Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Yeah, I just added the 16-35 for that reason. I needed polarizer and NDs last summer and really couldn't use the 24-70 down at 24 in some situations. If I needed to stack the filters I was easily into the 35mm range. Heading to the Salton Sea next week and I will see what my go to lens will be.I share Marc's conservative approach to the 24/F2 ZA lens. Most of all I shall be looking for vignetting which is a known for the 24-70 at 24mm.
Perhaps this lens as a prime has re-dressed this situation as 24mm is a useful FL to have for so many different subjects. Amazingly, the 16-35 ZA displays no vignetting at any FL.
Minolta introduced in 1998 AF 200/4 APO Tele Macro which is excellent (I owned it once). I can imagine it can easily be taken into production again.So now, outside of T/S**, I wonder where they'll go next. It seems a 200mm (maybe macro, maybe both) is the logical next move, and that has been rumored. What do you think? I have a feeling it'll be a LONG time before I see any kind of ZA 50mm prime.
**lately, an interesting new Sony patent application for a tilt lens with AF surfaced.
Just go for Canon or Nikon and you are doneAgreed. The lack of a 200mm prime is a glaring hole in the current line-up, and I wonder which way they'll go with it?
If you have to ask ... well ...What is so special about a 2/24 ???
Canon has a 1.4/24 as well as Nikon since recently. And both are outstanding designs, not a bit second to Zeiss for Sony.
No thanks, I already "Done" with Canon and Nikon ...Just go for Canon or Nikon and you are done
I didn't say a glaring hole for me. I generally don't shoot 100mm+ lenses, let alone 200mm.Just go for Canon or Nikon and you are done
This forthcoming Zeiss might just keep me in the Sony camp. I'm very much looking forward to it. What's its advantage over an f/1.4 lens? It will probably cost about $1000 less and it will work on my A850.What is so special about a 2/24 ???
Canon has a 1.4/24 as well as Nikon since recently. And both are outstanding designs, not a bit second to Zeiss for Sony.
Well Ben ... not many wedding photographers here, so it can't be skewed that way for everyone. Plus, as I mentioned on the other thread, weddings aren't enough anymore and I believe it'll only get worse ... so my gear decisions aren't exclusively driven by weddings as much as in the past. More diverse applications is my criteria now.Not sure I agree Marc, there is the backup issue. If you need a 24 1.4 for a wedding (for example) then you need two camera bodies to hang it off otherwise you have no backup. It's why I would steer very clear of dual systems unless they complimented each other throughout the range at which point it gets a bit silly. I've just had to fall back on backup so many times that I'm hugely senstive to it.