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.
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.
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 🙏
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.
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 UA-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.
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.
I started to fall in love with photography about a year ago. At the time, i bought ZV-E10 + Sony 35mm GM, then i added Sigma 24-70 f2.8. I absolutely loved them both, but at some points I was so obsessed w the sharpness coming out of the prime lenses. With the love for the full-frame setup, i sold my Sigma and the ZV-E10 just to have enuh cash for the Sony A7C, and i added the Sony 24mm f1.4 and the 85mm f1.8 to my bag. The struggles w prime lenses are there, but the results are so satisfying. Nothing wrong withe the 24-70-everything is great but it all comes down to your creative style and preferences. I gotta say im a prime lenses nerd and the widest-focal-lenses-holic. Thank you very much for reminding me that! You’re awesome 😊
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
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!
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
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.
Thanks Mitch: it’s a Paradigm shift. Depending on the goal of the trip, I will consider from now on, among my Fuji lenses, one of these two kits: - Portrait & abstract photography: The stunning Fuji jewel (50mm f1.0 WR), and the surgical 70-300mm, plus the new 10-24mm f4, both OIS & WR; - Story & street photography: The new crispy 33mm f1.4 WR, between the excellent 50-140mm f2.8 OIS WR, and the versatile new 10-24mm OIS WR.
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.😊
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
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).
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.
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.
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.
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'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.
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.
Thanks so much for having a different view and preference from what the 'hive mind' considers the right answer. I too, find that I use lenses differently than most.
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.
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!!
Returned from 2 weeks in Japan and realized the Fuji 60mm/f2.4 produced outstanding color over the Fuji 15-45mm kit lens! Sold the 15-45 right after the trip but I did like all of its photos in b and w. But I just bought a used Lumix LX10 for granddaughter and that has 24-72mm! I think stabilization will help her and it's a great zoom to learn on. When she's ready we'll start switching to 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.
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 UA-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!
I have to tell you, and this may be of topic... but your video is AWESOME for the simple reason of the background, location and how incredible the quality of your video and audio is. It makes me want to quit my career and just make videos for a living. WELL DONE!
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).
Dude, your videos are so timeless and well done. Always love your content and it never misses. I’m rocking an r6 with the 17-35, rf 35mm, rf 100-400 and so far I’m really digging it. Also can I mention how epic the scenery is of this video… incredible.
I completely agree. I use primes for as much as possible, including everything I do 'for myself'. But I do have a 24-105 for client work that requires the versatility of a zoom. Sometimes you just don't have enough time to switch lenses.
@@MitchLally Haha yea, traveling light is important. 😅 2 bodies is also simply just required for a lot of normal video work. We can't all be one-camera-commercial-superheroes 😅 The talking heads, conferences and interviews gotta be shot as well. 🤣😂
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.
I go by the 1.7x factor. 28/50/85/135. Or, Fuji, 18/33/56/90. Pretty much covers everything I could want. I do have the 16-55 and 70-300. However, I don’t really find myself using them. Will most likely follow your lead and eventually get rid of the 16-55. Probably keep the 70-300 for any wildlife. Great video!
I have the Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8, The Samyang 75 and 45mm f/1.8 lenses, and the Sigma 24mm f/1.4. For superwide, I have the Sony 10-20mm f/4 on an APS-C body. It gives 15-30mm coverage, and is my vlogging camera/lens. The APS-C body lets me "double" the functionality of my lenses. The 70-180 becomes a 105-270. the 75mm becomes a 105. And the 24mm becomes a 36mm. So I'm pretty well covered for nearly any circumstance.
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.
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!
I switched from a Sigma 14-24 to a Sony 16-35 GM. Coupled with my Tamron 35-150 2.0-2.8, I am well covered on zooms as I rarely need more than 150mm. I also have the 35 1.4, 50 1.2 and the Sigma 85 1.4 primes, for when I can comfortably carry my full size bag.
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.
Thanks for sharing your experience with comments on this lens....I use a 18-55mm on my D500 & I find it is a good focal variation ...as a hobbyist it suits my needs. I also use my prime for street work & I have an 28-300mm zoom which I love when out bush walking or sea landscapes... cheers 😀
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 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
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 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.
I have a Tamron 24-70 2.8 G2. It's a nice lens. I mainly use it for weddings/events where speed to get a shot is what matters. Otherwise, I don't have it in my bag.
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.
Nice of you to give your presentation on top of the mountain, just natural as in studio. I be scared of the height....I take my F50 equiv for these mountain shots.
Getting back to photography after many years (Canon DSLRs), I began shopping for lenses to supplement my 28-135mm f/1.4 "kit" lens. Lots of hype around the 24-70 f/2.8, but the prices are nuts. So I picked up a 30mm f/1.4 for walking around, a 10-20mm f/4.0 for bright interiors, architecture, and landscapes, and a 50mm f/1.8 for general shooting. I'm just beginning to learn these lenses, but my early impressions are that I don't need a 24-70mm.
For me it was the other way around. Had a 16-35mm and 4 fast primes. Eventually sold them all 2 years after getting a 24-70 and only kept the 24-70 since it was the only one I used.
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.
Yes, this sounds familiar to me.. when I go for a walk in these scenarios I'm used to take 15-35 and a 70-200, focal length between these lenses ... no thanks :-) But if I have to go to a wedding, 28-70 f2 and 85 f1.4 are my best choice.
Interesting recital and comments. My point of view from needing to deliver stunning, profound and/or salable images was to keep it simple. So can focus on composition, color and lighting. Learned photo tech back on Kodachrome 25, so my technique is pretty developed. For decades, used primarily a 35mm, 50mm ( 50mm if there was enough room ) and a 105mm for headshots. Used for approximately 85% of my work. For specials, like alpine climbing or the many Vegas conventions shot I added a 24mm or 20mm. All primes. Weddings, added a 85mm - not my favorite length but useful for distant table portraits, and a 70-200mm so as to stay out of officiators way and not get tossed out of the extravaganza. Primes are lighter on the camera than zooms which yields better images for me. And faster in use. Plus, definitely want/need fast lenses, sharp wide open. So primes. All that said, older and wiser now. Have always done tons of events, with the above prime trio, but picked up the Nikkor Z 24mm-70mm F/2.8 S Zoom when it came out. First 24-70mm that I find acceptable image quality wise. In fact, it is really good, perhaps near excellent. And since older and lazier, just use this lens on the Nikon mirrorless system. Even though to this day, prefer by a large margin the DSLR D850. I am just too lazy to pick the thing up. In practice, the Z 24-70mm has been great. Not perhaps the best, as I thought it would be upon initial testing, but it does rock. My decision on whether or not to use it, or the primes comes down to how lazy I am, or do I need spectacular image quality ( the primes ) for a given situation. And I am now very lazy. But make no mistake, the primes definitely outperform the 24-70mm in every way, but I gots to ask myself, is it worth the effort. Or the dollars from the income. Just my take.
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.
I’m now simplified my choice of lenses, 14-35mm f4, 50mm 1.4, 70-200 f2.8 and the mighty 85mm 1.2. I did trade the 24-105 so I guess like loosing the 24-70, I’ll see how I go so far don’t miss it.
This is the exact reason I'm selling my 24 - 70mm 2.8. I recently bought the 70 - 200mm RF 2.8 for the Canon R5 and soon I'm getting the RF 15 - 35mm 2.8 L. I have the RF 50mm 1.8 to fill the middle if needed and it's going to be great for lower light shots. I think in the future I'll probably get an 85mm 1.2 for portraits and street photograpghy but not rush to get that as I think I'll have the perfect lens set up for my photography needs once I get the 15 - 35mm.
The 70-200 was a lens I think I absolutely needed. I got it, liked it for a few months but realized I was always shooting on the long end and didn’t need the 70-100 focal length. I decided to get the 100-400GM and absolutely love it. It’s such a beast of a lens, regardless of what you’re photographing. Architecture, landscape and even portraits are incredible with this lens. Since getting it, I haven’t once packed the 70-200 in my camera bag and I’m in the midst of selling it.
I literally picked a 70-200 over a 100-400 purely because of its larger aperture. I shoot a lot in low light, and not only do I lack a plan to get primes, I lack money for that too, so mine is currently my only lens (until I can afford a 24-70)
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 agree although for filming I don't wanna miss the 24-70 Sigma Art but I do own decent prime lenses from the Sigma Art series and the Sony G-Master- lenses as well! It depends what I'm doing. Shooting a wedding it's sometimes the best versatile choice.
For me it is the 35mm. Everyone is so obsessed with it and I thought I like the look as it is also used widely in film. But I really can’t make it to work. Most of the time I grab my 50mm or 17-28 or 85mm. Almost as you do. I also have the 70-180 but don’t it use it that often.
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.
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
Great video & topic For my weddings I mainly use 3 lenses, RF 15-35mmf2.8 sigma Art 50mm F1.4 & EF 700-200 F2.8 The Sigma provides the creative soft background arty stuff and the other 2 lenses the photojournalistic documentary side.
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.
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
I’ve gone down a similar route with primes then an all purpose 24-120 equiv and my current setup is almost identical to yours albeit a M43 one. G9 with Pana Leica 8-18mm zoom & 25mm prime plus Pana 35-100. Also a Gx9 with 15mm prime. (Equiv to 16-36mm, 50mm, 70-200mm .. plus 30mm on range finder style.)
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 have a 24-105 and bought the Sigma 80mm f1.2 ... I gave it back within a month, since I couldn't get as close to small subjects as with the 24-105 and then focal length wasn't very versatile... It's too narrow for everyday shots and too wide for the "hey look what I've found" attention to small subjects, where I want to fill the frame as much as possible... I just kept the 24-105 on all the time and realized even though the 80mm was sharper and faster, i just use it way too little and it doesn't fit my needs. I'd love to see a 24-105 f1.8 which can focus even closer, to get sort of macro shots Or a 50-200 f2.8 with 20cm focus distance macro capability
Sony 20mm f1.8 + Sony 24-105 f4 + Sony 200-600 g lens. Might do some adjustments like swapping the 200-600 for the 100-400 g master overall super happy with sony native lenses.
I have not used a 28-75 Tamron lens for more than a year. Did not find any use for it. Mostly used Tamron 28-200 lens and primes 35mm f/1.8 and 20mm f/1.8 Sony lens. Planning to sell 28-200 and 28-75 and replace them with Tamron 35-150 f/2 - f/2.8 lens. Once I got a 35mm f/1.8 Sony lens I use less to none for a 20mm f/1.8 lens as well. So probably going to sell it too. My RX100VII is going to cover quick snapshots for travel if my A7IV is mounted with 35mm 1.8 or in the future 35-150.
This is good video I think every camera lens have a meaningful just depends on what you’re shooting either travel, landscape, portrait, animal or video shoot as well. But I don’t think there’s a such a good or bad lens most of just depends on what your needed focal numbers and for sure is personal preference pick a right lens for yourself.
I agree with you man, zoom lenses are good but they are not for everybody. Prime lenses let you move freely, to get your composition instead of zooming for the subject.
I replaced my 24-70 2.8 with RF 50 1.2 on my R5. Best decision ever, I use 50mm for video mainly and head to shoulder portraits and my RF 70-200 2.8 for everything else like landscapes to get a different perspective. My EF 16-35 is in my bag but haven’t used it in around 10 months.
great video, editing and I especially love your color grading! Switching to sony from canon and looking for my first sony setup. I ended up getting A7 IV, looking for a lens now.
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 still move my feet using 24-70, it is just a quick switch for me to switch from one focal length to another focal, but I agree that's not a lens for everybody's liking
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
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.
I feel you bro. Only reason why Im holding to my 24-70 is travel. Travel light with one lens is so convenient.
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!
with you on not owning a 24-70 after having given it a good go as well!
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 🙏
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.
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.
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 love your vibe dude. So calming and well-paced. Keep up the epic work, man.
And awesome to see another Melbourne creator smashing UA-cam!!
Thanks Edward. I’m actually based in Bris
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 UA-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.
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.
I started to fall in love with photography about a year ago. At the time, i bought ZV-E10 + Sony 35mm GM, then i added Sigma 24-70 f2.8. I absolutely loved them both, but at some points I was so obsessed w the sharpness coming out of the prime lenses. With the love for the full-frame setup, i sold my Sigma and the ZV-E10 just to have enuh cash for the Sony A7C, and i added the Sony 24mm f1.4 and the 85mm f1.8 to my bag. The struggles w prime lenses are there, but the results are so satisfying. Nothing wrong withe the 24-70-everything is great but it all comes down to your creative style and preferences. I gotta say im a prime lenses nerd and the widest-focal-lenses-holic. Thank you very much for reminding me that! You’re awesome 😊
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
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!
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.
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.
Thanks Mitch: it’s a Paradigm shift.
Depending on the goal of the trip, I will consider from now on, among my Fuji lenses, one of these two kits:
- Portrait & abstract photography: The stunning Fuji jewel (50mm f1.0 WR), and the surgical 70-300mm, plus the new 10-24mm f4, both OIS & WR;
- Story & street photography: The new crispy 33mm f1.4 WR, between the excellent 50-140mm f2.8 OIS WR, and the versatile new 10-24mm OIS WR.
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.😊
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
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).
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.
I appreciate you adding your gear on the description! Nice video 👏
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.
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.
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.
Absolutely brilliant video Mitch. Stunning visuals.
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.
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.
Thanks so much for having a different view and preference from what the 'hive mind' considers the right answer. I too, find that I use lenses differently than most.
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.
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!!
Returned from 2 weeks in Japan and realized the Fuji 60mm/f2.4 produced outstanding color over the Fuji 15-45mm kit lens! Sold the 15-45 right after the trip but I did like all of its photos in b and w. But I just bought a used Lumix LX10 for granddaughter and that has 24-72mm! I think stabilization will help her and it's a great zoom to learn on. When she's ready we'll start switching to 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.
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 UA-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!
I have to tell you, and this may be of topic... but your video is AWESOME for the simple reason of the background, location and how incredible the quality of your video and audio is. It makes me want to quit my career and just make videos for a living. WELL DONE!
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).
Dude, your videos are so timeless and well done. Always love your content and it never misses.
I’m rocking an r6 with the 17-35, rf 35mm, rf 100-400 and so far I’m really digging it.
Also can I mention how epic the scenery is of this video… incredible.
I completely agree. I use primes for as much as possible, including everything I do 'for myself'. But I do have a 24-105 for client work that requires the versatility of a zoom. Sometimes you just don't have enough time to switch lenses.
That’s true! I think if you’re a pro you should always have two bodies 😅 carrying two bodies on a hiking trip is another argument though
@@MitchLally Haha yea, traveling light is important. 😅 2 bodies is also simply just required for a lot of normal video work.
We can't all be one-camera-commercial-superheroes 😅
The talking heads, conferences and interviews gotta be shot as well. 🤣😂
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.
I go by the 1.7x factor. 28/50/85/135. Or, Fuji, 18/33/56/90. Pretty much covers everything I could want. I do have the 16-55 and 70-300. However, I don’t really find myself using them. Will most likely follow your lead and eventually get rid of the 16-55. Probably keep the 70-300 for any wildlife. Great video!
I have the Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8, The Samyang 75 and 45mm f/1.8 lenses, and the Sigma 24mm f/1.4. For superwide, I have the Sony 10-20mm f/4 on an APS-C body. It gives 15-30mm coverage, and is my vlogging camera/lens. The APS-C body lets me "double" the functionality of my lenses. The 70-180 becomes a 105-270. the 75mm becomes a 105. And the 24mm becomes a 36mm. So I'm pretty well covered for nearly any circumstance.
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.
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!
I switched from a Sigma 14-24 to a Sony 16-35 GM. Coupled with my Tamron 35-150 2.0-2.8, I am well covered on zooms as I rarely need more than 150mm. I also have the 35 1.4, 50 1.2 and the Sigma 85 1.4 primes, for when I can comfortably carry my full size bag.
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
Thanks for sharing your experience with comments on this lens....I use a 18-55mm on my D500 & I find it is a good focal variation ...as a hobbyist it suits my needs. I also use my prime for street work & I have an 28-300mm zoom which I love when out bush walking or sea landscapes... cheers 😀
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 can relate, I prefer shooting with primes even though the zooms are meant to be more versatile.
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?
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!! 😅
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.
I have a Tamron 24-70 2.8 G2. It's a nice lens. I mainly use it for weddings/events where speed to get a shot is what matters. Otherwise, I don't have it in my bag.
And now we have the Sony GM II 24-70. This lens is sharp as a prime! Sure it’s not a 1.4/1.2 but damn this new GM II is the must own lens.
24-70 and 70-200 are my go to lens. If I want to travel light I have the 35-150mm for Tamron.
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.
Nice of you to give your presentation on top of the mountain, just natural as in studio. I be scared of the height....I take my F50 equiv for these mountain shots.
Getting back to photography after many years (Canon DSLRs), I began shopping for lenses to supplement my 28-135mm f/1.4 "kit" lens. Lots of hype around the 24-70 f/2.8, but the prices are nuts. So I picked up a 30mm f/1.4 for walking around, a 10-20mm f/4.0 for bright interiors, architecture, and landscapes, and a 50mm f/1.8 for general shooting. I'm just beginning to learn these lenses, but my early impressions are that I don't need a 24-70mm.
yeah. Canon has budget 35 mm that is very good for the money. And also light. The 24-70 is ok but it just doesn't flatter the way a good prime does.
As someone who shoots events and portrait mainly I love my 50 and 105mm! I also have 24 as a wide angle
For me it was the other way around. Had a 16-35mm and 4 fast primes. Eventually sold them all 2 years after getting a 24-70 and only kept the 24-70 since it was the only one I used.
If you are in a controlled environmanet (studio) Primes are king however there are certain situations where Zooms are necessary (like Evenets).
Casually shooting a video on the top of a mountain, great content man!
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.
100% same here, had the Sony 24-105f4 and I shoot like everything on 24mm or on 105mm. Now I have a 85mm 1.8 and soon a 35mm 1.4.
Yes, this sounds familiar to me.. when I go for a walk in these scenarios I'm used to take 15-35 and a 70-200, focal length between these lenses ... no thanks :-) But if I have to go to a wedding, 28-70 f2 and 85 f1.4 are my best choice.
Interesting recital and comments. My point of view from needing to deliver stunning, profound and/or salable images was to keep it simple. So can focus on composition, color and lighting. Learned photo tech back on Kodachrome 25, so my technique is pretty developed. For decades, used primarily a 35mm, 50mm ( 50mm if there was enough room ) and a 105mm for headshots. Used for approximately 85% of my work. For specials, like alpine climbing or the many Vegas conventions shot I added a 24mm or 20mm. All primes. Weddings, added a 85mm - not my favorite length but useful for distant table portraits, and a 70-200mm so as to stay out of officiators way and not get tossed out of the extravaganza.
Primes are lighter on the camera than zooms which yields better images for me. And faster in use. Plus, definitely want/need fast lenses, sharp wide open. So primes.
All that said, older and wiser now. Have always done tons of events, with the above prime trio, but picked up the Nikkor Z 24mm-70mm F/2.8 S Zoom when it came out. First 24-70mm that I find acceptable image quality wise. In fact, it is really good, perhaps near excellent. And since older and lazier, just use this lens on the Nikon mirrorless system. Even though to this day, prefer by a large margin the DSLR D850. I am just too lazy to pick the thing up.
In practice, the Z 24-70mm has been great. Not perhaps the best, as I thought it would be upon initial testing, but it does rock. My decision on whether or not to use it, or the primes comes down to how lazy I am, or do I need spectacular image quality ( the primes ) for a given situation. And I am now very lazy. But make no mistake, the primes definitely outperform the 24-70mm in every way, but I gots to ask myself, is it worth the effort. Or the dollars from the income.
Just my take.
drone shots are amazing Mitch!
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.
I have 1 lens - sigma 24mm f/1.4 art dg dn and sony a7IV ✌🏼
to me, i have the 35 1.8 and the 85mm 1.4 for my sony a73. i can shoot weddings, family photos, studio works and all that. i dont need any other
I’m now simplified my choice of lenses, 14-35mm f4, 50mm 1.4, 70-200 f2.8 and the mighty 85mm 1.2. I did trade the 24-105 so I guess like loosing the 24-70, I’ll see how I go so far don’t miss it.
This is the exact reason I'm selling my 24 - 70mm 2.8. I recently bought the 70 - 200mm RF 2.8 for the Canon R5 and soon I'm getting the RF 15 - 35mm 2.8 L. I have the RF 50mm 1.8 to fill the middle if needed and it's going to be great for lower light shots. I think in the future I'll probably get an 85mm 1.2 for portraits and street photograpghy but not rush to get that as I think I'll have the perfect lens set up for my photography needs once I get the 15 - 35mm.
The 70-200 was a lens I think I absolutely needed. I got it, liked it for a few months but realized I was always shooting on the long end and didn’t need the 70-100 focal length. I decided to get the 100-400GM and absolutely love it. It’s such a beast of a lens, regardless of what you’re photographing. Architecture, landscape and even portraits are incredible with this lens. Since getting it, I haven’t once packed the 70-200 in my camera bag and I’m in the midst of selling it.
I literally picked a 70-200 over a 100-400 purely because of its larger aperture. I shoot a lot in low light, and not only do I lack a plan to get primes, I lack money for that too, so mine is currently my only lens (until I can afford a 24-70)
Amazing. Wow never thought it that way. Thanks Mitch
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
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 ☺️
Dope footage!
I agree although for filming I don't wanna miss the 24-70 Sigma Art but I do own decent prime lenses from the Sigma Art series and the Sony G-Master- lenses as well! It depends what I'm doing. Shooting a wedding it's sometimes the best versatile choice.
For me it is the 35mm. Everyone is so obsessed with it and I thought I like the look as it is also used widely in film. But I really can’t make it to work. Most of the time I grab my 50mm or 17-28 or 85mm. Almost as you do. I also have the 70-180 but don’t it use it that often.
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.
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
Great video & topic For my weddings I mainly use 3 lenses, RF 15-35mmf2.8 sigma Art 50mm F1.4 & EF 700-200 F2.8
The Sigma provides the creative soft background arty stuff and the other 2 lenses the photojournalistic documentary side.
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.
17-28 and 35-150 is an interesting set up as well.
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
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 down a similar route with primes then an all purpose 24-120 equiv and my current setup is almost identical to yours albeit a M43 one. G9 with Pana Leica 8-18mm zoom & 25mm prime plus Pana 35-100. Also a Gx9 with 15mm prime.
(Equiv to 16-36mm, 50mm, 70-200mm .. plus 30mm on range finder style.)
Setup partly inspired by the late David Thorpe 🙏🏼
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 have a 24-105 and bought the Sigma 80mm f1.2 ... I gave it back within a month, since I couldn't get as close to small subjects as with the 24-105 and then focal length wasn't very versatile... It's too narrow for everyday shots and too wide for the "hey look what I've found" attention to small subjects, where I want to fill the frame as much as possible...
I just kept the 24-105 on all the time and realized even though the 80mm was sharper and faster, i just use it way too little and it doesn't fit my needs.
I'd love to see a 24-105 f1.8 which can focus even closer, to get sort of macro shots
Or a 50-200 f2.8 with 20cm focus distance macro capability
Sony 20mm f1.8 + Sony 24-105 f4 + Sony 200-600 g lens. Might do some adjustments like swapping the 200-600 for the 100-400 g master overall super happy with sony native lenses.
I have not used a 28-75 Tamron lens for more than a year. Did not find any use for it. Mostly used Tamron 28-200 lens and primes 35mm f/1.8 and 20mm f/1.8 Sony lens. Planning to sell 28-200 and 28-75 and replace them with Tamron 35-150 f/2 - f/2.8 lens. Once I got a 35mm f/1.8 Sony lens I use less to none for a 20mm f/1.8 lens as well. So probably going to sell it too. My RX100VII is going to cover quick snapshots for travel if my A7IV is mounted with 35mm 1.8 or in the future 35-150.
I keep my 24-70 as a just in case, only problem is the case never comes. 🤦🏿♂️
Love your videos! Very inspiring as a new photographer.
This is good video I think every camera lens have a meaningful just depends on what you’re shooting either travel, landscape, portrait, animal or video shoot as well. But I don’t think there’s a such a good or bad lens most of just depends on what your needed focal numbers and for sure is personal preference pick a right lens for yourself.
I agree with you man, zoom lenses are good but they are not for everybody.
Prime lenses let you move freely, to get your composition instead of zooming for the subject.
I replaced my 24-70 2.8 with RF 50 1.2 on my R5. Best decision ever, I use 50mm for video mainly and head to shoulder portraits and my RF 70-200 2.8 for everything else like landscapes to get a different perspective. My EF 16-35 is in my bag but haven’t used it in around 10 months.
I really want to do what you did . Can you se alot of diffrent between 50.12. And 24-70 ?
great video, editing and I especially love your color grading! Switching to sony from canon and looking for my first sony setup. I ended up getting A7 IV, looking for a lens now.
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 still move my feet using 24-70, it is just a quick switch for me to switch from one focal length to another focal, but I agree that's not a lens for everybody's liking