
I’m quite excited about the upcoming announcement for the new 24-70mm f/2.8 USM II, a lens I’d definitely line up for. Often I’m caught between using a prime lens (for sharper optics, shallower DOF) and a zoom lens (much wider variety of shots). It used to be an easy choice, zoom if your lazy, or prime if your agile and creative! Don’t be bluffed by this bullshit… I shot countless projects on both and quite frankly hold my ‘zoom’ projects higher than my ‘primes’! Especially in a run-n-gun situation where you don’t decide when the action stars/stops, and time changing lenses can often result in a critical missed shot opportunity. If you’re creative, you’ll be creative with a zoom lens. If you’re afraid the ability to get in tighter without moving your feet will cause your little hooves to seize up, than you’re brainwashed, or just lazy looking for an excuse to stand around.
After my first run with the 70-200mm 2.8 II in Shanghai, I’ve begun to question the advantages in prime optical quality. How apparent in the final publishings of your work are the gains from a prime, especially when contrasting with the ease-of-use a zoom lens brings? The 24-70mm was breathtaking, still is. The II is going to be marvellous, like it’s close friend the 70-200mm II. Combine those two with a 1D Mark X, what more do you really need?? 2.8, IMO, provides a nice shallow DOF, and it’s all throughout the entire focal range. We’re untold on the inclusion of IS for the new 24-70, but it’s not all that tight enough to really need it. We’ll see….
Don’t read from this that I’m against primes, cause I love me some primes. When you have flexibility with time, often they are my preference. FYI - new 35mm 1.4 is on the way too!
B.
Recent Comments