So you are not happy with the 24-70mm because you "you wanted to go longer than 70", but at the same time you say that "cropping ... is no problem at all" :D
my shooting style is with the 24-70 As an event photographer I have it on my camera 100% of the time.... I reccomend everyone should own a 24-70, I also have a 85mm 35mm and the 70-200... :) but the 24-70 is my day to day lens
I started with a 24-70. I now have primes too. I think they should be regarded as different tools. There are times when switching focal lengths is essential, but doing so with primes would result in missing moments and would be impractical. For those on a budget, it can be a great place to start and can help videographers/photographers discover what focal lengths they use or love most, and can then proceed to purchase primes on that bases.
For me, everyone raved about the Canon nifty fifty (and rightly so in a lot of ways). However I always found that it was either not wide enough, or not telephoto enough, sitting right in a weird middle ground for me. Now that I have a 35mm prime and an 85mm prime, I never use my 50mm. I haven't sold it yet but I haven't used it in ages so it's really about time I sold it to someone who will actually use and enjoy it.
35mm and 85mm is what i use as well for all of my portraiture. Had a 50mm (25mm m4/3) on my Lumix system and always found myself going for the 85mm (42.5mm m4/3) instead.
Same. My first lens was 24-70. Most of my shots where at 70mm and all other shots around 24-40mm. I sold my 24-70 and now I have a 35mm and a 85mm. When I am going on a hike or if i am chilling with friends, i am using the 35mm. When i shoot street or portraits I like using my 85mm I think for people that start photography it's not the best advice to buy a 24-70 because those lenses are quite expensive. Buying a 35mm or a 50mm might be a better fit imo. Walking around and finding nice compositions is a fun aspect of photography. I really enjoyed your video. Keep up the good work and have a beautiful day 👍🏼
I agree with you. I sold my 24-70 g2 tamron. I love my 35mm rf lens, and my rf 50 1.2. I do have the rf 24-105 for landscapes and travel photography. I don't mind the f4 for travel, bc I want to show the location/background anyway. And the 24-105 is so light and easy to carry around.
When I first started doing photography, zooms were so bad that you had to shoot primes. As zooms got better, photographers started using more zooms. Now a good prime is still marginally better than a good zoom at a particular focal length. And primes in general offer wider apertures and lighter weight and smaller size. But, zooms offer more versatility in one lens. Over the years I've used both zooms and primes. Currently my go to lenses are the 24-70mm GM II and 70-200mm GM II. But, during 2020 and 2021, I acquired all of the Sony GM primes from 14mm to 135mm. I love the primes. But, sometimes it's just more practical to go with the zooms.
sony GM are great lenses , but only if you have bunch of cash. the CA, sharpness, all are almost perfect. if you do pixel peeping, the price is justify, but it is really worth depend on our own. sigma while cheaper, but it has sharp image too, if you dont look too much into CA, barrel distortion ( all this can be fixed in post)
@@ulyssessait Like most people I started with one camera and one lens. Over the years I traded up to better cameras and better lenses. Since I couldn't travel during "the Covid years" I put that money toward GM lenses. I still don't own all of the GM lenses or the best Sony cameras. It would be nice to have the long telephoto GM prime lenses or the A1 camera. But, I'm happy with what I have.
@@PhotoTrekr yea. currently im using a7iii & sigma 35mm 1.4 DGDN & also sigma 28-70mm f2.8 DGDN. I mainly doing events & weddings. probably my next lens is 35mm GM & 24-70 GMii
@@ulyssessait Nice. Fortunately these days there are lots of quality third party options and you don't have to buy from the camera manufacturer just to get a decent lens. Happy shooting.😊
First off, I absolutely love your work man! I had a similar experience with the Canon 50mm 1.4. I had been looking to “upgrade” from the 1.8 and finally pulled the trigger on it after watching a million TH-cam comparisons. I popped it on my camera, and quickly realized it was not worth the price difference and I actually lost some functionality because it couldn’t focus as close as the 50mm 1.8. Needless to say, it was swiftly returned. Also, my go to zoom lens for professional work like events and photo-journalism assignments is the 24-105. The images are sharp and I love the flexibility that the wide range of focal lengths give me.
To each their own, but I wouldn't want to be without a 24-70 (or perhaps 24-105 or similar). The point of a 24-70, in my opinion, is to be able to from from a wide angle of view to a short telephoto angle of view without switching lenses. If you shoot with two bodies, that may not be so much of a big deal (since you can have a wide angle lens on one and a short telephoto on the other), but if you are shooting with only one body, that lets you get very different looking images without having to change lenses. Obviously that can be more or less significant depending on how you shoot, eg if you are taking your time shooting landscapes, changing lenses to go from an UWA to a telephoto may not bother you at all. It's a different story though if you want me to able to go from an environmental portrait to a head and shoulders portrait in the blink of an eye, or you are wandering around and want to be able to take a variety of different styles of shot without having to carry and change lenses. I have owned lots of different zooms and primes over the years, but the more time goes on, the more I find that a 24-70 covers a lot of what I actually shoot, and a 24-70 plus 70-200 covers the vast majority of it. I would still want one or two wide aperture primes for low light and very shallow depth of field work, and I'm sure I could find a use for an UWA and a longer telephoto occasionally if I had them, but I can do an awful lot with a 24-70 and a 70-200.
Very nice drone shots, beautiful location. Thanks for sharing your travels and the content you provide. In my kit i have the Sigma 35mm 1.4, the RF 50 1.2 and Sigma 105 1.4. I take this kit on my travels and hikes, and serves all my purpose needs. if i need to crop in, the R5 has enough resolution. I cant live without any of these focal lengths, but if i must keep just one lens, it would be the RF 50 1.2. I prefer the 35mm focal length more, but that RF is just so magical (by that i mean sharp wide open with beautiful rendering, at least for my taste). When I was on the 5D IV, the 35mm 1.4 II lived on that camera for 99% of the time. To me its the technical qualities of a lens too, not just the focal length that prompt me to put it on the camera. Some lenses just have a special rendering, quality to them that draw me in. Still believe the Canon 35mm 1.4 L II is the best 35 in the market, and the RF50 best 50 even for the price. If anyone made it through this long comment, would like to share the remedy, and only remedy for GAS (gear acquisition syndrome), and that is to go out and shoot with what you have, create some art and be happy/proud of it, maybe even print it. It will help stop thinking about gear, at least for a while :)
Love my rf50mm 1.2 too! Curious to know why you shoot with the 35mm sigma instead of the Canon these days? I've got the rf 35mm, but i just don't really enjoy using all that much (except for when I want something lightweight). Looking at either the Canon 35mm or sigma . Interested to know the thoughts of someone who's owned both!
@@lillyknight525 hi Lilly! Beautiful name! I've shot the 35mm 1.4 L II on the R5, but the bokeh didn't look the same as it did on the 5div, it was very strange, came to the conclusion it's because of the different sensor (I did this comparison with the same lens on a panasonic s5 and Sony a7c, used the new sigma 35mm 1.4 dg DN, and the bokeh was much uglier in my opinion on the Sony, point being different sensors will have a different look on the same glass/lens). So sold the 35mm 1.4 II and bought the Sigma 35 as a place holder until Canon releases their much anticipated RF 35mm 1.2. The 35 and 50 fl offer different perspectives, so they will both have a place in my bag, but its not necessary. Hope I answered your question. Have a blessed day!
I'm an event photographer. I was once thought I would need a 24-70 to ease my work. Sold it after a week, im just gonna stick with 35mm + 85mm / 24mm + 135mm primes dual body.
I agree. I have the 24-70 and debating on selling it… I honestly rarely use my 24-70 and have kept it as a “just in case” . I feel like I should sell it and then get a 16mm prime for my wide
For weddings 24-70 and 70-200. I'm Micro Four Thirds so I use the Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 and the Panasonic 35-100mm f2.8. I don't like changing lens at weddings but for portraits and other things I like primes. Also their are weather reasons why zooms are better for weddings. You don't want to change lens if there is a lot of hummity in the air you can fog up the sensor and viewfinder.
Subscribed for a long time 🙋♂️ since like 10 k. For many years I similarily thought a perfect 3 lens setup to be something similar: 16-35, 70-200 and a 1.4 prime in the middle. BUT now for my new brand I need to shoot a lot of portraits in tight spaces fast, and 24-70 seems necessary for the first time. Not tempting, but necessary. Also as I am mainly videographer then 24-70 seems like a great walkaround to do video, and then enters 28-70 f2 canon, which seems to fill that prime and zoom need. So really torn here personally and been thinking about this exact topic for months 😁
I had the Sigma 65mm F2. Loved that lens but barely used. I had the 16-28 f2.8 sigma but sold that too. Honestly, I think I'm gonna buy the new 16-35mm f2.8 GM2 and pay the money. I hope I don't regret it.
It is all personal style. I have a 16-35, but always seem to use it in the 24-35 range as the super wide look never seems to be right for me, so I would probably be better with a 24-70. My favourite lens of all is the 70-200 - that really more suits how I see the world
My set up with my 2 A7RV’s is my Sony 16-35mm f2.8 GM II & TAMRON 35-150mm f2-2.8 those lenses never leave my camera bodies. I shoot everything from events, weddings to portraits with those two lenses. I haven’t used my Sony 85mm f1.8, Sony 24mm f1.8gm, or my Sony Zeiss 55mm f1.8 in over a year. I think it’s time I let those three go.
I currently have a 16mm 1.8, a 50mm 1.4GM and a 24-105mm 4.0. Sony all three of them. I'm thinking about selling my 50mm and 24-105mm and replace them to a 24-70 2.8GMII and a 70-200GMII. Even tho I love my 50mm, I don't think I'll use it once I have the 24-70mm. I wish to only bring two lenses with me on my travels.
My ideal combo would probably be Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 with Tamron 17-28 f2.8. Huge range and you get the creamy wide aperture of f2-2.2 between 35mm and 59mm (I think).
And you switch between this four lenses for different focus distances? Four!?? It’s better to have two lenses to cover your needs. I have rf 24-70 and 70-200, but when I have low light or necessity in details I use my rf 50 and 85. It’s better to have bag with two lanses and body. Than to carry all 4 lenses.
Find the best lens it's hard, takes time and money. I'm not a professional but like to shot as hobby when travelling so even with good results with prime lens, i'm tired of changing lens and travel with extra weight on bag, I'm moving to 24-70mm sigma Art.. let's see If i find my way........
If you start out the 24-70 kitlens is a great starting point. When I got the 85mm 1.8 I fell in love with primes. Then I bought the 35mm GM and noticed I’m not using it enough. I shoot with the 135mm GM. And on the wide angle I have the 20mm 1.8 because in APS-c mode I’ll get 30ish fov
I can relate to this so much. I started with the holy trinity and the 24-70 was always my least favorite to shoot with. Sold it and replaced it with 50mm to fill the gap.
I was introduced to Prime’s from the start and fell in love with them straight away My set up is Sigma 35, 85 and 105 Definitely need a wider focal length at some point but this is an expensive hobby for me so no rush 🙏
I started off swearing on prime lenses! I was all about it and thought it was sharper and superior.. till 6 months in and I got tired of switching lenses for a photo or when im shooting a short film. It wasnt a big deal at first.. but some days it just got annoying and it affects my momentum during a set and having to swap step up rings and filters while changing lenses slowly became an annoyance. So I bought myself a 24-70 2.8 lens to just try out a zoom for the first time. AND MAN! It was a game changer for me because of the type of work I do.. the 24-70 is the closest thing to a perfect lens.. for my style. So I got rid of all my primes.. but I did keep the 50 1.2 gm and 135 gm prime lenses.. because those two are my staple glass for portrait work. But yeah.. the 24-70 makes your life so easy and I wish I would've made this lens my first purchase before buying the primes that I started off with lol
i also sold my 24-70 for the exact reason. People hyping this lens up way too much. 24 isnt wide enough, 70 isnt zoomed in enough. Even a kit lens can get the job done...
I bought 24-70mm 2.8 GMII as my very first lens and Sony alpha 1 in very few weeks. I think it's a good start to me to understand what focus width I like and then buy a prime (but before prime I want 12-24mm). I'm not a photographer I'm just a guy who can afford such stuff and I believe zoom lenses a good for start. Thanks for video, though, will test primes as well :)
You are buying a Sony a1 as a first camera? Are u insane or just incredibly wealthy? If you start you out get something cheaper, you won't be able to use the a1's potential for years. Just upgrade later when your skill has surpassed the cameras capability. It will take a while trust me!
good choice! People saying you should begin with something cheaper are just out of their mind. Investing in a cheaper setup is throwing away money, when you already can invest in better material, which'll give you more beneficial experience. However a Sony A1, is perhaps a little too much, but if you can afford it...why not...I would have chosen to buy a cheaper body and an extra lens perhaps...but who am I to judge ;-) In my own experience...professional photographers advised me to start with an APS-C body and 'master that' etc. resulting in buying an APS-C camera and many APS-C lenses, which I had to sell for wayy less money once I bought my full frame setup. Eventually, when I calculate all 'sunk cost' I think I could have bought a lens or two more when I initially bought a full frame setup.
This will be a long one, but have fun reading it: I've only been in photography for about a year and 3 months now, and I recently sold my Canon 90D for a Canon R6 (when I bought the 90D, I just wanted something that isn't sloppy for TH-cam videos back then, and the R6 was a result of me realizing that not only do I love photography miles more than videos, I absolutely love shooting in low light, and it's usually people to be specific. I would've went for an R5, but most of my work doesn't involve cropping, file sizes are questionable, and the R5 does not perform as well as the R6 in low light, hence the decision). The only issue I have when shooting people with the R6 is that the face tracking does deliver slightly blurrier shots, when compared to the eye tracking autofocus. Eye tracking is just so much sharper that I'll always try to make sure the eyes were nailed for AT LEAST ONE SHOT I bought a Sigma 18-35 with my 90D, then got a 70-200 (6 months in) when I realized I wanted to go Full Frame one day (hence the R6), because a limit of ISO 800 before noise kicks in was a bummer for me (The R6 nowadays can shoot at ISO 12,800, get the images mixed on DxO Pure RAW 2, and nobody will be able to tell that this image was noisy or post-processed to start with). The Sigma 70-200 Sports lens did deliver exactly what I wanted, at 50% of the Canon EF equivalent, and it was extremely practical for multi-purpose uses for me, so I bit the bullet and bought myself one Right now I'm just trying to sell my Sigma 18-35 (I genuinely love this lens, but the vignette in post is a serious problem!) so I can afford to get a 24-70 instead (a temporary solution until I can either afford Canon native lenses, or decide on what primes I want to continue shooting with someday). Beyond that, a drone is currently out of the question because the two countries I live in have very different laws for drones, so I'll keep it down for a while. Amazing landscape shots by the way man, you just earned a new subscriber!
1. Rf 35mm prime for video 2. Rf 24-70 for specific purpose & landscape photos 3. Rf 100mm for macro and portrait 4. Rf 100-500mm for telephoto which can be doubled with 2x adapter This is what I would have and am moving towards the same currently.
great vid mitch! definitely get where your coming from when using a 24-70, to make sure i dont get lazy I make sure i think in primes and move around. Also for a wide lens option would you go for your 20mm or your 17-28? Thinking of getting one of these lenses in the future!
It really depends I think the 17-28 and 20mm both have a place. I shot some 20mm photos at 1.8 of close up objects and the depth of field really helped create an interesting vibe. But the 17-28 is a good lens to bring if you’re not sure exactly what focal you might want
As a 24-70 owner I agree, I often wish for just a little bit more on the tele end. I'm ok with 24mm on the wide end. I find I shoot my 24-70 in the 28ish to 50mm range 90% of the time. So I'll keep mine, I have a 70-200 for the longer stuff. But completely get your point. A fast 50 is a joy to shoot and gives a very nice 'look'.
@@MitchLally I picked one up and while the range is great, especially getting that 85-135 in one lens along with 50mm. It's REALLY heavy. I'm having second thoughts.
As a 2nd photographer for weddings, the 24-70 was the lens that I was advised to get first. Yay, I got it! And I also only keep it just in case. It is my least favorite lens - ever. I'd rather shoot primes in 99% of situations, and recognize how versatile and useful a 24-70 can be, AND (for me) it feels the least creative and even less inspiring for anything I do.
This was as though you were looking through my camera bag. Everyone loves 24 but it's just not wide enough for me. I do so love primes! 20, 55, and 85. Covers everything but Africa, then it's 100-400.
So you are claiming that with the 24-70 you always wanted to be wider than 24 or tighter than 70. I understand the 70-180mm therefore, but the 35mm prime seems too narrow then, no? Did you consider a 16-35mm f2.8 instead of the prime?
I use my 24-70 for portraits and it's usually at 35mm or 70mm. I get frustrated with that lens and since I prefer the telephoto side, I mostly use my 85mm plus at 1.4, delicious. I've been thinking for the past few days, why not just sell the 24-70 and get a 35mm, duh, it makes perfect sense! I have all my areas covered from 17-1,200mm (600mm with 2xs tele) and the 24-70 range would still be covered without it. Great video!
Oh, a nice solution the two lenses for landscape and being in nature!! For any indoor or close work I would prefer 24 - 70 for the flexibility. One tip for you... you know that the next step is 2 cameras now, right? You can have the second camera a crop factor one maybe... so the tele lens zooms in even more by 1.6x and the second camera + lens combo are smaller overall. :)
Nice presentation but I dont quite get youre reasoning here. In one sentence you say that because you shot with primes for so long, you were used to moving your feet to get the composition. Than you say the problem with the 24-70 is you always wanted to shoot wider than 24 or longer than 70. So why couldn't you do what you had been used to doing and take a few steps back to get wider shots or a few steps forward to get longer shots? Ive been a prime only guy for all my 17 years shooting but Im done with juggling around a 24, 35, 50 and 75 or 85. Maybe Im getting too old but clients and models dont necessarily like standing around while I swap out lenses. Getting rid of them for a Sigma 24-70 2.8 ART.
No matter how far you stand back with a 35mm you’ll never get the same look and perspective as a 14mm when shooting up close. That’s why I said I always wanted to go wider or longer - not for the framing but for the perspective distortion that those focal lengths provide. 70-200 and 16-35 were a much better combo for me than a 24-70 because they allow that - for everything else a 35 and framing with my feet works a treat. Hope that makes sense.
I have a 24 GM on the a7 iv. With cropping in and clear image zoom, breathing compensation and active stabilization, I get a 60-70mm equivalent. The 24mm is just a little bit wider than our eyes focal length. Im thinking about what lenses I need to invest in the future. 16-35 power zoom maybe for ulta wide smooth gimbal shots for architecture, 50 1.2 or 85 or 135 for bokeh portraits? Or a 70-200 f2.8 for it? Or just a zoom lens + 24mm f1.4 idk, hoping there’s some awesome lenses in the builds
I shoot video but I'm in the process of selling my 14-24mm f2.8 sigma lens. For now I got a 20mm f1.8 sony lens to replace it while I wait for my Sony FE PZ 16-35mm to ship later this year. I'm keeping my 24-70mm sigma because I haven't found a good replacement for it. I can deal with one heavy lens for now.
Love my primes (20mm G, 35mm GM, 85 1.8) but this weekend taking some casual photos of my Son's birthday party, the Sigma 24-70 2.8 was the one i picked for versatility and speed, just to be in and out, get a wide, a close up, put the camera down and enjoy everything. But for street and landscape, i'll take the primes.
Good question! I thought I needed a 50mm 1.8 which I still have but hardly ever use because I tend to let go of bokeh in favor of compositional flexibility. I use my 17-50mm 2.8 zoom lens instead of restricting myself to the 50, being an event photographer who needs to be ready to take a shot at each given moment. Having a second shooter on a prime or using a second body with the prime are among the other options if you still prefer using a prime lens.
Definitely always preferred primes. Zooms look cool, they're super nifty in fast paced settings, even had someone imply I couldn't get professional photos without one lol but it always just makes me wanna take my time and use a 1.4ish prime lens.
After moving to a Canon EOS R5, my 24-70 has sat on the shelf and I carry the RF24-105 f4 or RF70-200 f4 as my go-to walkaround lenses. Question! You take fantastic landscape and outdoor photos, why are you spending the extra $$$ on the 2.8's? Unless I'm shooting wildlife, my f4's are plenty fast.
I like having 2.8 mainly for the depth of field when shooting portraits. I occasionally will shoot a portrait on the 17-28 or 70-180. I think it’s also nice to have for shooting blue hour - the extra stop allows you to be off the tripod and shoot handheld a bit more when the light is fading
Really interesting. I used my 24-120 on my GH5 for years now and 90% of the times I don’t need anything else. I love 35mm primes as an addition, 50mm never fitted my style tbh. But I also never get used to 24-70 because it was always lacking at the telephoto end for me
I had 12-60mm (24-120mm in full frame terms) for my Lumix G85 for a good while. Awesome stabilization and great range but I missed having a wider aperture and good autofocus. But I realized later that you can use a full frame 24-70mm lens and then use crop mode to almost get to 120mm there too (but at a cost of the depth of field on 71+mm being like f4.2-4.5 in full frame terms instead of f2.8) That's still pretty good in a pinch. But it's of course a bigger and heavier setup than M43.
I’m a videographer and I own multiple G Master Prime Lenses. 24 1.4, 35 1.4, 50 1.2, 85mm 1.4/90 2.8 Macro. Shooting events, and recently travelling international(after pandemic) again. I just realized that having zoom lenses will make my backpack lighter(I carry 2 bodies with me, Sony FX3 and FX30 with a 24mm and a 50mm or 85mm) and easier for me to carry when shooting around. Glad I just recenly got the Sony 24-70mm f2.8 GM Mk2. I still love my prime lenses. But 24-70 is a versatile lens not to include in any shooting condition. My current daily carry for me creating personal contents and for work are Sony 16-35, 24-70, 50 1.2 and 70-200 Macro. 😊
I've been shooting only primes for a few years as a portrait photographer, but recently I've been using the Sigma 24-70 DG DN. I still love my fast primes, but I've also found a use for the zoom that I use when the weather is bad, in shoots that efficiently is needed (i.e. I can't walk back and change out lens), and/or I have a small home studio where the zoom replaces a 50mm focal length (I do not own a 50 prime).
I came to the same conclusion. I love the versatility on the wide and telephoto ends and have one fast prime in 35-50mm range then a 24-70 plus a bunch of primes.
Godd Video, I have 24, 35, 50 i need the 85 for some stuff and this all, but the one I use mostly 90% time is the 35mm,, If some day they make a 24 to 70 but 1.8 maybe
I've gone from my Nikon 16-35 and 24-120 lenses to a 20mm and 50mm, and so far it's working out great. However, I'm keeping the other two lenses just in case I find a composition where the primes don't work. But when I travel I'll probably just take the two primes and my 70-200.
I’m about to buy a lens today! I have a 50mm for portraits and wanted to get a 24-70 for bigger groups (I’m taking pics for bands - not for concerts but just for their socials & album covers. I was also going to get a samyang 14mm f/2.8 for astrophotography. I’ve decided to get the sigma 24mm f.1 Art instead which can hopefully do both! As I don’t have a big budget. Wish me luck!
I am mostly a prime shooter with 14, 20, 24, 35, 50, 85, 105 and 135mm but after buying a 24-70 I take that lens anywhere with me when travelling. Combined with the 14mm, 35mm and 135mm and every situation can be photographed... I dare say the 24-70 is enough and if you want wider shots for landscapes you can just shoot a panorama.
Thanks for the nice video. As a wedding photographer i start with all zoom 16 35mm, 24-70mm & 70-200mm (for almost 20 years). But i recently changing my style of shooting. I invest in 35mm and 85mm and next to buy is sigma 16-28mm and maybe later 135mm or a 70-180mm. Actually i might change my 85mm to 50mm LOL
how you're doing i just got my canon 80d and i want a good zoom lens like the sigma 70-200 and it's all black and i see it takes great pictures. i want a few lens but i don't want to kill my pockets you understand. but i'm in love with sigma products and plus it's cheaper than canon. i guess those photographers can buy them cause they get paid i do this for fun and i want to be good at what i do ya see.i want to get this 70-200 f2.8 over the canon 55-250 so i want your opinion i'm going to buy the 18-35 sigma lens the 35mm 1.4 sigma lens and the 70-200 that's a good combination right? i was thinking 24-70 and the 24mm pancake lens and my collection is complete
I actually have a couple of lenses in the 24-70, 24-105 range. They work well for me. But, I also have some primes and the one I use mostly is the 35 1.4. The 50 is too limiting for me. I have some longer focal length lenses, but rarely use them. If I travel, I have the 24-105 and the 16-35 with me most of the time.
dude, i'm in EXACLY same situation! I have the 70-180....85 1.4 so I'm considering a 24-70 , but I do like wider. So ye i'm considering a 17-28 lol. I also only have 10-24 fuji wr, 23, 35, 56 and 55- 200. Damn, its not easy ye.
Thank you! My newly acquired Sony A7C II has 2 primes, 24 and 35. I thought about a 50 but have been on the fence with that until you said, pick one you like between 35 or 50 and go with that! I'll keep the 35! My fuji gear gets me wherever I want to go MM wise! Thanks for this beautiful video!!
For me it was the tamron duo : 17-28mm and 28-70mm. I shoot on a Sony a7siii and I realise that even if they have a 2.8 aperture the focal length was not enough for me. I swith to the 16-35 f4 and 24-105 f4
I carry a 16-35mm 2.8, 50mm 1.2, and 70-200mm 2.8. It’s rare that I find a scenario where I can’t walk up the 16-35mm or the 50mm to fill the gaps. And given Sony doesn’t make any 16mm, 18mm, or 20mm fast primes, it’s not possible to carry the 24-70 and 70-200 with the same level of versatility. I do own the 24-70mm 2.8 just because of situations where I have to travel really light and can only bring one lens, that’s what I’m grabbing.
The 70-200L was a lens I wanted to love but I’ve got primes that fill that range that I prefer shooting with. Great lens but the 70-200 didn’t fit my flow.
Thank you. Good to get this perspective which I have been moving toward myself. These lens decisions are always tough. I have a 24-70 2.8. But, I have been considering whether to sell it. I also have 15-35 2.8 and 70-200 2.8. No primes yet. I find I want wider then 24 when I shoot wide and longer than 70 when I shoot long. Almost always. I think the times that a 24-70 might be useful for me is when I am shooing family stuff indoors. Other than that - I don't find myself using it. A prime or two might cover that better. EDIT: 5 months later and my thinking is starting to crystalize. I purchased a 50 1.2 and an 85 1.2. Gorgeous lenses - both of them. So, I have 15-35 covered with my wide 2.8 zoom, a really good 50 1.2, and a really good 70-200 2.8 zoom. The 85 is icing on the cake. I really don't have much use anymore for a 24-70 zoom. Time to sell.
You have really nice sets. Why did you chose 85mm over 100mm prime. Also do you think that two primes are better than a single 24-70 in terms of photo/video quality in normal scenarios. I'm considering buying so your experience will help me please.
with you on not owning a 24-70 after having given it a good go as well!
would love to see a video on the rf f2 28-70
already did it :)
So you are not happy with the 24-70mm because you "you wanted to go longer than 70", but at the same time you say that "cropping ... is no problem at all" :D
my shooting style is with the 24-70 As an event photographer I have it on my camera 100% of the time.... I reccomend everyone should own a 24-70, I also have a 85mm 35mm and the 70-200... :) but the 24-70 is my day to day lens
yes u can crop from 24 to 35 or from 70 to 135 but u cant from 35 to 24 :D
ok boomer
24-70 has given me more versatility than my prime setup. Dust on the sensor and constantly switching out was enough for me not to miss primes anymore.
That’s fair enough!
I have 1 lens - sigma 24mm f/1.4 art dg dn and sony a7IV ✌🏼
I started with a 24-70. I now have primes too. I think they should be regarded as different tools. There are times when switching focal lengths is essential, but doing so with primes would result in missing moments and would be impractical. For those on a budget, it can be a great place to start and can help videographers/photographers discover what focal lengths they use or love most, and can then proceed to purchase primes on that bases.
For me, everyone raved about the Canon nifty fifty (and rightly so in a lot of ways). However I always found that it was either not wide enough, or not telephoto enough, sitting right in a weird middle ground for me. Now that I have a 35mm prime and an 85mm prime, I never use my 50mm. I haven't sold it yet but I haven't used it in ages so it's really about time I sold it to someone who will actually use and enjoy it.
Which 85 do you have? Considering adding the sigma one
@@photosblossomsau1624 I've got the RF Samyang 85 f1.4 AF, although depending where you are in the world it might be hard to find.
@@JarraxQ sorry which one is hard to find? I’m in Melbourne
@@photosblossomsau1624 The Samyang 85mm for RF is hard to find, but there's plenty of other options depending on your camera body 👍
35mm and 85mm is what i use as well for all of my portraiture. Had a 50mm (25mm m4/3) on my Lumix system and always found myself going for the 85mm (42.5mm m4/3) instead.
Same. My first lens was 24-70. Most of my shots where at 70mm and all other shots around 24-40mm. I sold my 24-70 and now I have a 35mm and a 85mm.
When I am going on a hike or if i am chilling with friends, i am using the 35mm. When i shoot street or portraits I like using my 85mm
I think for people that start photography it's not the best advice to buy a 24-70 because those lenses are quite expensive. Buying a 35mm or a 50mm might be a better fit imo. Walking around and finding nice compositions is a fun aspect of photography.
I really enjoyed your video. Keep up the good work and have a beautiful day 👍🏼
Thanks so much :)
I agree with you. I sold my 24-70 g2 tamron. I love my 35mm rf lens, and my rf 50 1.2. I do have the rf 24-105 for landscapes and travel photography. I don't mind the f4 for travel, bc I want to show the location/background anyway. And the 24-105 is so light and easy to carry around.
Nice!
When I first started doing photography, zooms were so bad that you had to shoot primes. As zooms got better, photographers started using more zooms. Now a good prime is still marginally better than a good zoom at a particular focal length. And primes in general offer wider apertures and lighter weight and smaller size. But, zooms offer more versatility in one lens. Over the years I've used both zooms and primes. Currently my go to lenses are the 24-70mm GM II and 70-200mm GM II. But, during 2020 and 2021, I acquired all of the Sony GM primes from 14mm to 135mm. I love the primes. But, sometimes it's just more practical to go with the zooms.
Sony 🤮
sony GM are great lenses , but only if you have bunch of cash. the CA, sharpness, all are almost perfect. if you do pixel peeping, the price is justify, but it is really worth depend on our own. sigma while cheaper, but it has sharp image too, if you dont look too much into CA, barrel distortion ( all this can be fixed in post)
@@ulyssessait Like most people I started with one camera and one lens. Over the years I traded up to better cameras and better lenses. Since I couldn't travel during "the Covid years" I put that money toward GM lenses. I still don't own all of the GM lenses or the best Sony cameras. It would be nice to have the long telephoto GM prime lenses or the A1 camera. But, I'm happy with what I have.
@@PhotoTrekr yea. currently im using a7iii & sigma 35mm 1.4 DGDN & also sigma 28-70mm f2.8 DGDN. I mainly doing events & weddings. probably my next lens is 35mm GM & 24-70 GMii
@@ulyssessait Nice. Fortunately these days there are lots of quality third party options and you don't have to buy from the camera manufacturer just to get a decent lens. Happy shooting.😊
I keep my 24-70 as a just in case, only problem is the case never comes. 🤦🏿♂️
My 24-70 lives on my body. I do enjoy shooting with the 24, 50 & 85 primes from time to time. Can't beat versatility tbh.
First off, I absolutely love your work man!
I had a similar experience with the Canon 50mm 1.4. I had been looking to “upgrade” from the 1.8 and finally pulled the trigger on it after watching a million TH-cam comparisons. I popped it on my camera, and quickly realized it was not worth the price difference and I actually lost some functionality because it couldn’t focus as close as the 50mm 1.8. Needless to say, it was swiftly returned.
Also, my go to zoom lens for professional work like events and photo-journalism assignments is the 24-105. The images are sharp and I love the flexibility that the wide range of focal lengths give me.
To each their own, but I wouldn't want to be without a 24-70 (or perhaps 24-105 or similar). The point of a 24-70, in my opinion, is to be able to from from a wide angle of view to a short telephoto angle of view without switching lenses. If you shoot with two bodies, that may not be so much of a big deal (since you can have a wide angle lens on one and a short telephoto on the other), but if you are shooting with only one body, that lets you get very different looking images without having to change lenses. Obviously that can be more or less significant depending on how you shoot, eg if you are taking your time shooting landscapes, changing lenses to go from an UWA to a telephoto may not bother you at all. It's a different story though if you want me to able to go from an environmental portrait to a head and shoulders portrait in the blink of an eye, or you are wandering around and want to be able to take a variety of different styles of shot without having to carry and change lenses. I have owned lots of different zooms and primes over the years, but the more time goes on, the more I find that a 24-70 covers a lot of what I actually shoot, and a 24-70 plus 70-200 covers the vast majority of it. I would still want one or two wide aperture primes for low light and very shallow depth of field work, and I'm sure I could find a use for an UWA and a longer telephoto occasionally if I had them, but I can do an awful lot with a 24-70 and a 70-200.
I feel you bro. Only reason why Im holding to my 24-70 is travel. Travel light with one lens is so convenient.
Very nice drone shots, beautiful location. Thanks for sharing your travels and the content you provide. In my kit i have the Sigma 35mm 1.4, the RF 50 1.2 and Sigma 105 1.4. I take this kit on my travels and hikes, and serves all my purpose needs. if i need to crop in, the R5 has enough resolution. I cant live without any of these focal lengths, but if i must keep just one lens, it would be the RF 50 1.2. I prefer the 35mm focal length more, but that RF is just so magical (by that i mean sharp wide open with beautiful rendering, at least for my taste). When I was on the 5D IV, the 35mm 1.4 II lived on that camera for 99% of the time. To me its the technical qualities of a lens too, not just the focal length that prompt me to put it on the camera. Some lenses just have a special rendering, quality to them that draw me in. Still believe the Canon 35mm 1.4 L II is the best 35 in the market, and the RF50 best 50 even for the price. If anyone made it through this long comment, would like to share the remedy, and only remedy for GAS (gear acquisition syndrome), and that is to go out and shoot with what you have, create some art and be happy/proud of it, maybe even print it. It will help stop thinking about gear, at least for a while :)
Love my rf50mm 1.2 too!
Curious to know why you shoot with the 35mm sigma instead of the Canon these days? I've got the rf 35mm, but i just don't really enjoy using all that much (except for when I want something lightweight). Looking at either the Canon 35mm or sigma . Interested to know the thoughts of someone who's owned both!
@@lillyknight525 hi Lilly! Beautiful name! I've shot the 35mm 1.4 L II on the R5, but the bokeh didn't look the same as it did on the 5div, it was very strange, came to the conclusion it's because of the different sensor (I did this comparison with the same lens on a panasonic s5 and Sony a7c, used the new sigma 35mm 1.4 dg DN, and the bokeh was much uglier in my opinion on the Sony, point being different sensors will have a different look on the same glass/lens). So sold the 35mm 1.4 II and bought the Sigma 35 as a place holder until Canon releases their much anticipated RF 35mm 1.2. The 35 and 50 fl offer different perspectives, so they will both have a place in my bag, but its not necessary. Hope I answered your question. Have a blessed day!
I'm an event photographer. I was once thought I would need a 24-70 to ease my work. Sold it after a week, im just gonna stick with 35mm + 85mm / 24mm + 135mm primes dual body.
I agree. I have the 24-70 and debating on selling it… I honestly rarely use my 24-70 and have kept it as a “just in case” . I feel like I should sell it and then get a 16mm prime for my wide
For weddings 24-70 and 70-200. I'm Micro Four Thirds so I use the Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 and the Panasonic 35-100mm f2.8.
I don't like changing lens at weddings but for portraits and other things I like primes.
Also their are weather reasons why zooms are better for weddings. You don't want to change lens if there is a lot of hummity in the air you can fog up the sensor and viewfinder.
Subscribed for a long time 🙋♂️ since like 10 k. For many years I similarily thought a perfect 3 lens setup to be something similar: 16-35, 70-200 and a 1.4 prime in the middle. BUT now for my new brand I need to shoot a lot of portraits in tight spaces fast, and 24-70 seems necessary for the first time. Not tempting, but necessary. Also as I am mainly videographer then 24-70 seems like a great walkaround to do video, and then enters 28-70 f2 canon, which seems to fill that prime and zoom need. So really torn here personally and been thinking about this exact topic for months 😁
Damn you a real one!! 😅
start at 2:02
I had the Sigma 65mm F2. Loved that lens but barely used. I had the 16-28 f2.8 sigma but sold that too.
Honestly, I think I'm gonna buy the new 16-35mm f2.8 GM2 and pay the money. I hope I don't regret it.
It is all personal style. I have a 16-35, but always seem to use it in the 24-35 range as the super wide look never seems to be right for me, so I would probably be better with a 24-70. My favourite lens of all is the 70-200 - that really more suits how I see the world
70-200 is a real gem. Great for portraits too.
Absolutely brilliant video Mitch. Stunning visuals.
I love your vibe dude. So calming and well-paced. Keep up the epic work, man.
And awesome to see another Melbourne creator smashing TH-cam!!
Thanks Edward. I’m actually based in Bris
My set up with my 2 A7RV’s is my Sony 16-35mm f2.8 GM II & TAMRON 35-150mm f2-2.8 those lenses never leave my camera bodies. I shoot everything from events, weddings to portraits with those two lenses. I haven’t used my Sony 85mm f1.8, Sony 24mm f1.8gm, or my Sony Zeiss 55mm f1.8 in over a year. I think it’s time I let those three go.
I currently have a 16mm 1.8, a 50mm 1.4GM and a 24-105mm 4.0. Sony all three of them. I'm thinking about selling my 50mm and 24-105mm and replace them to a 24-70 2.8GMII and a 70-200GMII. Even tho I love my 50mm, I don't think I'll use it once I have the 24-70mm. I wish to only bring two lenses with me on my travels.
My ideal combo would probably be Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 with Tamron 17-28 f2.8.
Huge range and you get the creamy wide aperture of f2-2.2 between 35mm and 59mm (I think).
And you switch between this four lenses for different focus distances? Four!??
It’s better to have two lenses to cover your needs. I have rf 24-70 and 70-200, but when I have low light or necessity in details I use my rf 50 and 85. It’s better to have bag with two lanses and body. Than to carry all 4 lenses.
Find the best lens it's hard, takes time and money. I'm not a professional but like to shot as hobby when travelling so even with good results with prime lens, i'm tired of changing lens and travel with extra weight on bag, I'm moving to 24-70mm sigma Art.. let's see If i find my way........
If you start out the 24-70 kitlens is a great starting point. When I got the 85mm 1.8 I fell in love with primes. Then I bought the 35mm GM and noticed I’m not using it enough. I shoot with the 135mm GM. And on the wide angle I have the 20mm 1.8 because in APS-c mode I’ll get 30ish fov
24-70 is one of the best lenses you can buy. Primes don't enter the equation for me. Different tools.
I thought I needed the a7iii, once I finally got it I realized my a6000 did almost everything I needed to
I can relate to this so much. I started with the holy trinity and the 24-70 was always my least favorite to shoot with. Sold it and replaced it with 50mm to fill the gap.
I bought a cheap 500mm and a cheap 18mm. Both of them are barely used because they were barely usable.
When you said that 16 - 55 is the equivalent because of sensor crop i realized im watchin the wrong content
I was introduced to Prime’s from the start and fell in love with them straight away
My set up is Sigma 35, 85 and 105
Definitely need a wider focal length at some point but this is an expensive hobby for me so no rush 🙏
I started off swearing on prime lenses! I was all about it and thought it was sharper and superior.. till 6 months in and I got tired of switching lenses for a photo or when im shooting a short film. It wasnt a big deal at first.. but some days it just got annoying and it affects my momentum during a set and having to swap step up rings and filters while changing lenses slowly became an annoyance. So I bought myself a 24-70 2.8 lens to just try out a zoom for the first time. AND MAN! It was a game changer for me because of the type of work I do.. the 24-70 is the closest thing to a perfect lens.. for my style. So I got rid of all my primes.. but I did keep the 50 1.2 gm and 135 gm prime lenses.. because those two are my staple glass for portrait work.
But yeah.. the 24-70 makes your life so easy and I wish I would've made this lens my first purchase before buying the primes that I started off with lol
I’m stoked to hear when people find out what they like!! Nice job man
What type of work do you do?
I'm never a 24 70 . I'm about 12 24 and 70 200 kind a guy for portrait and events .
Funny, I own both that H&M parka and sweatshirt that you’re wearing lol
Yeap a did the same...sold my 24-70 and went to prime lenses...and I don't regret it
i also sold my 24-70 for the exact reason. People hyping this lens up way too much. 24 isnt wide enough, 70 isnt zoomed in enough. Even a kit lens can get the job done...
Not even that 24 isn't wide enough. A 24 on a high end lens is going to be much nicer than 24 on a zoom. Especially for portraits.
I bought 24-70mm 2.8 GMII as my very first lens and Sony alpha 1 in very few weeks. I think it's a good start to me to understand what focus width I like and then buy a prime (but before prime I want 12-24mm). I'm not a photographer I'm just a guy who can afford such stuff and I believe zoom lenses a good for start. Thanks for video, though, will test primes as well :)
You are buying a Sony a1 as a first camera? Are u insane or just incredibly wealthy? If you start you out get something cheaper, you won't be able to use the a1's potential for years. Just upgrade later when your skill has surpassed the cameras capability. It will take a while trust me!
@@mkine well, like I said I can afford this :) And I have got already a1 and 24-70 gm2.
good choice! People saying you should begin with something cheaper are just out of their mind. Investing in a cheaper setup is throwing away money, when you already can invest in better material, which'll give you more beneficial experience.
However a Sony A1, is perhaps a little too much, but if you can afford it...why not...I would have chosen to buy a cheaper body and an extra lens perhaps...but who am I to judge ;-)
In my own experience...professional photographers advised me to start with an APS-C body and 'master that' etc. resulting in buying an APS-C camera and many APS-C lenses, which I had to sell for wayy less money once I bought my full frame setup. Eventually, when I calculate all 'sunk cost' I think I could have bought a lens or two more when I initially bought a full frame setup.
How about start with 70-200gm2. I think it is a good len for a photographer which is nervous for street shoot.
This will be a long one, but have fun reading it:
I've only been in photography for about a year and 3 months now, and I recently sold my Canon 90D for a Canon R6 (when I bought the 90D, I just wanted something that isn't sloppy for TH-cam videos back then, and the R6 was a result of me realizing that not only do I love photography miles more than videos, I absolutely love shooting in low light, and it's usually people to be specific. I would've went for an R5, but most of my work doesn't involve cropping, file sizes are questionable, and the R5 does not perform as well as the R6 in low light, hence the decision). The only issue I have when shooting people with the R6 is that the face tracking does deliver slightly blurrier shots, when compared to the eye tracking autofocus. Eye tracking is just so much sharper that I'll always try to make sure the eyes were nailed for AT LEAST ONE SHOT
I bought a Sigma 18-35 with my 90D, then got a 70-200 (6 months in) when I realized I wanted to go Full Frame one day (hence the R6), because a limit of ISO 800 before noise kicks in was a bummer for me (The R6 nowadays can shoot at ISO 12,800, get the images mixed on DxO Pure RAW 2, and nobody will be able to tell that this image was noisy or post-processed to start with). The Sigma 70-200 Sports lens did deliver exactly what I wanted, at 50% of the Canon EF equivalent, and it was extremely practical for multi-purpose uses for me, so I bit the bullet and bought myself one
Right now I'm just trying to sell my Sigma 18-35 (I genuinely love this lens, but the vignette in post is a serious problem!) so I can afford to get a 24-70 instead (a temporary solution until I can either afford Canon native lenses, or decide on what primes I want to continue shooting with someday).
Beyond that, a drone is currently out of the question because the two countries I live in have very different laws for drones, so I'll keep it down for a while.
Amazing landscape shots by the way man, you just earned a new subscriber!
1. Rf 35mm prime for video
2. Rf 24-70 for specific purpose & landscape photos
3. Rf 100mm for macro and portrait
4. Rf 100-500mm for telephoto which can be doubled with 2x adapter
This is what I would have and am moving towards the same currently.
Does anyone know where his jacket is from? lol
I bought a 85mm 1.8 but I don't use it. Thats why I sold my 85mm 1.8 and bought a 24-70mm 2.8, because i like to be more flexible.
great vid mitch! definitely get where your coming from when using a 24-70, to make sure i dont get lazy I make sure i think in primes and move around. Also for a wide lens option would you go for your 20mm or your 17-28? Thinking of getting one of these lenses in the future!
It really depends I think the 17-28 and 20mm both have a place. I shot some 20mm photos at 1.8 of close up objects and the depth of field really helped create an interesting vibe. But the 17-28 is a good lens to bring if you’re not sure exactly what focal you might want
cuz there is 35-150 Tamron and now its game changer
I main primes, but for weddings it's gonna be the 24-70 all day. One lens covers 98% of all the needs without fumbling around
Interesting perspective, but I hate the word outro.
As a 24-70 owner I agree, I often wish for just a little bit more on the tele end. I'm ok with 24mm on the wide end. I find I shoot my 24-70 in the 28ish to 50mm range 90% of the time. So I'll keep mine, I have a 70-200 for the longer stuff. But completely get your point. A fast 50 is a joy to shoot and gives a very nice 'look'.
Sounds like a 35-150 might be interesting for you.
@@MitchLally I've given strong thought to that lens. Only worry is the size and weight. Haven't been able to get my hands on one to feel.
@@MitchLally I picked one up and while the range is great, especially getting that 85-135 in one lens along with 50mm. It's REALLY heavy. I'm having second thoughts.
As a 2nd photographer for weddings, the 24-70 was the lens that I was advised to get first. Yay, I got it! And I also only keep it just in case. It is my least favorite lens - ever. I'd rather shoot primes in 99% of situations, and recognize how versatile and useful a 24-70 can be, AND (for me) it feels the least creative and even less inspiring for anything I do.
sometimes just getting the shot is the most important
This was as though you were looking through my camera bag. Everyone loves 24 but it's just not wide enough for me. I do so love primes! 20, 55, and 85. Covers everything but Africa, then it's 100-400.
So you are claiming that with the 24-70 you always wanted to be wider than 24 or tighter than 70. I understand the 70-180mm therefore, but the 35mm prime seems too narrow then, no? Did you consider a 16-35mm f2.8 instead of the prime?
00:03:18 - yes he did.
Dope footage!
I use my 24-70 for portraits and it's usually at 35mm or 70mm. I get frustrated with that lens and since I prefer the telephoto side, I mostly use my 85mm plus at 1.4, delicious. I've been thinking for the past few days, why not just sell the 24-70 and get a 35mm, duh, it makes perfect sense! I have all my areas covered from 17-1,200mm (600mm with 2xs tele) and the 24-70 range would still be covered without it. Great video!
what a controversial title! Why would anybody sell the best focal length - the only lens you need. couldn't resist clicking :D
Oh, a nice solution the two lenses for landscape and being in nature!! For any indoor or close work I would prefer 24 - 70 for the flexibility. One tip for you... you know that the next step is 2 cameras now, right? You can have the second camera a crop factor one maybe... so the tele lens zooms in even more by 1.6x and the second camera + lens combo are smaller overall. :)
35 or 50? How about the 45? lol. Gotta have them all.
so i wasted my money on the sigma 24-70 as a beginner
I'm too broke to have several lenses 😂
Nice presentation but I dont quite get youre reasoning here. In one sentence you say that because you shot with primes for so long, you were used to moving your feet to get the composition. Than you say the problem with the 24-70 is you always wanted to shoot wider than 24 or longer than 70. So why couldn't you do what you had been used to doing and take a few steps back to get wider shots or a few steps forward to get longer shots? Ive been a prime only guy for all my 17 years shooting but Im done with juggling around a 24, 35, 50 and 75 or 85. Maybe Im getting too old but clients and models dont necessarily like standing around while I swap out lenses. Getting rid of them for a Sigma 24-70 2.8 ART.
No matter how far you stand back with a 35mm you’ll never get the same look and perspective as a 14mm when shooting up close. That’s why I said I always wanted to go wider or longer - not for the framing but for the perspective distortion that those focal lengths provide. 70-200 and 16-35 were a much better combo for me than a 24-70 because they allow that - for everything else a 35 and framing with my feet works a treat. Hope that makes sense.
I have a 24 GM on the a7 iv. With cropping in and clear image zoom, breathing compensation and active stabilization, I get a 60-70mm equivalent. The 24mm is just a little bit wider than our eyes focal length. Im thinking about what lenses I need to invest in the future. 16-35 power zoom maybe for ulta wide smooth gimbal shots for architecture, 50 1.2 or 85 or 135 for bokeh portraits? Or a 70-200 f2.8 for it? Or just a zoom lens + 24mm f1.4 idk, hoping there’s some awesome lenses in the builds
I shoot video but I'm in the process of selling my 14-24mm f2.8 sigma lens. For now I got a 20mm f1.8 sony lens to replace it while I wait for my Sony FE PZ 16-35mm to ship later this year. I'm keeping my 24-70mm sigma because I haven't found a good replacement for it. I can deal with one heavy lens for now.
24-70 is essential for videographers...
Love my primes (20mm G, 35mm GM, 85 1.8) but this weekend taking some casual photos of my Son's birthday party, the Sigma 24-70 2.8 was the one i picked for versatility and speed, just to be in and out, get a wide, a close up, put the camera down and enjoy everything. But for street and landscape, i'll take the primes.
Good question! I thought I needed a 50mm 1.8 which I still have but hardly ever use because I tend to let go of bokeh in favor of compositional flexibility. I use my 17-50mm 2.8 zoom lens instead of restricting myself to the 50, being an event photographer who needs to be ready to take a shot at each given moment. Having a second shooter on a prime or using a second body with the prime are among the other options if you still prefer using a prime lens.
yeah you really need a 24-70mm shooting events.
is this lens from samyang?
do you know, that your audio is in mono? :/
I appreciate you adding your gear on the description! Nice video 👏
Definitely always preferred primes. Zooms look cool, they're super nifty in fast paced settings, even had someone imply I couldn't get professional photos without one lol but it always just makes me wanna take my time and use a 1.4ish prime lens.
zooms are for when you don't have time. ie shooting events and you want to capture a moment. you don't have time to stop and change lens.
After moving to a Canon EOS R5, my 24-70 has sat on the shelf and I carry the RF24-105 f4 or RF70-200 f4 as my go-to walkaround lenses. Question! You take fantastic landscape and outdoor photos, why are you spending the extra $$$ on the 2.8's? Unless I'm shooting wildlife, my f4's are plenty fast.
I like having 2.8 mainly for the depth of field when shooting portraits. I occasionally will shoot a portrait on the 17-28 or 70-180. I think it’s also nice to have for shooting blue hour - the extra stop allows you to be off the tripod and shoot handheld a bit more when the light is fading
What lens have you used for this video style vlog and land capture?
A combination of lenses but from memory I think I used the Sony 20mm 1.8
Really interesting. I used my 24-120 on my GH5 for years now and 90% of the times I don’t need anything else. I love 35mm primes as an addition, 50mm never fitted my style tbh. But I also never get used to 24-70 because it was always lacking at the telephoto end for me
I had 12-60mm (24-120mm in full frame terms) for my Lumix G85 for a good while. Awesome stabilization and great range but I missed having a wider aperture and good autofocus.
But I realized later that you can use a full frame 24-70mm lens and then use crop mode to almost get to 120mm there too (but at a cost of the depth of field on 71+mm being like f4.2-4.5 in full frame terms instead of f2.8)
That's still pretty good in a pinch.
But it's of course a bigger and heavier setup than M43.
I’m a videographer and I own multiple G Master Prime Lenses. 24 1.4, 35 1.4, 50 1.2, 85mm 1.4/90 2.8 Macro. Shooting events, and recently travelling international(after pandemic) again. I just realized that having zoom lenses will make my backpack lighter(I carry 2 bodies with me, Sony FX3 and FX30 with a 24mm and a 50mm or 85mm) and easier for me to carry when shooting around.
Glad I just recenly got the Sony 24-70mm f2.8 GM Mk2. I still love my prime lenses. But 24-70 is a versatile lens not to include in any shooting condition.
My current daily carry for me creating personal contents and for work are Sony 16-35, 24-70, 50 1.2 and 70-200 Macro. 😊
I've been shooting only primes for a few years as a portrait photographer, but recently I've been using the Sigma 24-70 DG DN. I still love my fast primes, but I've also found a use for the zoom that I use when the weather is bad, in shoots that efficiently is needed (i.e. I can't walk back and change out lens), and/or I have a small home studio where the zoom replaces a 50mm focal length (I do not own a 50 prime).
I came to the same conclusion. I love the versatility on the wide and telephoto ends and have one fast prime in 35-50mm range then a 24-70 plus a bunch of primes.
What’s this location?
this is a beautiful video
Godd Video, I have 24, 35, 50 i need the 85 for some stuff and this all, but the one I use mostly 90% time is the 35mm,, If some day they make a 24 to 70 but 1.8 maybe
Hey there! I love the look of all of your vlogging content! Do you mind sharing your setup for all of the vlog shots? I have a canon r6 mii!
I've gone from my Nikon 16-35 and 24-120 lenses to a 20mm and 50mm, and so far it's working out great. However, I'm keeping the other two lenses just in case I find a composition where the primes don't work. But when I travel I'll probably just take the two primes and my 70-200.
You have a cool channel
When he was 50, he changed his mind again.
I’m about to buy a lens today! I have a 50mm for portraits and wanted to get a 24-70 for bigger groups (I’m taking pics for bands - not for concerts but just for their socials & album covers. I was also going to get a samyang 14mm f/2.8 for astrophotography. I’ve decided to get the sigma 24mm f.1 Art instead which can hopefully do both! As I don’t have a big budget. Wish me luck!
Good luck!!
@@MitchLally thanks! It arrived last night. Can’t wait to try it out ☺️
I am mostly a prime shooter with 14, 20, 24, 35, 50, 85, 105 and 135mm but after buying a 24-70 I take that lens anywhere with me when travelling. Combined with the 14mm, 35mm and 135mm and every situation can be photographed... I dare say the 24-70 is enough and if you want wider shots for landscapes you can just shoot a panorama.
Thanks for the nice video. As a wedding photographer i start with all zoom 16 35mm, 24-70mm & 70-200mm (for almost 20 years). But i recently changing my style of shooting. I invest in 35mm and 85mm and next to buy is sigma 16-28mm and maybe later 135mm or a 70-180mm. Actually i might change my 85mm to 50mm LOL
Clean video Mitch (:
well i have a 50mm lens and i love it. should i not buy 24-70mm than?? i mostly do concert photography
What about 28-70 f2 to start. 3 primes in one
Tried it - it was a bit too unwieldy for me
how you're doing i just got my canon 80d and i want a good zoom lens like the sigma 70-200 and it's all black and i see it takes great pictures. i want a few lens but i don't want to kill my pockets you understand. but i'm in love with sigma products and plus it's cheaper than canon. i guess those photographers can buy them cause they get paid i do this for fun and i want to be good at what i do ya see.i want to get this 70-200 f2.8 over the canon 55-250 so i want your opinion i'm going to buy the 18-35 sigma lens the 35mm 1.4 sigma lens and the 70-200 that's a good combination right? i was thinking 24-70 and the 24mm pancake lens and my collection is complete
I actually have a couple of lenses in the 24-70, 24-105 range. They work well for me. But, I also have some primes and the one I use mostly is the 35 1.4. The 50 is too limiting for me. I have some longer focal length lenses, but rarely use them. If I travel, I have the 24-105 and the 16-35 with me most of the time.
dude, i'm in EXACLY same situation! I have the 70-180....85 1.4 so I'm considering a 24-70 , but I do like wider. So ye i'm considering a 17-28 lol. I also only have 10-24 fuji wr, 23, 35, 56 and 55- 200.
Damn, its not easy ye.
Thank you! My newly acquired Sony A7C II has 2 primes, 24 and 35. I thought about a 50 but have been on the fence with that until you said, pick one you like between 35 or 50 and go with that! I'll keep the 35! My fuji gear gets me wherever I want to go MM wise! Thanks for this beautiful video!!
For me it was the tamron duo : 17-28mm and 28-70mm.
I shoot on a Sony a7siii and I realise that even if they have a 2.8 aperture the focal length was not enough for me.
I swith to the 16-35 f4 and 24-105 f4
I carry a 16-35mm 2.8, 50mm 1.2, and 70-200mm 2.8.
It’s rare that I find a scenario where I can’t walk up the 16-35mm or the 50mm to fill the gaps. And given Sony doesn’t make any 16mm, 18mm, or 20mm fast primes, it’s not possible to carry the 24-70 and 70-200 with the same level of versatility.
I do own the 24-70mm 2.8 just because of situations where I have to travel really light and can only bring one lens, that’s what I’m grabbing.
I thought I needed an 85mm. I purchased it and realized I had never used it. I did not replace my 50mm or 70-200mm for portraiture.
The 70-200L was a lens I wanted to love but I’ve got primes that fill that range that I prefer shooting with. Great lens but the 70-200 didn’t fit my flow.
True! Yeah I was a bit the same and I came back around to it when my style of photography changed.
@@MitchLally if can only keep three or 4 lenses and budget is no issue what would you recommend for your kind of photography etc
Thank you. Good to get this perspective which I have been moving toward myself. These lens decisions are always tough. I have a 24-70 2.8. But, I have been considering whether to sell it. I also have 15-35 2.8 and 70-200 2.8. No primes yet. I find I want wider then 24 when I shoot wide and longer than 70 when I shoot long. Almost always. I think the times that a 24-70 might be useful for me is when I am shooing family stuff indoors. Other than that - I don't find myself using it. A prime or two might cover that better.
EDIT: 5 months later and my thinking is starting to crystalize. I purchased a 50 1.2 and an 85 1.2. Gorgeous lenses - both of them. So, I have 15-35 covered with my wide 2.8 zoom, a really good 50 1.2, and a really good 70-200 2.8 zoom. The 85 is icing on the cake. I really don't have much use anymore for a 24-70 zoom. Time to sell.
You have really nice sets. Why did you chose 85mm over 100mm prime. Also do you think that two primes are better than a single 24-70 in terms of photo/video quality in normal scenarios. I'm considering buying so your experience will help me please.