I never comment on videos, but I have to say, your shots are killer. I've watched so many tutorials and breakdown of lenses, this is the first time i've seen a video where I was legit blow away by the presenters photos. Amazing work!
The 70-200mm always drops my jaw, as does the spectacular 35mm 1.4. Then there’s the amazing perspectives you get with ultra wide lenses but in the end, the reality is that the 24-70mm allows you to capture way more subjects than any other lens.
Love my 24-70g! I'd say it's taken 80% of the images in my portfolio. It's a lens that I have a love/hate relationship with but I eventually always come back around :)
I have been shooting for many years now, and as a fairly capable amateur photographer, I have built up quite a bit of kit, including my lenses. I have the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 'G1', Sigma 105mm Macro, Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6, Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4, Nikon 50mm f/1.8 D and Nikon 35mm f/2 D. My body is a full frame Nikon D610 at the moment. I find I shoot most of my photos by far on either the 24-70mm or on my 105mm macro, both of which I love. I carry the 70-300mm but I mostly don't use it. And the 17-35mm, very rarely that ever comes out of the bag. My kit is really quite heavy to carry, and I don't carry the primes, just the zooms. But despite the weight, I have gotten used to carrying it around these days, and don't mind too much. A good camera bag helps. The 24-70mm is wonderful, but the size I feel makes it very conspicuous and I find sometimes people that are not used to being photographed feel a bit intimidated by it. Recently I have experimented with the 50mm and the 35mm as they are both tiny, tiny little lenses. I have found the 50mm is a bit too zoomed in for a normal walkabout lens. But have been very impressed with the 35mm as a 'one lens does all' walk about inconspicuous lens. And with the 35mm I get an f/2 aperture which is that bit brighter. If I had time to change lenses, primes would probably be the way I would go. However, in social gatherings where everything is happening all at once, changing lenses all the time would slow you right down, so much that you would probably miss the spontaneity of many shots. So for this reason, for now, I'm sticking to the all purpose 24-70 f/2.8. It really is a great all round lens.
I use the 15 to 55 fuji x mount kit lens - roughly 24 to 70 full frame equivalent - as my general purpose lens. Most of my photos are taken at 23 or 35mm. I also have the 55 to 200 that I use for concerts, sports, and occasionally landscapes.
I inherited an EF 24-70 2.8 L. I didn’t use it on my Canon crop sensor camera because I lost so much of the wide angel. Recently purchased a Canon R5. I watched your video to see if it’s worth it to keep it even though I’ll have to use an adapter. Thanks for the insights. I’ll take it out for a “test drive.”
I've recently started using my Tamron 28-75 G2 again after going through a year or two of being a prime shooter. I feel like I can get a much greater variety of photos in a short period of time using a zoom compared to a prime, and if you're in a good location with good light, the photos will be strong enough to compare favourably with a prime equivalent. I'm having more fun using the zoom so going to see how this year goes with giving it another go!
I just upgraded from the Canon 28-70 f2.8 L to the Canon 24-70 f2.8 ll L. The older one always did a great job but when I got the Canon 70-200 f2.8 ll L and saw how sharp it was and the great coolr rendition I decided it was time. Should have it shortly and am looking forward to the results.
Enjoyed the presentation almost as much as the very good photos! Very good all round. I shoot Olympus so it is the 12-40mm F2.8 vs the 12-100mm F4, which is stabilised so the minimum shutter speed is about the same for both, if I stay off the coffee easily about three seconds, although I have managed ten (once). The 12-40mm is small and lighter and fits like a glove on the OMD-1 and the new OM Olympus body, the 12-100mm is of course not big, being a micro four thirds lens, but there is something so "right" about the 12-40mm, going out to the 90mm equivalent makes it great for portraits. Perhaps counter intuitively I think the 12-100mm makes a better landscape lens, F4 on micro four thirds gives deep depth of field and the equivalent zoom out to 200mm is very flexible; that being said the 12-40mm is almost glued to the camera and is usually only pried off for the 45mm F1.2 or 20mm F1.4. Olympus do have a a pretty small and light 12-200mm (24-400mm equivalent) and whilst not fast outside in daylight it is enormous fun to use (like the others mentioned it is also weather sealed, but it is not completely sharp at the long end, the others are crisp all the way through). The ability to see a wide view (24mm) in the viewfinder and then instantly zoom in to a 400mm equivalent opens up so many possibilities, the world can be viewed in a completely different way and that can be almost intoxicating.
I have the 70-200, the 100-400 and the 24-70. I'm still trying to learn how and when to use the 24-70. I love it, just not had many situations to use it yet.
Enjoyed your presentation. Would it be possible when reviewing to include the APC-S format in your comments. 24-70 means something totally different to us amateurs shooting in the smaller format with full format lenses.
I just got my first camera that mine is the sony the a7iv n i got the same lens thank you it let me know i have everything to start off camera journey asking myself should i get one more lens i’m gonna use what i got n learn my camera
I have a Sony A7riiia with Zeiss 24-70 f4 and 70-200 f4 and Zeiss 55 mm f1. 8, this usually what I carry round in my camera bag I can also add Samyang 85mmf1.4 and Sigma 105mm macro lens.
I agree with you Gareth 100% and it’s definitely the lens of choice for me. I’m really interested in the new Nikkor 28-75 2.8 and at the price point is about £1300 cheaper than the 24-70 S! Granted not as sharp corner to corner and I lose 4mm on the wide end but would rather that and spend the money saved on a 50mm 1.2!
i was afraid of the weight for travel photography and i wanted the 20mm , so i got a 20-40 2.8...i don't mind shooting in crop mode on a7iv so i am ok with the zoom... if they ever make a 24-70 lighter though i will consider it. Looks great ...and shooting in crop mode is even better reach , like you said. Very nice video overall. liked the photos too
I'll have to force myself to try and use a standard zoom much more than I have until now. Got the old Canon EF 28-80mm f/2.8-4L and before the next vacation I want to know if I'll upgrade to the trusty EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II or just stick with this one. Usually it's 85mm and 135mm that I feel most comfortable with.
I started with a 24-120mm f.7-f11.2 full frame equivalent kit lens. It was great for video but not fantastic for photography and low light. I sold that and got a full frame camera with a 35mm f1.8 prime. And I love that thing. Sometimes I wish for a 24-70 f2.8, but then I remember how big & heavy they tend to be. And how I think f1.8 is barely enough light :p
No user/nick name...but, my daughter's wedding is rapidly approaching, and I'm trying to decide which lens to use. Nikkor 50mm f1.8 prime, or Nikkor 24mm-70mm f2.8??? The 24-70 is quite bulky, but I do love it!
There have been few reports for lack of enough sharpness in 24-70 f2.8 lense as compared to 24-105 f4 lense. Wondering if you have any idea and what's your take on that.
The major information is missing, ON WHAT SENSOR SIZE, its a big difference if on FF, APS-C or Micro 4Third. The FOV differs much despite the same Focal Length.
I It's a lens I don't really like in fact it's very heavy and I felt like 24 was not wide enough and 70 was not narrow enough. If i had two primes in my bag it will be a 16 to 20 for my wide shots and 85 to 110 for portraits. So you see the 24/70 Sony G 2.8 that I do have I was truly wondering if I might not sell it. I understand it's a great lens for interviews but I don't like shooting videos with my Sony 7Rii. Thank you for this video I will try to make better photographic use of that lens now.
You are right, 24-70mm doesn't do everything, but I find it does about 70% of my shots. If you haven't sold it yet, try to use it to shoot portraits of you friends and family by putting the lens to 70mm and setting the aperture at f/2.8, Also place your subject as far away from the background as you can. Then focus on their eye. This 'recipe' should give you really nice portraits with nicely blurred out backgrounds. It was when I first did this that my eyes were opened to what the 24-70mm f/2.8 can actually do. See how that works for you and if maybe you change your mind about the 24-70mm. Me personally, I love the 24-70, although I wish it was not as big and heavy, but it does take great shots.
The professional photographers I have seen tend to carry around two bodies at weddings and corporate events. One body with a 24-70mm f/2.8 on it and the other with a 70-200 f/2.8 lens on it. This means they are able to walk around and instantly shoot a huge range. This seems to be the standard kit for that type of work. I'm not a professional, but for the pictures I take at social gatherings, the 24-70mm f/2.8 is really great. I've thought about getting the 70-200mm f/2.8, but I have a 70-300mm f/4-5.6 and I hardly ever use it, so I don't think a 70-200mm f/2.8 would get much use from me either. I do have a Sigma 105mm Macro lens, and that is great for capturing detail and small things, but also makes a very decent portrait lens too. I use the 105mm macro way more, by far, that my 70-300mm. I hope this helps.
Sure, 24-70mm is versatile, and f/2.8 is fast enough to shoot in low light and to achieve shallow depth of field. But why so expensive compared to other zoom lenses? Is it true demand, or is it hype?
What's your tradeoff between f2.8 and f4 aperture for 24-70 and 24-105 lenses respectively? I am currently in a dilemma whether to go for 24-70 or 24-105 because one offers high aperture and other offers extra telephoto range with cheaper price too. So if I am spending that extra $600 for 24-70 f2.8, I need to have a strong reason, but I am not finding convincing conclusion yet. Choosing f2.8 gives that extra DOF which is required for portrait photography which I will be missing in f4, so would like to understand your perspective on that. Bdw, I am looking for all purpose lense that covers landscape, portrait and street with 6D mark2.
if you're doing primarily video work then imo constant f2.8 is pretty non-negotiable. I don't shoot much photo so I can't speak on the rest. DOF is a pricey look esp on zooms so up to you if you think bokeh is worth $600
So I am a bit confuse because my current camera show f/3.5-f/5.0 (if I remember correctly) while this one just says f/2.8 so does that mean you cant change the aperture? As you say in the video, I am worried that if I take this camera for travel and take photos of castle scenery while wanting to have my self and family, will it make the background blur?
Thanks for this video! I have a Tamron 24-70mm lens on my Nikon D750 (much cheaper than the Nikon lens) and it is my everyday walkaround lens as an urban photojournalist in Chicago. I LUV IT! :),
want to buy at least 3 lenses and that's it i really want a lens that i can keep on there to take all the shots i need instead of having to switch lenses to catch the shot i want
Nice video but why o why do you keep saying the same thing over and over? Namely 24-70 F 2.8, I knew it was that as it says so on the video, so no need to keep repeating yourself
I never comment on videos, but I have to say, your shots are killer. I've watched so many tutorials and breakdown of lenses, this is the first time i've seen a video where I was legit blow away by the presenters photos. Amazing work!
24-70 f2.8 is the only lens i own at the moment
The 70-200mm always drops my jaw, as does the spectacular 35mm 1.4. Then there’s the amazing perspectives you get with ultra wide lenses but in the end, the reality is that the 24-70mm allows you to capture way more subjects than any other lens.
Love my 24-70g! I'd say it's taken 80% of the images in my portfolio. It's a lens that I have a love/hate relationship with but I eventually always come back around :)
Man the photos in this were nutty levels of beauty
I have been shooting for many years now, and as a fairly capable amateur photographer, I have built up quite a bit of kit, including my lenses. I have the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 'G1', Sigma 105mm Macro, Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6, Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4, Nikon 50mm f/1.8 D and Nikon 35mm f/2 D. My body is a full frame Nikon D610 at the moment.
I find I shoot most of my photos by far on either the 24-70mm or on my 105mm macro, both of which I love. I carry the 70-300mm but I mostly don't use it. And the 17-35mm, very rarely that ever comes out of the bag.
My kit is really quite heavy to carry, and I don't carry the primes, just the zooms. But despite the weight, I have gotten used to carrying it around these days, and don't mind too much. A good camera bag helps.
The 24-70mm is wonderful, but the size I feel makes it very conspicuous and I find sometimes people that are not used to being photographed feel a bit intimidated by it. Recently I have experimented with the 50mm and the 35mm as they are both tiny, tiny little lenses. I have found the 50mm is a bit too zoomed in for a normal walkabout lens. But have been very impressed with the 35mm as a 'one lens does all' walk about inconspicuous lens. And with the 35mm I get an f/2 aperture which is that bit brighter.
If I had time to change lenses, primes would probably be the way I would go. However, in social gatherings where everything is happening all at once, changing lenses all the time would slow you right down, so much that you would probably miss the spontaneity of many shots. So for this reason, for now, I'm sticking to the all purpose 24-70 f/2.8. It really is a great all round lens.
Just ordered
Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8 L USM
Looking forward to experimenting with it
Great video! Love my rf 24-70. So versatile and takes great images. Perfect lens for events. Shooting individuals and groups.
I use the 15 to 55 fuji x mount kit lens - roughly 24 to 70 full frame equivalent - as my general purpose lens. Most of my photos are taken at 23 or 35mm. I also have the 55 to 200 that I use for concerts, sports, and occasionally landscapes.
I inherited an EF 24-70 2.8 L. I didn’t use it on my Canon crop sensor camera because I lost so much of the wide angel. Recently purchased a Canon R5. I watched your video to see if it’s worth it to keep it even though I’ll have to use an adapter. Thanks for the insights. I’ll take it out for a “test drive.”
I've recently started using my Tamron 28-75 G2 again after going through a year or two of being a prime shooter. I feel like I can get a much greater variety of photos in a short period of time using a zoom compared to a prime, and if you're in a good location with good light, the photos will be strong enough to compare favourably with a prime equivalent. I'm having more fun using the zoom so going to see how this year goes with giving it another go!
I just upgraded from the Canon 28-70 f2.8 L to the Canon 24-70 f2.8 ll L. The older one always did a great job but when I got the Canon 70-200 f2.8 ll L and saw how sharp it was and the great coolr rendition I decided it was time. Should have it shortly and am looking forward to the results.
Enjoyed the presentation almost as much as the very good photos! Very good all round. I shoot Olympus so it is the 12-40mm F2.8 vs the 12-100mm F4, which is stabilised so the minimum shutter speed is about the same for both, if I stay off the coffee easily about three seconds, although I have managed ten (once). The 12-40mm is small and lighter and fits like a glove on the OMD-1 and the new OM Olympus body, the 12-100mm is of course not big, being a micro four thirds lens, but there is something so "right" about the 12-40mm, going out to the 90mm equivalent makes it great for portraits. Perhaps counter intuitively I think the 12-100mm makes a better landscape lens, F4 on micro four thirds gives deep depth of field and the equivalent zoom out to 200mm is very flexible; that being said the 12-40mm is almost glued to the camera and is usually only pried off for the 45mm F1.2 or 20mm F1.4. Olympus do have a a pretty small and light 12-200mm (24-400mm equivalent) and whilst not fast outside in daylight it is enormous fun to use (like the others mentioned it is also weather sealed, but it is not completely sharp at the long end, the others are crisp all the way through). The ability to see a wide view (24mm) in the viewfinder and then instantly zoom in to a 400mm equivalent opens up so many possibilities, the world can be viewed in a completely different way and that can be almost intoxicating.
Just purchased my Canon 24x70 lens about 1 month now and I love it!
I love my 24-70 f2.8 but omg it’s a heavy beast but yeh the versatility is just awesome.
I have the 70-200, the 100-400 and the 24-70. I'm still trying to learn how and when to use the 24-70. I love it, just not had many situations to use it yet.
Love3 your shots, didn't know you can learn this in the citadel , I thought you were busy researching about White walker
It's my workhorse. Other lens to back it up is 70-200mm 2.8 for covering events and the like.
Mr G.. nice again.. love my Sony 24-70mm gm on now my a7iv, just wish though they make it more compact and lighter.
Well than wait for the 24-70GM II... ☝️ IT'LL BEN DEFINITELY much lighter and sharper for sure!
@@lyspec The Sony 24-70mm G II arrived. The build quality and features are awesome. The downside it is not cheap.
Enjoyed your presentation. Would it be possible when reviewing to include the APC-S format in your comments. 24-70 means something totally different to us amateurs shooting in the smaller format with full format lenses.
I just got my first camera that mine is the sony the a7iv n i got the same lens thank you it let me know i have everything to start off camera journey asking myself should i get one more lens i’m gonna use what i got n learn my camera
I have a Sony A7riiia with Zeiss 24-70 f4 and 70-200 f4 and Zeiss 55 mm f1. 8, this usually what I carry round in my camera bag I can also add Samyang 85mmf1.4 and Sigma 105mm macro lens.
I agree with you Gareth 100% and it’s definitely the lens of choice for me. I’m really interested in the new Nikkor 28-75 2.8 and at the price point is about £1300 cheaper than the 24-70 S! Granted not as sharp corner to corner and I lose 4mm on the wide end but would rather that and spend the money saved on a 50mm 1.2!
i was afraid of the weight for travel photography and i wanted the 20mm , so i got a 20-40 2.8...i don't mind shooting in crop mode on a7iv so i am ok with the zoom... if they ever make a 24-70 lighter though i will consider it. Looks great ...and shooting in crop mode is even better reach , like you said. Very nice video overall. liked the photos too
at 4:10, i agree. too much of a shallow depth of field ruins some photos
I'll have to force myself to try and use a standard zoom much more than I have until now. Got the old Canon EF 28-80mm f/2.8-4L and before the next vacation I want to know if I'll upgrade to the trusty EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II or just stick with this one. Usually it's 85mm and 135mm that I feel most comfortable with.
I started with a 24-120mm f.7-f11.2 full frame equivalent kit lens. It was great for video but not fantastic for photography and low light.
I sold that and got a full frame camera with a 35mm f1.8 prime.
And I love that thing.
Sometimes I wish for a 24-70 f2.8, but then I remember how big & heavy they tend to be.
And how I think f1.8 is barely enough light :p
No user/nick name...but, my daughter's wedding is rapidly approaching, and I'm trying to decide which lens to use. Nikkor 50mm f1.8 prime, or Nikkor 24mm-70mm f2.8??? The 24-70 is quite bulky, but I do love it!
There have been few reports for lack of enough sharpness in 24-70 f2.8 lense as compared to 24-105 f4 lense. Wondering if you have any idea and what's your take on that.
my ideal is to have 24-70/2.8 for indoor and professional work, 100/2.8 for macro and pancake 40/2.8 for outdoor trips
Great video. I’ve just bought the Lumix S Pro 24-70. Looking forward to getting it!
me too, it is a great lens but still struggle to use it. I still can't use it to get great video as 70-200
Great video my friend !!!! You got a new sub 👍
I love the Leica S 24-70 on the SL601, for me its best thing since the R6.2 with the APO Elmarit 100..
The major information is missing, ON WHAT SENSOR SIZE, its a big difference if on FF, APS-C or Micro 4Third. The FOV differs much despite the same Focal Length.
useful thanks park cameras
I It's a lens I don't really like in fact it's very heavy and I felt like 24 was not wide enough and 70 was not narrow enough. If i had two primes in my bag it will be a 16 to 20 for my wide shots and 85 to 110 for portraits. So you see the 24/70 Sony G 2.8 that I do have I was truly wondering if I might not sell it. I understand it's a great lens for interviews but I don't like shooting videos with my Sony 7Rii. Thank you for this video I will try to make better photographic use of that lens now.
You are right, 24-70mm doesn't do everything, but I find it does about 70% of my shots.
If you haven't sold it yet, try to use it to shoot portraits of you friends and family by putting the lens to 70mm and setting the aperture at f/2.8, Also place your subject as far away from the background as you can. Then focus on their eye. This 'recipe' should give you really nice portraits with nicely blurred out backgrounds. It was when I first did this that my eyes were opened to what the 24-70mm f/2.8 can actually do.
See how that works for you and if maybe you change your mind about the 24-70mm. Me personally, I love the 24-70, although I wish it was not as big and heavy, but it does take great shots.
Hmm swap out my 24-105 f4 for the 24-70 f2.8, was my first lens
Would this lens be perfect for portrait, wedding events, or etc?
The professional photographers I have seen tend to carry around two bodies at weddings and corporate events. One body with a 24-70mm f/2.8 on it and the other with a 70-200 f/2.8 lens on it. This means they are able to walk around and instantly shoot a huge range. This seems to be the standard kit for that type of work.
I'm not a professional, but for the pictures I take at social gatherings, the 24-70mm f/2.8 is really great. I've thought about getting the 70-200mm f/2.8, but I have a 70-300mm f/4-5.6 and I hardly ever use it, so I don't think a 70-200mm f/2.8 would get much use from me either. I do have a Sigma 105mm Macro lens, and that is great for capturing detail and small things, but also makes a very decent portrait lens too. I use the 105mm macro way more, by far, that my 70-300mm.
I hope this helps.
its cool info
Sure, 24-70mm is versatile, and f/2.8 is fast enough to shoot in low light and to achieve shallow depth of field. But why so expensive compared to other zoom lenses? Is it true demand, or is it hype?
What's your tradeoff between f2.8 and f4 aperture for 24-70 and 24-105 lenses respectively? I am currently in a dilemma whether to go for 24-70 or 24-105 because one offers high aperture and other offers extra telephoto range with cheaper price too. So if I am spending that extra $600 for 24-70 f2.8, I need to have a strong reason, but I am not finding convincing conclusion yet. Choosing f2.8 gives that extra DOF which is required for portrait photography which I will be missing in f4, so would like to understand your perspective on that. Bdw, I am looking for all purpose lense that covers landscape, portrait and street with 6D mark2.
if you're doing primarily video work then imo constant f2.8 is pretty non-negotiable. I don't shoot much photo so I can't speak on the rest. DOF is a pricey look esp on zooms so up to you if you think bokeh is worth $600
Thought he explained all this in the video
So I am a bit confuse because my current camera show f/3.5-f/5.0 (if I remember correctly) while this one just says f/2.8 so does that mean you cant change the aperture? As you say in the video, I am worried that if I take this camera for travel and take photos of castle scenery while wanting to have my self and family, will it make the background blur?
it’s constant aperture(which is good!) at the wide end and when zoomed in(f2.8), but yes you’ll be able to increase the aperture
What’s the best lens for cinematic videos
Lol
Thanks for this video! I have a Tamron 24-70mm lens on my Nikon D750 (much cheaper than the Nikon lens) and it is my everyday walkaround lens as an urban photojournalist in Chicago. I LUV IT! :),
want to buy at least 3 lenses and that's it i really want a lens that i can keep on there to take all the shots i need instead of having to switch lenses to catch the shot i want
May we work together?We have a hidden feature wireless mic for DSLR camera,do you interested?
Nice video but why o why do you keep saying the same thing over and over? Namely 24-70 F 2.8, I knew it was that as it says so on the video, so no need to keep repeating yourself
For me this lens is too heavy !
I agree too. It's heavy.
RUclips is reading my mind… I’m thinking on trading my 50 gm for the new 24-70…
So what happened ? 😊
Nice missleading thumbnail!
If I were you I would sell some of the gear and use that money to improve my teeth.