I got a new lens!!!
But I know what you are thinking. Why did I get this very general purpose lens when I am primarily a portrait photographer? Great question. After all the new 24-70 f/2.8 ii is ahh-maaazing (I know. I rented it many times). Or at least the 50 f/1.2?
This is my
1) Cost. As much as I reallyreallyreally like the new Canon 24-70 f/2.8 ii, my pocketbook took less of a hit. The 24-70 goes for $2,299 whereas I the 24-104 was *$738 with free shipping.
*I bought a white box copy meaning it was originally part of a camera/lens set. So, I didn’t get the fancy bag. I also saved myself over $400. Worth it!
2) I may be upgrading to a full frame body soon and need at least one L lens in my line up (right?! Justification!) I mean why get a full frame body and put crappy glass on it? I wanted to have my first L glass be versatile.
3) Currently I am the set photographer for a small independent movie and it is a Canon smorgasbord. I can’t turn around without bumping into the ubiquitous 24-105. So in the interest of being consistent (or at least keeping up with the Jones’) it was the perfect choice. By the by, that is my in for the full frame body.
4) That little extra zoom really comes in handy. I borrowed this lens along with a 5D Mark iii from Hawaii Photo Rental and flew them up to San Francisco and shot my entire calendar. I have also borrowed the 24-70 many times and find I continually wish I had a little extra zoom.
5) Sue Bryce started with this lens.
Grabbed a quick shot and noticed a difference with clarity over my kit lenses.
But I knew I would.
My only complaint is the zoom ring is REALLY tight. I did a bit of research and it seems that this model of lens has a habit of zoom creep. I have to assume that Canon over tightens them now to prevent this. Haven’t decided if I’m going to do anything about it yet.