Your First Lens Should ALWAYS Be a 24-70mm f2.8
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ก.ย. 2024
- Your First Lens Should ALWAYS Be a 24-70mm f2.8
Too many people start with a 50mm lens when they should with a 24-70mm f2.8.
So if you're buying your first lens.. listen up!
Thanks for watching, I appreciate you all!
Want a 24-70 for yourself while supporting this channel? - amzn.to/42OzFKg
wanna ignore my advice & but a 50mm anyway... While supporting the channel? - amzn.to/42OzFKg
---
If you would like a rundown of all of the gear I use..
kit.co/jeddobr....
If you want to SUPPORT this channel I have some affiliate links..
(I get a kick back of your purchase which goes back into making more content for you)
If you choose to support this channel by using these affiliate links or codes.. Thanks I really appreciate it!!
Dehancer Pro (Use code "JD10" for 10% off)
www.dehancer.com
Audiio.com - get 10% off with code JedDobre10 or visit www.a2zdtrk.co...
Epidemic Sound
www.epidemicso....
Smallrig - www.smallrig.com?afmc=2cb
FOLLOW ME:
Instagram @JEDDOBRE
/ jeddobre
Website: www.jeddobre.c...
Business: www.endmediaho...
#CameraLens #Nifty50 #Firstlens
Single focal lengths have their own way of representing a scene and, getting used to a focal length and how to compose and shoot compelling images with it is important. Walking around the subject to alter framing and context helps understanding what makes a good image. Learning with two or three primes often develops the photographer’s eye much better than a pro grade 24-70 f2.8. A good one will be very expensive, heavy and large. APSC is great with 28mm and 35mm as starter lenses. Then add 20mm, 50mm and 85mm. 35mm sensors are great with 35mm and 50mm as starting points then add lengths like 28mm, 85mm and 100mm. Sensor resolution is high and cropping can be used to recompose or isolate the subject in post production rather than using the zoom to crop. Small primes will have decently fast apertures, better micro contrast and a particularly specific way of rendering an image. As you get used to what each lens does it makes for better more specific image making. Zooms become more powerful if you know each focal length well through experience of primes. The unwieldy pro-grade zoom often makes beginners less likely to grab their camera and spend time learning to take pictures and often their results are less playful and creative at first.
If you watched to the end I mention 3rd party lens options. These have budget options which are quite light in size too! A lot of what you say is valid for people who have been shooting for a while.. a beginner just needs to see what then want through the viewfinder! Zooms for all their flaws give them the best opportunity to see that’s
I love my primes a shoot “primarily” 😂 on these. But for beginners, events & certain run & gun situations.. nothing beats a zoom for flexibility regardless of the trade offs!
:)
I used to agree with this - I never (in decades) used or owned a 50 prime. Even during my newspaper days. Thought it was a boring "in-between, nothing special" focal length. Then 3 years ago, I got my first 50 1.8 just to try something new. I quickly found myself using it more and more, in favor of my trusty zooms, and I'm not even sure why. I just love the results for my day to day shooting. It absolutely changed the way I look at the 50 and honestly I feel it's the most important lens to master, before really diving into other focal lengths.
I would say that it sounds like you’re still agreeing with the sentiment. As after years of using zooms etc you then gravitated toward the 50.. which is in the video exactly what I said happened to me (except did me it’s 35mm!)
I wonder if you’d feel the same way if you started out with only a 50mm?
I see so many people missing shots & getting frustrated because they can’t shoot the moment they want to because the lens simply isn’t fit for the job.
I totally agree 50 is a great focal length & is important to master, I just think it’s not the one to master first!
Like when you go to buffet.. you don’t put only one thing on your plate, you go a try a bit of this a bit of that & then on your next plate, when you realise the roast beef is just fantastic that’s when you load up on that! 🤌🏼
My thoughts from my experience any how 😂
@@JedDobre Ya you know it's an interesting topic, I found myself thinking about this a lot today after watching your vid. I love (love) my versatile zooms (24-120 4, 70-200 2.8) so maybe it's the novelty factor of a lens I've ignored for so long. And the constraints of working with it, if that makes sense. It feels "new" in a way.
I know what you mean!
The way I typically operate is travel based stuff I take a 24-70 2.8 for “almost everything” some small primes for Astro/night photos & maybe a Tele.
But for client work it’s almost always on a prime.. but that’s mainly due to the reason of when shooting client work it’s typically pre planned etc.
When it’s run & fun.. zooms are the way to go!
At the end of the day I want to see more people using cameras & not phones! :)
KEEP It Up BUD
Cheers 🤓
I was taking this guy seriously, then he showed the Nikon 😂😉
😂😂😂
it is an interesting argument and there is of course no one size fits all, however for my first camera i brought a 24-70 and 50 mm (the apsc equivalents so a 16-55 kit lens for fuji and 35mmf2) and i find ive rarely touched the 24-70 at all and it mostly is just a paperweight. I enjoy the fact that 50’s feel so natural and are a perfect middle ground and hate the feeling of zoom lenses however i know this is down to personal preference. also the kit lens is a variable aperture however i usually shoot at above f4 so this makes no difference to me. awesome video though, and of course everyones needs are different, i have also used premium compacts in the past and just rolled the dice and brought the 50 and it was perfect for me!
Everyone’s needs are definitely different! Zooms are definitely great for their versatility & primes for their “look”!
Thanks for the support :)
@@JedDobre oh i definetly agree yeh! i will say in my personal experience i find the prime more versatile just because it stops me having to consider what focal length to use and takes that out of the equation, however I guess this comes with experience so i would agree maybe a zoom for beginners or instead maybe a wide and a tighter prime as people often tend to use zoom lenses at the extreme ends. eg 24 and 70. this has obviosuly all been said though many times by many different people since the beginning of zoom lenses in photography and at the end of the day its just about getting out and doing something fun!
Primes and zooms are different. There are things to like about either. A 24-70 f2.8 is a good lens. A 50 1.8 is a good lens. You're going to get far superior performance from a 50 1.8 indoors. Even stopped down. If you can "zoom with your feet," a prime is going to outperform a zoom.
Try zooming out with your feet when there’s a wall behind you!
If you’re the person with the camera.. you’re out to dinner & the family wants a group shot.. 50mm (especially if put on an apsc like so many do) gooooooood luck getting the shot in a tight restaurant!
Cartier Bresson shot mainly with a Leica M 50mm Summicron. . Zooms suck.
The point of this video isn’t saying 50mm sucks.. (especially not saying that about summicrons) but for beginners having the flexibility of zoom is key! I’ve got 10 primes I use all the time! But for a beginner & lots of uses like events… zooms are the best option for lots of different situations :)
@@JedDobre From the age of 13 to around 20, all I had was 50mm. I got a 135mm f/2.8 Zuiko in 1980. 😆
My thoughts as well
My man! 👌🏼
Oh love rhe shots, thw Crisp video format, the insights you gave and the video in it's entirety. Thanks for being the quick guide in this world of unsolicited bullshit World.
Thanks my guy! Appreciate it :)
Too expensive and too heavy, lol. Master the kit lens first.
Respectfully I couldn’t disagree more..
In Aus you can get a second hand tamron 28-75 2.8 for $500/600.. the Sony 50mm 1.8 is $400 (Aud). (I do mention buying second hand or second hand third party in the video assuming you watched the whole thing)
By “mastering” the kit lens you miss out on so many images due to the constraints of one tight focal length. If you don’t miss the shot you may not get the shot you’re hoping for.. again due to the constraints. People get frustrated & fall out of love with photography when they can’t get the results they want.
The classic one is at a family birthday or dinner at a restaurant when you want a group photo.. but at 50mm (75mm on crop body) you’ve gotta be so far away.
Also in regards to weight.. the tamron 28-75 is only 550g & the sigma 28-70 C f2.8 is only 460g!!
Yeah right! My first Film lens or my first DSLR Lens or my first Mirrorless lens? I cannot agree it HAS to be F2.8 anyway. The OLD assumptions you cling to are no longer relevant anyway. The photographic world has changed several times. I agree that, if you can afford it, buying a prestigious lens is a good thing. But…….. see above.
Respectfully I’ll assume by your comment that you didn’t finish the video before jumping to conclusions.
If you watched until the end I say if you can’t afford the 2.8.. buy a used one.. or a third party one.. or if that’s still pushing the budget get a used third party one.
A used tamron 28-75 2.8 can be had for $600-750 (Aus) & the Sony 50 1.8 rrp is $449 (Aud).. (can be found more likely to be $350-400 normally. That’s only a difference of one or two rounds of drinks on a night out with friends & a few coffee during the week!
If the “old” assumption I’m hanging onto is f2.8 is better than f4… it’s also just fact. So many people come into the camera store & show me their photos & complain about the grain/noise in the image, also of sharpness, lack of depth of field etc & then see mine & are surprised that the only difference in gear is mines 2.8 & theirs is 4.. yes experience can play a part but naturally a dedicated race car is going to be faster, more aerodynamic & handle better than the road legal version of that car.
If you want to sum the message up easily it’s this…
Having a lens that is more versatile while still maintaining a fast aperture will give a beginner a better experience in photography at the beginning & allow them to find their creative style much better than a more limiting standard lens.. this lens will also help inform the user of what future lens purchases they may be interested in, this lens can also be found at a beginner, hobbiest or pro budget.
@@JedDobre Yep. You are correct, I didn’t finish the video. I loved my first F2.8 70-200. It was a revelation but not something I could afford right away. With my old Nikon F-mount lenses all sold I am choosing carefully. F2.8 isn’t essential for a great lens, and you know that. When deciding on Z series 85mm I waited for a faster one to be released. Nikon brought out an F1.2. I gave it some serious thought and bought what turned out to be a fabulous F1.8 version. It was the right lens for portrait photography in the studio. My Nikon Z series F4 Zoom lenses are excellent value and the F2.8 versions are NOT better- they are different. Their resolution tests are more impressive but they are not automatically “better”. I want small compact lenses which are optically great. The images the Z series F4 lenses fit that bill perfectly. If your customers are getting poor results it is time to rethink. It is not time to oversimplify things so you can upsell or come up with a clickbait title for a video. Look at the camera system. Mirrorless is more expensive but there are plenty of excellent lenses and camera systems. If you are stuck in the DSLR era life is a bit more difficult but not impossible.
I’m not sure we’re going to find a ground we agree on here. I’m not saying if a lens isn’t “pro” it’s not good.. but you simply can’t say the f2.8 zooms are “not” better than their f4 counterparts. The ONLY thing an f4 is “better” at than their big brother is size & size alone.
Respectfully it’s not oversimplifying or trying to get clicks or sales. It’s fact.. if you want blurry backgrounds out of a medium zoom.. 2.8 will give you more. If you want to keep your iso down.. 2.8 will allow you to do that. if you want optically sharper images, the name brand pro zoom will give that to you.. along with better weather sealing, durability, resale etc.
All that aside the point of this video which seems to have been lost somewhere along the way.. perhaps as you said.. because you didn’t watch the whole thing.. is that a 24-70 f2.8 (as I said in the video if you can afford it) will give a beginner more flexibility as they enter photography. and what most of them do is end up spending twice.. so as the saying goes.. buy nice or buy twice.. Flexibility is key for beginners.. . If you can’t agree with that then, boy I’m lost! 🤔
@@JedDobre I do thank you for your patient and polite replies. I have a different approach. I have tended to keep my major expenditure for longer lenses. The 300 F2.8 VRII Nikkor was my choice instead of the F4 300 Pf for example. The only F mount lens I have kept is the 500 F4 G Nikkor. I bought that second hand and it continues to be great.
I think the point for me is that the assumptions about shorter lenses that applied to the film and DSLR lenses don’t really apply in the way they used to. I have in my travels met quite a few people who tried to use variable aperture zooms and other TC adapted short lenses for birding photography. Beyond 200mm there are very few shortcuts to quality images. I have never bothered with third party lenses.
In my view it is the short end of the focal ranges that has improved most with the mirrorless era. If I were to advise anyone about lenses, I would suggest staying away from most entry level variable aperture lenses, but that’s an assumption I will be ignoring once my Nikkor 180-600 arrives. ( next couple of weeks) It is one of those lenses which seems to be the exception to the rule.
Longer mirrorless lenses are only a bit better, it is the weight which is much improved.
I will agree that faster lenses used to be much better built, have better edges, less chromatic aberrations, better coatings and better focus speed. In my view this difference is not a strong as it was. Apart from nicer bokeh the F2.8 lenses of the mirrorless era no longer stand head and shoulders above their F4 equivalents. That’s my point.