for travel. May I ask which specific lens are you using, is this one the sigma art? You've found a true fan in me. Thank you
When I had an EF 24-70mm f/4, I found myself choosing the focal length as I picked up the camera. I would move the zoom ring before the camera got to my eye. My preference is always primes, which are much lighter and a stop or more faster. But you cannot beat the flexibility of a zoom, especially when shooting people who are moving around. On my Olympus system, I am finding my 12-40mm should always be my first choice for just about any task, if I am being practical. I don't love using either, but the results are excellent and they let you get the job done very efficiently. Remember, using a zoom is not about fear of missing out because you have a fixed prime mounted. It is knowing you WILL miss out!
In my local travels, exploring cities and villages of Saudi Arabia.. I carry two bodies with two lenses on my shoulders (double strap): 24-70 and 70-200. This works better for me, as I'm always in unfamiliar grounds & unknown subject distances.
Great video Martin. The last wedding I did with my Canon R5 I used the 24-70 too much! I kept using 24 as my pick up focal length and that hurt me a lot. I got too many shots at 24 so I’m lucky I had the 45mp of the Canon R5. My most favourite image of the ceremony was shot on 24 and cropped to about an 85. If I continue to use Canon I think the 28/70 could be a great lens for the ceremony or even the 24-105 because at 105 F4 the close ups will be in focus and have a fantastic mushy background. On my CH2S Fuji I exclusively shoot primes.
It is all about perspective, where to stand in relation to the subject. The focal length is a secondary concern that follows, allowing the photographer to define the crop for a given perspective.
Truth: more like user problem Be creative But sadly human will creatively get different excuse Common one : right ,let me get that lens , which made me take better photo
Thanks for the video, Martin. The example photos were outstanding! And excellent discussion. I have a 40-yr old Canon 35-105 f3.5-4.5 zoom, which I have started to use as a '35 prime with bonus zoom'. Would prefer f2.8 though! A sharp 24-70 is on my wish list. Completely agree with your advice about learning the feel of distance from my subject. As a new photographer playing with different focal lengths, that's one of the things I'm working on at the moment.
I decided to get the Canon 24-105 f4 L lens. I did not mind giving up f2.8 for f4 because I wanted the extra reach of 105mm. I do a lot of live music photography in a 180 seat club. I use mostly full frame bodies so I can crank up the ISO a bit to compensate for the f4. It has never been an issue. And of course f4 is never an issue if I'm outdoors. Thanks for another excellent video.
I have one, but it's a heavy thing to carry around all day. I bought a 24-85 f/3.5-4.5G (they are cheap used) and it is significantly smaller and lighter.
@@PJ-om2wq I don't notice the weight that much, but everyone is different. I used the battery grip on both my 810 and 610 and tend to keep the 85 on one and the 24-120 on the other.
@@RichardFraser-y9t I use them on a D780. Recently I bought a Df and I'm trying to stick to small AF-D prime lenses on that and spread them out through different coat pockets.
My favourite is the 70-200, its versatility and sharpness are hard to beat. That said, the 24-70 has unique strengths and delivers just as well. AND..... there’s no such thing as a ‘boring’ lens; in the right hands, even a 24-70 can capture extraordinary, compelling shots. It’s all about the photographer’s vision and skills. It's not for nothing the 24-70 is a press photographer's workhorse. And... Yes, true.. its all about personal opinions/preferences.... this just happens to be my own. And... you mentioned that your "default is 35mm" when working on it... personally I set it around 50mm instead
I've never owned a 24-70; for film : I still have a 24-35, AF24-50 , (ya25 !)a 25-50 very briefly (got robbed together w/ a new body in 82). I borrowed a friend's 35-70 to shoot his wedding in 1980. My most used fixed focal is a m-mount 40 f/2. {Most of the above zooms cover 40, & recently the 40 & 24-50 have become in vogue; I'm getting the cheaper but "better?" 40 f/2 viltrox to AF} My present edc is the compactly amazing FE 28-60 (variable aperture though; the ubit.40 again) Old story: I had a 35 f/2 , the f/2 was absolutely not usable. Remember the one-time ad not that many yrs ago by big-L "Every aperture (of L-lenses) is a usable aperture !" There are new generations of young L-worshippers; I'd say the a7cii w/a 40 would kick a lot of L-butts.{ I know it after using a 40 since the 80's } Too bad I don't have the 7c2, but its bigger brother. p.s. I agree w/ your inclination towards the 35 fl (& how to proceed). Thanks for one more real photo talk; it wasn't really about equipment - the 24-70.
Martin, this is brilliant! I recently moved to mirrorless and purchased the 24-70 to go with it. I love this lens, and have considered also purchasing a prime or two. Now I see that it isn't necessary. On my DSLR I use a 24 prime as well as a 50mm. Your suggestion of always using the starting point is brilliant and will save me a bunch of $$. Thank you.
Thank you. The 24-70/2.8 is typically the first lens I buy for any system that I plan to use for events. I will have to try your technique to see what I can learn forum it. Take care.
Hi Martin, thank you for all your help with these videos you put out, so informative! The image at 06:29 would you mind sharing what focal length this image was taken at, I would love to capture something similar this winter. Keep up the amazing work and once again, thank you.
my kit runs very simple, 14-24 F2.8 and 24-70 F4 with a lovely 75mm for portraits might add a longer prime for portraits though I like being close to my subject to properly communicate, distance to subject for myself MUST be easy talk and easy understand distance
100%! I do a lot of video work where I'm fixed to one spot, but the subject distance may be variable. So zooms are a must. Occasionally I desire to have a 35mm prime to do some photography, but I have to remind myself that I can just set the 24-70 to 35... It would be nice to have something with a 1.4f someday, but I can live with 2.8f for now.
In addition to this being the 35mm setting as your default or beginning point is possible subject distortion from the wide end, but starting at 35mm and working up is good where distortion lessens as we go up in the focal range, That is if we start at a full or half body distance.
Excellently explained Martin! I have considered buying this lens. I mainly do portraits and am quite happy with my 50mm 1.8 and 70-200 2.8. I have an 18-35 for my APSC, but I don't like it for portraits unless I'm trying to show more of the location like at events or vacation type shots. I tried the 85mm 1.8 but struggled with it (saw your video on how to use it), and returned it. Perhaps I should rent one and try your tips.
I couldn't agree more. Last time I had a 24-70 2.8 it was a small Nikon lens that I used with the F4. It was so much fun and so broadly useful for general up-close utility photography and people. The Canon EF 24-105/4 that I use now is a hephalump, not really fun, but equally useful.
Back with film had 2 lenses and 2x glass Think 24 was low cost The 90 came with camera 2x gave me lots of options Now Nikon coolpix p510 42x optical zoom 24-1,000rated
I have the a 16 - 50 mm 2.8 lens I use on my APS-C cameras it give me the equivalent of a 24- 70 lens. The lens is extremely sharp , performs great in low light. It has allowed me to reduce my lens kit to two lenses the 16 - 50 mm 2.8 and a 55- 300 4.5 - 5.6
It's a great video but, most of the time prime lens is more collected in a matter of perspective and distortion and to go wide to 1.4 or 1.2 resolving a dreamy look. So you are right about using a zoom lens as a prime that that is flexible. But we should not forget the benefit of good quality prime fast lens.thank you for your tips
All the film-creators are requesting for clickless aperture lenses but we photographers should be requesting for lenses with focal length locks ability. My best design lens was N 24-70 2.8 VR G F-mount, I do not know if this was intentional by Nikon but the focal length in which this lens was collapsed was 50mm which is my most liked / used focal. So I was able to hide camera with this lens to the bag and take it out when I saw something interesting and take a shot @ 50mm by default. Now in mirrorless world Nikon and others are producing lenses with collapse option which even doesn't give you an option to take a picture quickly, firstly you need to extend to 24mm and then take a shot. This is just stupid by design.
Hi Martin, thanks for this. It maked me think about trying, so I liked and subbed. I have a really excellent Sony GM mkii 24-70 f2.8, which in truth is awesome and makes a great 'start' point lens, even though I'm lucky enough to own about another 15 Sony lenses (mostly primes). My 24-70 is a typical travel or 'just in case' lens. I set/re-set to 24mm, not for the excellent reasons you suggest 35mm, but 'cus it's most compact at that setting. My other non extending zooms are left at whatever FL last used. Im totally guilty of seeing my 24-70 as a 'boring' lens - which logically makes no sense. Esp as Iove shooting my 35mm f1.4 GM prime as a single 'street mode' on full manual - neareyI can get to the Leica experience without buying one haha. But that is smaller, faster and at f1.4 helps street subjects 'pop' whilst retaining a little context in a soft background. Also one is seen as 'less threatening' than with a caged body and 24-70 f2.8, hood (and possibly other rigging for hybrid video too). A small body, lens in manual, forces thought, anticipation and 'speaks to me' about the joy of seeing, shooting, thinking about subject, composition and how one might better omtimise a photo opportunity without being 'bogged down' with kit decisions. Last Sat in London I carried to much glass and shot 80%+ with my 24-70 and the results were excellent (anything but boring)! So, I must re-appraise my attitude to the mid zoom lens. Of my other lenses 2 never got used and only a handful were with my 14mmf1.8 or my 70-200 f2.8. Anyway you made me think about trying a day out with just this one optic. I still love smaller faster primes though. I'm also now wondering if a smaller wider, slower 20-70 f4 might make any sense? It's difficult to know, without trying. Maybe I should rent one to try? Theoretically a faster f2 zoom if available might be good too (eg Canon but not Sony E). But I heard rumor today that Sony will shortly unveil a f2 rival (Nov 19th - not sure if its 24-70 or 28-70). Im also uncertain if the heft makes sense for me? I suspect not and could see a lighter f4 zoom with a small fast prime might be better alternative for me. An option possibly as I already have 14, 20, 24, 35, 50, 55, 85, 90 and 135 primes from Sony, some like 35 in both f1.4 & f1.8 versions. Also a non Sony shift 28mm . Really I need less glass and need to fine tune exactly what I should be keeping. Trouble is , having sold several lenses there are a few I miss, which sometimes forces a repurchase. Yes I do have a bad case of GAS.
Some great advice in this video. use zooms all the time, except when i do macro and break out the ef 100 IS USM as primes are good. However, the cost is a factor you need to budget for. As long as your 24-70 is constant f4, or f2.8 you should be able to Al, the same shots if you were using primes. I believe there is a snobbery, and elitist amooubg so photographers on using primes. However, modern zoom lens image quality is very, very good these days. Save your money on primes and invest in a very good 24-70 high quality lens.
I have the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 DG DN ART now, used to have the Canon EF version MKII before I switched. I always found my 24-70 boring. Maybe I am a Bokeh nut but then again every time I use my current 24-70 wide open I am shocked at the smooth bokeh and the sharpness. Then again I also am drooling over this 45 year old prime lens I shot with today and it might be more a modern vs vintage lens thing for me. Good video again Martin.
i don't use and have never use prime lenses (except for testing them at an event). i would not waste my money or time with them. the only exception might be a macro lens. Primes are no better (often worse) than zooms, they are also less useful
excellent advise. (I do very often use 24-70 on my DSLRs, but my Fuji X100 is a fixed "35mm" (equivalant). Back ind the days of film SLR I mainly used a 24 and 50mm primes, and I end up hate my 28-50zoom
I love the Sigma Art series 18-35 and 24-70 lenses in theory because of the quality of the glass and the fast apertures, but I haven't bought either of them because the focal lengths are so limited and I can get an even faster aperture in a Sigma Art prime lens with more usability and smaller size. Although all the Sigmas are pretty bulky in general.
Ita so easy to have it be a 24mm and just zoom to crop in, when you really just needed to get closer. For beginner's I'd suggest a 35 and 85mm, theyre my two of choice if I could only have two primes. I usually use a 35mm, 24-105, and a 150-600. Barely use my 90mm macro because I rarely do portrait and my favorite F stop is f4 or 5.6.
if you have started with prime lenses, you know how to use your imagination, to see the picture you are trying to shoot. The zoom helps you to find variations of your idea - is my way of working. You may call it framing by zooming, but I think it is a matter of intention.
Like the idea of using a zoom with a default focal length somewhere in the middle of the range, but for this to practically work the lens would need inner zoom, which is uncommon nowadays as it results in bulkier designs. Or maybe manufactorers could design the lenses from start in a way that the collapsed state, the focal length would be somewhere in the middle of the range.
There's an important thing you don't get with a zoom, and that's wide angle shallow dof. There's a night and day difference between 24mm 1.4 and 24mm 2.8 or slower.
I have definitely experienced the frustration of having to switch out lenses due to focal length restraints/needs (think wedding photos inside a crowded church with family). Wanting a 50mm (or above) for portraits and a wider focal length for group pictures and having to switch out lenses several times is not fun. The 24-70mm makes it so the photographer does not have to squeeze everyone together or bother onlookers to step away just to get the picture right.
Thank you, very interesting. I do have a 24-70 2.8 and and a 70-200 2.8. Very very (too?) sharp, wide enough to have a nice bokeh. I will setting the 24-70 to 35mm to give this a try. What would you recommend for the 70-200. Maybe 105? (like my beloved 105mm micro nikkor)
My favorite lens is actually the Nikkor 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 that I use with my D3x. It has proven itself time and again, to be the ultimate "workhorse" being very sharp and reasonably fast, combined with small size and light weight. 😊
I kind of had this lens back in the day but it was the Minolta version. I really liked it but mine was the 28-85mm. Now I really like my Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 on full frame this would be a 24-80mm f5.6.
@@bigrobotnewstoday1436 Yes. The Olympus 12-40 is also an amazing lens. The legendary Olympus sharpness. I have often thought about switching to Olympus MFT for a bit. I'm a fairly small girl, and I really feel the weight and size of the large Nikons. How do you like your Olympus system?
@@AgentPepsi1 I like the Olympus system I have two Olympus OMD E-M1ii cameras for weddings. I almost was thinking of selling my M43 gear and going full frame for better low light. But then DXO Deep PRIME came out best noise reduction and it can restore loss color due to high ISO. If I need more bokeh I can use Luminar NEO or Lightroom. But Luminar does not always detect the subject correct. So I only use it once in a blue moon for something really nice I want. But once I got DXO I can now shoot at ISO 6,400 with very little noise and the newer OM-1ii has 14-bit raw and is very good in low light now. With my Olympus OMD E-M1ii my cut off ISO was 3,200 the image still looks good its a little softer then ISO 1,600 but I need the flash to recharge faster. Over all I like the system and I'm keeping it. I might get a full frame camera at some point but I'm keeping my Micro Four Thirds gear. I also have the Panasonic 35-100mm f2.8 that's the 70-200mm f2.8 in full frame. Its a nice lens and its small. I've never had a client have a issue with any of my images using Micro Four Thirds. Look up Nick Ghonis he was a Olympus ambassador. OM systems got rid of most of their ambassador's because they are focused on targeting wildlife photographers now.
I bought Tamron 24-70 this summer specifically for a hiking trip. It was between that and 17-40 but I went with more zoom. I learned a couple of things: I'm glad I didnt go with 17-40 because I used 70 more often than not. I actually need more zoom. Secondly, 2.8 is bad choice for hiking as it makes it heavy and 2.8 is not relevant for landscape. So with that said, I think stabilized superzoom might be an ultimate hiking lens. 😅
If you capture in ethier Monochrome or B/W ..depending on your camera features . If you use LR/PS for editing does the image appear in colour or the intended MC /BW image you captured when it comes to editing / processing . I use affinity2 and it cannot recognise a MC / BW image . Always in colour it appears .. It's my main gripe with pic editing programs
I agree with you about the advantages of a zoom lens for travels and landscapes (probably not a 24-70 as it's usually heavy and has a limited range). But I'm not sure when it comes to weddings and corporate, especially when they're indoor or evening events. 35+85 it's a lightweight combo and probably they can give a more distinctive look. Ok, it would be perfect having a 24-70 for events, 24-105 for travelling and primes when needed, but I love the idea of less is more. Too many tools don't help my ideas, never.
24-70 or 35 and 85 both work well, i tend to think the zooms are more useful in countries where the venues can be smaller, our old stately homes in the uk can be very narrow and confined in places so zooming with your feet can leave you a bit stuck. ive done plenty of wedding with the 28 and 85 on nikon before. that worked well as a combo but you need 2 bodies to do it well rather than switching all the time imo.
@@MartinCastein Yep, it's exactly I work here in Italy, in venues that are not so different from the ones I've seen in England spacewise. Two bodies 35+85 or 35+50 in certain part of the day. Working with only one body and a 24-70 could be interesting, I should give It a try just to experiment. But actually I'm thinking about a 24-120, that to me would make more sense for travelling (not sure if I could use it for corporate events too).
@@emanueledonazza473 24-120 could be great, i shot a couple of weddings on the old nikon one on the d600 and had no trouble in the summer, barely ever went past iso 1600 and switched to a wider prime for the evening dance. That worked really well and made the day pretty simple too.
@@MartinCastein Thank you Martin, that's really helpful. I'll give it a try then. Let me tell you that your channel is plenty of good insights for pros as well. I'm a fan.
That's a good take on the 24-70. For me that's the lens on my camera probably 80% of the time. I definitely use it as a prime that can zoom. I'm shooting it at 45 - 55 mm 90% of the time. I didn't make myself do that, it's just a result of how I shoot and the distance from subject I will typically have. That said, if I have the space and ability to control my setting my favorite prime for portraits is my 100mm macro. But I would not want to be without my 24-70.
If people are bored of their Nikkor 24-70 f2.8 I'll happily take it as I'm cheap and only have the Nikkor 35-70mm f/2.8D which is great as it's cheap, lighter, cover the usual close portrait range. I always felt the 35,-70mm covers a very useful range for close portrait. I have a 20 & 24mm prime which are small and cheap if I need wider, but I always looked at them as landscape lenses.
I don't really understand what you mean with how to think about subject distance and how you work with it? I mean with a prime the subject distance will be what it is depending on the focal length for a particular framing. With a zoom you can choose another focal length and by that also get another subject distance and still have the same framing, but the distortion will be different at the wide end (big nose, thin face) vs the long end (flatter, wider face). So do you mean that there is a optimal subject distance or why did you bring this matter up in the video? Thanks and best regards from Sweden!
I agree, that wasn't explained particularly well. I take it to mean it is a starting point. Martin is probably very comfortable with 35mm so knows where to stand for a particular framing from experience. From there, he (and everyone with a zoom) can be more intentional about using a different focal length for a different look and standing closer / further back.
I think he meant along the lines of 35mm at x1 distance vs 70mm at x2 distance... you get the same framing but different aspects and different depth of field. (DOF at F2.8 is way thinner at 70mm than at 35mm.) Start with 35mm, pick the framing, and then adjust for desired depth of field / background blur / perspective.
@ I shoot mostly portraits, and document my family & kids. I was thinking original R6, but the R6 ii looks nice as well. Thank you! Love the channel, btw. It’s a nice change from some of the other stuff here on the ‘Tube.
I'm really conflicted about the 24-70 and I've been considering selling mine for a sigma art 35/1.4 since I have a 17-55 2.8 for my 7D ii. I'm a family and event photography so I tend to use 2 cameras, a 7D ii with 17-55 and a 6D with whatever prime is appropriate (45/2.8, 50/1.8, or 85/1.8), I usually just bring the 85 on a family shoot. If it's only 1 or 2 subjects I'll bring only the 85 and 50, no 7D and standard zoom. So the 24-70 doesn't really fit into any of these kits and stays home 90% of the time. It is useful for long exposure landscapes on a tripod, but that's a rare scenario. Now your video has me kinda rethinking maybe I could get some nice versatility from bringing the 24-70 and 85 to shoots where I don't need 2 cameras. Still, I think I get better image quality from the 17-55 than the mark 1 24-70, and the sigma art is stunning. It's a hard decision.
It sounds like your head is full of thoughts about gear rather than photography. You have more than enough good equipment already. A slightly different zoom isn't going to take your images to the next level. If you simply must spend money then spend it on some tuition - ideally some that will critique and feedback on your work.
@@xcx8646 hmm you come to the comments section on a video about gear to grill someone about their thoughts on the gear featured in the video. What did you expect to find? You do not know my background or my portfolio. As photographers these are our tools and they have a significant influence over the products we deliver and how we work. Why do you come here to belittle me over voicing my opinion when 90% of photography discourse on the internet is about gear anyway.
@@brendonwilson1318 No offence intended. Your post suggests you think that a slightly different lens will have a profound effect on your photography, and it seems to contain a lot of received internet wisdom, as often found on the gear forums. Someone experienced would usually know what they want, and why. Martin does talk about gear, but he's pretty clear that any of the better lenses are good enough. This video isn't about image quality or sharpness, it's about how to actually use a zoom, which is far more useful. If you haven't seen it, maybe check out Martin's video on photographers spending money on he wrong things.
I have the 35mm Sigma ART, and it is an absolute beauty. Using with the 5D mark I, it gave it an entirely new life: fast AF, and ability to shoot in low light. The difference between F1.8 and F1.4 does not seem much on paper, but in real life it is a total game hanger for the 5D classic - no hand held low light photos or gorgeous low light photos. It's not just the amount of light, but the camera can focus in low light, while with F1.8 Canon lenses struggle to lock focus, and mostly give up. With the 6D this will be of no importance as it is a great low light camera, but you will be able to use the 7D in low light situations a lot more effectively. Also, I found the great advantage of the Sigma ART is its phenomenal texture, and when shooting close-ups the background gorgeously melts away. It is absolutely spectacular on my 5D mark III (which is quite close sensor and imaging-wise to your 6D). I can say that the Sigma 35mm ART is my favorite lens - and on the 7D it will be an F1.4 55mm, a fantastic portrait lens. I am in the reverse situation, I have 3 bodies and 3 primes, and thinking of a zoom lens so I can have a quick and simple zoom setup I can carry with me versus planned shooting sessions where I have 35mm and 85mm primes on different bodies, and grab 35mm for full body shots and 85mm for head shots....
24-70mm what about 24-105 or even the 24-240mm? The 24=240mm is on my camera all the time never knowing where and when you will be or what is happening. A 24-105mm f/4 also for the closeness of places and works great for a simi micro for closeness.
I suspect a lot of people poo-poo zooms like this because: 1) they read that pro's use primes and buy into the internet snobbery; 2) having a fixed focal length makes composition easier by removing a variable, and 3) even the fastest at f2 aren't as fast as a good prime and they haven't yet realised how rarely they need to shoot wide open.
I was taught many years ago (early nineties) by a very experienced teacher/pro photographer who said that you will never have the perfect setup when you need it, if you cannot control "EVERYTHING" (you can't). He recommended that you should own whatever you can afford or justify, but to look at standard zooms at f4.0 and pair them with a few fast enough primes - f2.0 or f1.8 and maybe one special prime at f1.4 or f1.2, which would have been a 50/55mm lens back then. (I was fortunate to get the old FD 35-105 f3.5) But he was adamant about never taking more than 3 lenses. Ever. It took me 30 years to understand. The 24-70 is so useful.
Sometimes im sure people get over analytical just for the sake of creating content perpetuating the fixation on gear. You could use this title for any focal length of choice.
![[#2024MAMA] G-DRAGON - 무제(Untitled, 2014)+POWER+HOME SWEET HOME+뱅뱅뱅+FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ox29z5Nf1Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
The first 500 people to use my link skl.sh/martincastein10241 will get a 1 month free trial of Skillshare premium!
Recent circumstances (that last over a month) prevent me from taking up the offer.
Thanks. [ My heavy duty library will last me 3 lifetimes; & the free online courses
offered by the few big-time univ's (if i care to sit down w/ pens & paper) ]
This video is a wonderful example of being intentional. The simple habit of returning the zoom to a fixed setting adds purpose to thinking about where you stand. Framing starts with seeing and moving, not zooming. Brilliant!
Funny that you mentioned that you like to make 35mm your default focal length on your zoom. It’s what I’ve been doing for years and always secretly wished that there could be a clickable/de-clickable zoom setting in steps of 24-28-35-50-70. Photographer friends always looked at me questionable of my sanity when I said this lol. Glad I’m not alone.
Hitchcock pioneered the video technique of moving towards the subject whilst zooming out and moving away whilst zooming in. Mystical weird effects. So, with any zoom lens you have a thousand different possibilities, you just need to look for them. Nothing wrong with a 24-70, it's what you do with it that counts.
I am happy that you mention the Nikon D750 because I have no reason to switch to any Z system yet because the performance of this tool is phenomenal. I have used it at 24 hours racing events and was astound the first time I saw what that machine can do in environments so dark that I had to guess what I see. Also for astrophotography it is amazing. Does it excel for portraits because of the colour rendering? I think so, because there is never a time I cannot boost the colours at which they become uselessly degraded. That matters because it will also allow me to choose other profiles and still get the colour scheme I am after. I don't wanna argue that Canon has the best colours for portraits, that is a useless debate, even when it is true. What is the best colour, depends completely on the photographer's taste.
I love the D750 because of it's versatility and because of the large dynamic range, I have not bracketed a landscape photo in the last 3 years that I own this camera.
I could go on and possibly annoy people who use something else, but nobody can convince me that this camera is not the best I have ever had.
I like the idea of setting the zoom to a default focal length.
Another great video. Martin, what I love about your videos, and why I keep coming back to watching them (I also look forward to every new one that drops), is that you inspire me to take pictures. And to understand my cameras and lenses, from a real world perspective of experience and a love of the art. Thank you. 🙏
Thank you glad you like them!
I recently shot a weekend morris dancing event. I use dual camera harness and primes but it can be so much work. A 24-70 would have been great as sometimes the dancers were moving just outside of where I could frame them well. But also by now I have a good understanding of what focal lengths I want to catch certain shots so I think a zoom could be really useful to just have a bit of wiggle room based on movement
Good video! It's ironic to see this because I just spent 3 weeks in Scotland from the US with my m43 12-40mm (24-80 focal in ff terms) and started trying to use 25mm (50mm view) when I could make it work. I would also see if I could make 17mm (35mm) work instead of the mindset of starting with the entire zoom range.
Brilliant, learned so much from this video, I did not even have a strategy about how to use my zooms before, was going just on intuition before. Man, did you open my eyes ! Will put this to good use. Thanks a lot.
Glad it helped!
There are no boring lenses, just boring photographers :
Sebastiao Salgado had a kit with the 24-70, 70-300 & 85mm 1.2 .
If one understands that near-far size perspective - how big nose looks relative face - then the value of a 24-70mm or 24-105mm becomes obvious, being able to shoot full-length to head-and-shoulders crops in-camera from the same -most flattering - shooting distance. A 24mm-105mm will allow for tighter headshot crop.
Controlling near-far size perspective with shooting distance is most useful when dealing with asymmetrical faces, which most non-models have some degree. Models tend to have slender, symmetrical faces which look good from full, oblique, and profile views. Wider or uneven faces will be flattered more with oblique views, something I learned back in the early 1970s apprenticing with then assisting popular PPofA Master Photographer / Teacher / Author Monte Zucker.
Monte taught me to analyze a face for symmetry by looking at it from the five ‘cardinal’ angles: right profile, right oblique, full face, left oblique, left profile to determine: 1) was it symmetical, and; 2) if not which angle was more flattering, usually one of the two oblique views. Then with an oblique view the camera distance is altered in and out from a starting distance of 8’ until the face appears most balanced. Then the focal length for the desired in-camera crop is selected.
The 24-70mm is also a good range for photojournalism when using a ‘cinematic’ storytelling approach with a wide ‘establishing’ shot, ‘medium’ crops showing ‘actors’ in the context of the environment, and then action ‘close-up’ of hands doing things, facial reactions, and ‘cut-aways’ showing the scene ‘over the shoulder’ of the subject from their POV. When starting out doing PJ work in college in 1970-72 I used a pair of Nikon F bodies with 35mm f/2 and 85mm f/1.8 Nikor lenses. When I switched to Canon DSLR in 2004 with a 20D I started carried EF-S 10-22mm, 24-70mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8 and a pair of 580ex flashes in my shoulder bag and was able to handle any situation with the 24-70mm used for the majority of the shots taken.
This video is absolutely a gem, a real surprise. To the point ❤
I really appreciate this suggestion. I've begun to notice how the "wrong" focal length is detracting from my photos, especially when shooting models in tight spaces. It's also an issue when shooting tighter portraits and forgetting to use a longer focal length for the more flattering perspective. It's so easy to forget camera to subject distance when you can change your framing without moving.
The wedding photographer's zoom
When I shoot weddings with my Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 I sometimes start the lens at 17mm and use that and use 40mm for portraits. Then when I need to really get my candids I just zoom and go with it. Sometimes you're with a lot of people and something is happening fast and you just need that 28mm or even 24mm.
This is by far one of the most honest reviews I've seen in so much time. I started falling in love with my D3S again and happened to see your review on it, then it led me to this video. Your sample shots are simply stunning and breathtaking, those sample shots are what I strive for, amazing. This review is exactly what I needed on my search for finding a great zoom lens, especially one that I can utilize more for travel. May I ask which specific lens are you using, is this one the sigma art? You've found a true fan in me. Thank you
Thank you! All are taken on the canon 24-70 2.8 mark 1
@@MartinCastein thank you, I rewatched the video and saw that you had posted it in the very beginning.
@@chefenriqueavargas3326 Thats ok, i dont mind answering the question anyway :)
I literally just got home from picking up a used one of these... okay, now to watch your video.
Great advice, thanks Martin!
When I had an EF 24-70mm f/4, I found myself choosing the focal length as I picked up the camera. I would move the zoom ring before the camera got to my eye. My preference is always primes, which are much lighter and a stop or more faster. But you cannot beat the flexibility of a zoom, especially when shooting people who are moving around. On my Olympus system, I am finding my 12-40mm should always be my first choice for just about any task, if I am being practical. I don't love using either, but the results are excellent and they let you get the job done very efficiently. Remember, using a zoom is not about fear of missing out because you have a fixed prime mounted. It is knowing you WILL miss out!
In my local travels, exploring cities and villages of Saudi Arabia.. I carry two bodies with two lenses on my shoulders (double strap): 24-70 and 70-200. This works better for me, as I'm always in unfamiliar grounds & unknown subject distances.
24-70 is seen as boring because people are dumb. I say "people" because if this is an issue, you are not a photographer.
Great video Martin. The last wedding I did with my Canon R5 I used the 24-70 too much! I kept using 24 as my pick up focal length and that hurt me a lot. I got too many shots at 24 so I’m lucky I had the 45mp of the Canon R5. My most favourite image of the ceremony was shot on 24 and cropped to about an 85. If I continue to use Canon I think the 28/70 could be a great lens for the ceremony or even the 24-105 because at 105 F4 the close ups will be in focus and have a fantastic mushy background. On my CH2S Fuji I exclusively shoot primes.
It is all about perspective, where to stand in relation to the subject. The focal length is a secondary concern that follows, allowing the photographer to define the crop for a given perspective.
That is what many do not understand or have really managed to make use of!
I do the default setting thing with my 24-105, with 40mm being my default. I like having a consistent starting point.
Always Great Educational Videos Martin .
Truth: more like user problem
Be creative
But sadly human will creatively get different excuse
Common one : right ,let me get that lens , which made me take better photo
Thanks for the video, Martin. The example photos were outstanding! And excellent discussion. I have a 40-yr old Canon 35-105 f3.5-4.5 zoom, which I have started to use as a '35 prime with bonus zoom'. Would prefer f2.8 though! A sharp 24-70 is on my wish list. Completely agree with your advice about learning the feel of distance from my subject. As a new photographer playing with different focal lengths, that's one of the things I'm working on at the moment.
I decided to get the Canon 24-105 f4 L lens. I did not mind giving up f2.8 for f4 because I wanted the extra reach of 105mm. I do a lot of live music photography in a 180 seat club. I use mostly full frame bodies so I can crank up the ISO a bit to compensate for the f4. It has never been an issue. And of course f4 is never an issue if I'm outdoors. Thanks for another excellent video.
Really useful advice. Thanks Martin
Amazing portraits, Martin
Beautiful images presented in this video Martin!
I made thousands of dollars working with a 24 to 70
I like my 24-120 f4 on my Nikon D810 and will put on my 50 or 85 F1.4 when needed.
I have one, but it's a heavy thing to carry around all day. I bought a 24-85 f/3.5-4.5G (they are cheap used) and it is significantly smaller and lighter.
@@PJ-om2wq I don't notice the weight that much, but everyone is different. I used the battery grip on both my 810 and 610 and tend to keep the 85 on one and the 24-120 on the other.
@@RichardFraser-y9t I use them on a D780. Recently I bought a Df and I'm trying to stick to small AF-D prime lenses on that and spread them out through different coat pockets.
@@RichardFraser-y9t interesting. 85 for portraits and 24-104 for all the rest?
@@PJ-om2wq I'm considering it over the 24-120 but I really don't know how worse it is in comparison.
My favourite is the 70-200, its versatility and sharpness are hard to beat.
That said, the 24-70 has unique strengths and delivers just as well. AND..... there’s no such thing as a ‘boring’ lens; in the right hands, even a 24-70 can capture extraordinary, compelling shots. It’s all about the photographer’s vision and skills.
It's not for nothing the 24-70 is a press photographer's workhorse. And... Yes, true.. its all about personal opinions/preferences.... this just happens to be my own.
And... you mentioned that your "default is 35mm" when working on it... personally I set it around 50mm instead
I've never owned a 24-70; for film : I still have a 24-35, AF24-50 , (ya25 !)a 25-50 very briefly (got robbed together w/ a new body in 82). I borrowed a friend's 35-70 to shoot his wedding in 1980.
My most used fixed focal is a m-mount 40 f/2. {Most of the above zooms cover 40, & recently
the 40 & 24-50 have become in vogue; I'm getting the cheaper but "better?" 40 f/2 viltrox to AF}
My present edc is the compactly amazing FE 28-60 (variable aperture though; the ubit.40 again)
Old story: I had a 35 f/2 , the f/2 was absolutely not usable. Remember the one-time ad not that
many yrs ago by big-L "Every aperture (of L-lenses) is a usable aperture !" There are new generations of young L-worshippers; I'd say the a7cii w/a 40 would kick a lot of L-butts.{ I know
it after using a 40 since the 80's } Too bad I don't have the 7c2, but its bigger brother.
p.s. I agree w/ your inclination towards the 35 fl (& how to proceed). Thanks for one more
real photo talk; it wasn't really about equipment - the 24-70.
Martin, this is brilliant! I recently moved to mirrorless and purchased the 24-70 to go with it. I love this lens, and have considered also purchasing a prime or two. Now I see that it isn't necessary. On my DSLR I use a 24 prime as well as a 50mm. Your suggestion of always using the starting point is brilliant and will save me a bunch of $$. Thank you.
Glad it was helpful!
You need to make "Why 35mm is Misunderstood" video. Why not 24mm, 135mm and 70-200mm also to complete the series?
Unlimited video idea 😂
eventually 😅 takes a lot of time to make.
Thank you. The 24-70/2.8 is typically the first lens I buy for any system that I plan to use for events. I will have to try your technique to see what I can learn forum it. Take care.
Hi Martin, thank you for all your help with these videos you put out, so informative! The image at 06:29 would you mind sharing what focal length this image was taken at, I would love to capture something similar this winter. Keep up the amazing work and once again, thank you.
70mm
my kit runs very simple, 14-24 F2.8 and 24-70 F4 with a lovely 75mm for portraits might add a longer prime for portraits though I like being close to my subject to properly communicate, distance to subject for myself MUST be easy talk and easy understand distance
My 24-70 is my “always on” lens. I start every shoot with the 24-70 mounted.
100%! I do a lot of video work where I'm fixed to one spot, but the subject distance may be variable. So zooms are a must. Occasionally I desire to have a 35mm prime to do some photography, but I have to remind myself that I can just set the 24-70 to 35... It would be nice to have something with a 1.4f someday, but I can live with 2.8f for now.
Martin, you are just one cool DUDE! Nicely Done.
In addition to this being the 35mm setting as your default or beginning point is possible subject distortion from the wide end, but starting at 35mm and working up is good where distortion lessens as we go up in the focal range, That is if we start at a full or half body distance.
Excellently explained Martin! I have considered buying this lens. I mainly do portraits and am quite happy with my 50mm 1.8 and 70-200 2.8. I have an 18-35 for my APSC, but I don't like it for portraits unless I'm trying to show more of the location like at events or vacation type shots. I tried the 85mm 1.8 but struggled with it (saw your video on how to use it), and returned it. Perhaps I should rent one and try your tips.
I couldn't agree more. Last time I had a 24-70 2.8 it was a small Nikon lens that I used with the F4. It was so much fun and so broadly useful for general up-close utility photography and people. The Canon EF 24-105/4 that I use now is a hephalump, not really fun, but equally useful.
Back with film had 2 lenses and 2x glass
Think 24 was low cost
The 90 came with camera
2x gave me lots of options
Now Nikon coolpix p510 42x optical zoom 24-1,000rated
Wow you make stunning portraits. Great tip on 24-70 and distance.
Many thanks!
I have the a 16 - 50 mm 2.8 lens I use on my APS-C cameras it give me the equivalent of a 24- 70 lens. The lens is extremely sharp , performs great in low light. It has allowed me to reduce my lens kit to two lenses the 16 - 50 mm 2.8 and a 55- 300 4.5 - 5.6
It's a great video but, most of the time prime lens is more collected in a matter of perspective and distortion and to go wide to 1.4 or 1.2 resolving a dreamy look. So you are right about using a zoom lens as a prime that that is flexible. But we should not forget the benefit of good quality prime fast lens.thank you for your tips
All the film-creators are requesting for clickless aperture lenses but we photographers should be requesting for lenses with focal length locks ability.
My best design lens was N 24-70 2.8 VR G F-mount, I do not know if this was intentional by Nikon but the focal length in which this lens was collapsed was 50mm which is my most liked / used focal.
So I was able to hide camera with this lens to the bag and take it out when I saw something interesting and take a shot @ 50mm by default.
Now in mirrorless world Nikon and others are producing lenses with collapse option which even doesn't give you an option to take a picture quickly, firstly you need to extend to 24mm and then take a shot. This is just stupid by design.
Hi Martin, thanks for this. It maked me think about trying, so I liked and subbed.
I have a really excellent Sony GM mkii 24-70 f2.8, which in truth is awesome and makes a great 'start' point lens, even though I'm lucky enough to own about another 15 Sony lenses (mostly primes). My 24-70 is a typical travel or 'just in case' lens. I set/re-set to 24mm, not for the excellent reasons you suggest 35mm, but 'cus it's most compact at that setting. My other non extending zooms are left at whatever FL last used.
Im totally guilty of seeing my 24-70 as a 'boring' lens - which logically makes no sense. Esp as Iove shooting my 35mm f1.4 GM prime as a single 'street mode' on full manual - neareyI can get to the Leica experience without buying one haha. But that is smaller, faster and at f1.4 helps street subjects 'pop' whilst retaining a little context in a soft background. Also one is seen as 'less threatening' than with a caged body and 24-70 f2.8, hood (and possibly other rigging for hybrid video too). A small body, lens in manual, forces thought, anticipation and 'speaks to me' about the joy of seeing, shooting, thinking about subject, composition and how one might better omtimise a photo opportunity without being 'bogged down' with kit decisions.
Last Sat in London I carried to much glass and shot 80%+ with my 24-70 and the results were excellent (anything but boring)! So, I must re-appraise my attitude to the mid zoom lens. Of my other lenses 2 never got used and only a handful were with my 14mmf1.8 or my 70-200 f2.8.
Anyway you made me think about trying a day out with just this one optic.
I still love smaller faster primes though. I'm also now wondering if a smaller wider, slower 20-70 f4 might make any sense? It's difficult to know, without trying. Maybe I should rent one to try? Theoretically a faster f2 zoom if available might be good too (eg Canon but not Sony E). But I heard rumor today that Sony will shortly unveil a f2 rival (Nov 19th - not sure if its 24-70 or 28-70). Im also uncertain if the heft makes sense for me? I suspect not and could see a lighter f4 zoom with a small fast prime might be better alternative for me. An option possibly as I already have 14, 20, 24, 35, 50, 55, 85, 90 and 135 primes from Sony, some like 35 in both f1.4 & f1.8 versions. Also a non Sony shift 28mm . Really I need less glass and need to fine tune exactly what I should be keeping. Trouble is , having sold several lenses there are a few I miss, which sometimes forces a repurchase. Yes I do have a bad case of GAS.
Some great advice in this video.
use zooms all the time, except when i do macro and break out the ef 100 IS USM as primes are good. However, the cost is a factor you need to budget for. As long as your 24-70 is constant f4, or f2.8 you should be able to Al, the same shots if you were using primes.
I believe there is a snobbery, and elitist amooubg so photographers on using primes. However, modern zoom lens image quality is very, very good these days. Save your money on primes and invest in a very good 24-70 high quality lens.
I have the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 DG DN ART now, used to have the Canon EF version MKII before I switched. I always found my 24-70 boring. Maybe I am a Bokeh nut but then again every time I use my current 24-70 wide open I am shocked at the smooth bokeh and the sharpness. Then again I also am drooling over this 45 year old prime lens I shot with today and it might be more a modern vs vintage lens thing for me. Good video again Martin.
i don't use and have never use prime lenses (except for testing them at an event). i would not waste my money or time with them. the only exception might be a macro lens. Primes are no better (often worse) than zooms, they are also less useful
excellent advise. (I do very often use 24-70 on my DSLRs, but my Fuji X100 is a fixed "35mm" (equivalant). Back ind the days of film SLR I mainly used a 24 and 50mm primes, and I end up hate my 28-50zoom
Oh... thank you!
I love the Sigma Art series 18-35 and 24-70 lenses in theory because of the quality of the glass and the fast apertures, but I haven't bought either of them because the focal lengths are so limited and I can get an even faster aperture in a Sigma Art prime lens with more usability and smaller size. Although all the Sigmas are pretty bulky in general.
Ita so easy to have it be a 24mm and just zoom to crop in, when you really just needed to get closer. For beginner's I'd suggest a 35 and 85mm, theyre my two of choice if I could only have two primes. I usually use a 35mm, 24-105, and a 150-600. Barely use my 90mm macro because I rarely do portrait and my favorite F stop is f4 or 5.6.
Loving this series of videos. I'm assuming you use 24-105 the same way?
Yep!
if you have started with prime lenses, you know how to use your imagination, to see the picture you are trying to shoot. The zoom helps you to find variations of your idea - is my way of working. You may call it framing by zooming, but I think it is a matter of intention.
Like the idea of using a zoom with a default focal length somewhere in the middle of the range, but for this to practically work the lens would need inner zoom, which is uncommon nowadays as it results in bulkier designs. Or maybe manufactorers could design the lenses from start in a way that the collapsed state, the focal length would be somewhere in the middle of the range.
Thanks!
Thank you!
What is the best micro 3rd lens for head shots? Thanks for your help.
There's an important thing you don't get with a zoom, and that's wide angle shallow dof. There's a night and day difference between 24mm 1.4 and 24mm 2.8 or slower.
I have definitely experienced the frustration of having to switch out lenses due to focal length restraints/needs (think wedding photos inside a crowded church with family). Wanting a 50mm (or above) for portraits and a wider focal length for group pictures and having to switch out lenses several times is not fun. The 24-70mm makes it so the photographer does not have to squeeze everyone together or bother onlookers to step away just to get the picture right.
Agree 100% having gone from 50mm to 24/70 , need to think a little bit more about subject to camera distance.
Thank you, very interesting. I do have a 24-70 2.8 and and a 70-200 2.8. Very very (too?) sharp, wide enough to have a nice bokeh. I will setting the 24-70 to 35mm to give this a try. What would you recommend for the 70-200. Maybe 105? (like my beloved 105mm micro nikkor)
Another great video as always.
My favorite lens is actually the Nikkor 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 that I use with my D3x. It has proven itself time and again, to be the ultimate "workhorse" being very sharp and reasonably fast, combined with small size and light weight. 😊
I kind of had this lens back in the day but it was the Minolta version. I really liked it but mine was the 28-85mm. Now I really like my Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 on full frame this would be a 24-80mm f5.6.
@@bigrobotnewstoday1436 Yes. The Olympus 12-40 is also an amazing lens. The legendary Olympus sharpness. I have often thought about switching to Olympus MFT for a bit. I'm a fairly small girl, and I really feel the weight and size of the large Nikons. How do you like your Olympus system?
@@AgentPepsi1 I like the Olympus system I have two Olympus OMD E-M1ii cameras for weddings.
I almost was thinking of selling my M43 gear and going full frame for better low light. But then DXO Deep PRIME came out best noise reduction and it can restore loss color due to high ISO.
If I need more bokeh I can use Luminar NEO or Lightroom. But Luminar does not always detect the subject correct. So I only use it once in a blue moon for something really nice I want.
But once I got DXO I can now shoot at ISO 6,400 with very little noise and the newer OM-1ii has 14-bit raw and is very good in low light now.
With my Olympus OMD E-M1ii my cut off ISO was 3,200 the image still looks good its a little softer then ISO 1,600 but I need the flash to recharge faster.
Over all I like the system and I'm keeping it. I might get a full frame camera at some point but I'm keeping my Micro Four Thirds gear.
I also have the Panasonic 35-100mm f2.8 that's the 70-200mm f2.8 in full frame. Its a nice lens and its small.
I've never had a client have a issue with any of my images using Micro Four Thirds.
Look up Nick Ghonis he was a Olympus ambassador. OM systems got rid of most of their ambassador's because they are focused on targeting wildlife photographers now.
This is my go-to lens or the 24-105. Primes are nice but it is easier to zoom than constantly changing lenses.
I bought Tamron 24-70 this summer specifically for a hiking trip. It was between that and 17-40 but I went with more zoom. I learned a couple of things: I'm glad I didnt go with 17-40 because I used 70 more often than not. I actually need more zoom. Secondly, 2.8 is bad choice for hiking as it makes it heavy and 2.8 is not relevant for landscape. So with that said, I think stabilized superzoom might be an ultimate hiking lens. 😅
If you capture in ethier Monochrome or B/W ..depending on your camera features .
If you use LR/PS for editing does the image appear in colour or the intended MC /BW image you captured when it comes to editing / processing .
I use affinity2 and it cannot recognise a MC / BW image . Always in colour it appears ..
It's my main gripe with pic editing programs
I agree with you about the advantages of a zoom lens for travels and landscapes (probably not a 24-70 as it's usually heavy and has a limited range). But I'm not sure when it comes to weddings and corporate, especially when they're indoor or evening events. 35+85 it's a lightweight combo and probably they can give a more distinctive look. Ok, it would be perfect having a 24-70 for events, 24-105 for travelling and primes when needed, but I love the idea of less is more. Too many tools don't help my ideas, never.
24-70 or 35 and 85 both work well, i tend to think the zooms are more useful in countries where the venues can be smaller, our old stately homes in the uk can be very narrow and confined in places so zooming with your feet can leave you a bit stuck. ive done plenty of wedding with the 28 and 85 on nikon before. that worked well as a combo but you need 2 bodies to do it well rather than switching all the time imo.
@@MartinCastein Yep, it's exactly I work here in Italy, in venues that are not so different from the ones I've seen in England spacewise. Two bodies 35+85 or 35+50 in certain part of the day. Working with only one body and a 24-70 could be interesting, I should give It a try just to experiment. But actually I'm thinking about a 24-120, that to me would make more sense for travelling (not sure if I could use it for corporate events too).
@@emanueledonazza473 24-120 could be great, i shot a couple of weddings on the old nikon one on the d600 and had no trouble in the summer, barely ever went past iso 1600 and switched to a wider prime for the evening dance. That worked really well and made the day pretty simple too.
@@MartinCastein Thank you Martin, that's really helpful. I'll give it a try then. Let me tell you that your channel is plenty of good insights for pros as well. I'm a fan.
That's a good take on the 24-70. For me that's the lens on my camera probably 80% of the time. I definitely use it as a prime that can zoom. I'm shooting it at 45 - 55 mm 90% of the time. I didn't make myself do that, it's just a result of how I shoot and the distance from subject I will typically have. That said, if I have the space and ability to control my setting my favorite prime for portraits is my 100mm macro. But I would not want to be without my 24-70.
Great tip as always
If people are bored of their Nikkor 24-70 f2.8 I'll happily take it as I'm cheap and only have the Nikkor 35-70mm f/2.8D which is great as it's cheap, lighter, cover the usual close portrait range. I always felt the 35,-70mm covers a very useful range for close portrait. I have a 20 & 24mm prime which are small and cheap if I need wider, but I always looked at them as landscape lenses.
I don't really understand what you mean with how to think about subject distance and how you work with it?
I mean with a prime the subject distance will be what it is depending on the focal length for a particular framing.
With a zoom you can choose another focal length and by that also get another subject distance and still have the same framing, but the distortion will be different at the wide end (big nose, thin face) vs the long end (flatter, wider face).
So do you mean that there is a optimal subject distance or why did you bring this matter up in the video?
Thanks and best regards from Sweden!
I agree, that wasn't explained particularly well. I take it to mean it is a starting point. Martin is probably very comfortable with 35mm so knows where to stand for a particular framing from experience. From there, he (and everyone with a zoom) can be more intentional about using a different focal length for a different look and standing closer / further back.
I think he meant along the lines of 35mm at x1 distance vs 70mm at x2 distance... you get the same framing but different aspects and different depth of field. (DOF at F2.8 is way thinner at 70mm than at 35mm.) Start with 35mm, pick the framing, and then adjust for desired depth of field / background blur / perspective.
This is my major struggling point. I love hate this because you need it the flexibility.
If you had to pick one Canon mirrorless camera, to adapt EF L glass to, which one would you grab?
What do you shoot? Probably r6ii
@ I shoot mostly portraits, and document my family & kids. I was thinking original R6, but the R6 ii looks nice as well. Thank you! Love the channel, btw. It’s a nice change from some of the other stuff here on the ‘Tube.
@@brianode11 thanks yes go for the r6ii i think :)
I'm really conflicted about the 24-70 and I've been considering selling mine for a sigma art 35/1.4 since I have a 17-55 2.8 for my 7D ii. I'm a family and event photography so I tend to use 2 cameras, a 7D ii with 17-55 and a 6D with whatever prime is appropriate (45/2.8, 50/1.8, or 85/1.8), I usually just bring the 85 on a family shoot. If it's only 1 or 2 subjects I'll bring only the 85 and 50, no 7D and standard zoom. So the 24-70 doesn't really fit into any of these kits and stays home 90% of the time. It is useful for long exposure landscapes on a tripod, but that's a rare scenario. Now your video has me kinda rethinking maybe I could get some nice versatility from bringing the 24-70 and 85 to shoots where I don't need 2 cameras. Still, I think I get better image quality from the 17-55 than the mark 1 24-70, and the sigma art is stunning. It's a hard decision.
It sounds like your head is full of thoughts about gear rather than photography. You have more than enough good equipment already. A slightly different zoom isn't going to take your images to the next level. If you simply must spend money then spend it on some tuition - ideally some that will critique and feedback on your work.
@@xcx8646 hmm you come to the comments section on a video about gear to grill someone about their thoughts on the gear featured in the video. What did you expect to find? You do not know my background or my portfolio. As photographers these are our tools and they have a significant influence over the products we deliver and how we work. Why do you come here to belittle me over voicing my opinion when 90% of photography discourse on the internet is about gear anyway.
@@brendonwilson1318 No offence intended. Your post suggests you think that a slightly different lens will have a profound effect on your photography, and it seems to contain a lot of received internet wisdom, as often found on the gear forums. Someone experienced would usually know what they want, and why. Martin does talk about gear, but he's pretty clear that any of the better lenses are good enough. This video isn't about image quality or sharpness, it's about how to actually use a zoom, which is far more useful. If you haven't seen it, maybe check out Martin's video on photographers spending money on he wrong things.
I have the 35mm Sigma ART, and it is an absolute beauty. Using with the 5D mark I, it gave it an entirely new life: fast AF, and ability to shoot in low light. The difference between F1.8 and F1.4 does not seem much on paper, but in real life it is a total game hanger for the 5D classic - no hand held low light photos or gorgeous low light photos. It's not just the amount of light, but the camera can focus in low light, while with F1.8 Canon lenses struggle to lock focus, and mostly give up. With the 6D this will be of no importance as it is a great low light camera, but you will be able to use the 7D in low light situations a lot more effectively. Also, I found the great advantage of the Sigma ART is its phenomenal texture, and when shooting close-ups the background gorgeously melts away. It is absolutely spectacular on my 5D mark III (which is quite close sensor and imaging-wise to your 6D). I can say that the Sigma 35mm ART is my favorite lens - and on the 7D it will be an F1.4 55mm, a fantastic portrait lens.
I am in the reverse situation, I have 3 bodies and 3 primes, and thinking of a zoom lens so I can have a quick and simple zoom setup I can carry with me versus planned shooting sessions where I have 35mm and 85mm primes on different bodies, and grab 35mm for full body shots and 85mm for head shots....
24-70mm what about 24-105 or even the 24-240mm? The 24=240mm is on my camera all the time never knowing where and when you will be or what is happening. A 24-105mm f/4 also for the closeness of places and works great for a simi micro for closeness.
I prefer 24 105 f4
they arent usually good wide open, even canon EF Ls.
so effectively they are F5-5.6 lenses.
f2.8 zooms are usable by f3.5 with rare exceptions
The 24-105mm is vertualy bolted to my A9ii, absolutely ideal for travel.
@@sunlbxi dont knownabout that my L Glass ist razor Sharp at f4 but focuses not the best in Low light as expected
@@moritzschneider2735 Try 24-105mm f 2.8. Personally I prefer 28-70mm f 2 though.
@@sunlbx Do you say that from personal experience or is that something you've read online?
Will this work with the canon 24-70 L series f4?
Yes
24-70 F2.8 MK I OR MKII OR RF probably the best lens ever.
I suspect a lot of people poo-poo zooms like this because: 1) they read that pro's use primes and buy into the internet snobbery; 2) having a fixed focal length makes composition easier by removing a variable, and 3) even the fastest at f2 aren't as fast as a good prime and they haven't yet realised how rarely they need to shoot wide open.
Accurate
I was taught many years ago (early nineties) by a very experienced teacher/pro photographer who said that you will never have the perfect setup when you need it, if you cannot control "EVERYTHING" (you can't). He recommended that you should own whatever you can afford or justify, but to look at standard zooms at f4.0 and pair them with a few fast enough primes - f2.0 or f1.8 and maybe one special prime at f1.4 or f1.2, which would have been a 50/55mm lens back then. (I was fortunate to get the old FD 35-105 f3.5)
But he was adamant about never taking more than 3 lenses. Ever.
It took me 30 years to understand.
The 24-70 is so useful.
Very useful
Good lens I prefer the 105mm 2.5 AI
Sometimes im sure people get over analytical just for the sake of creating content perpetuating the fixation on gear. You could use this title for any focal length of choice.
I Love The 24 70 one of my best Lens
Briliant advice.
I love my Canon 24-70
My favorite lens. My best lens is 85
Do mean the F4 or the F2.8 variant
2.8
This is my most used lens.
I think you just over complicated one of the most easy to use lenses. I’ve never heard anyone have these issues or assumptions a 24-70.
I thought everyone owned one of these?
24-105 it has is
OMG, somehow I got unsubscrived, but now I'm back. 😮