Do I really need a mid range zoom?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by steveash, Jun 13, 2011.

  1. steveash macrumors 6502

    steveash

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #1
    I'm thinking of trading in my Canon 24-105mm L lens for the 100mm L Macro. I shoot with a 5DII. Commercially I do product shots and whatever is needed for my graphics business while for pleasure I mostly do travel photography (I visit China quite often) and portraits. I have an (old but good) 17-35mm f2.8L, 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.8 and a 70-200mm f2.8 so I have the 24-105mm range mostly covered and I generally prefer to shoot primes if I can. My 24-105 therefore seems to spend most of its time in a bag and considering it is one of my most valuable lenses it seems like a waste. I don't desperately need the macro; I use the 85 for product shots, often with an extension tube, but it would be a nice lens to add to my set as it would suit my style of photography.

    Does this make any sense at all? Is there a convincing reason why I should hang on to the 24-105? I've had a mid range zoom for so long I think I'd feel a bit naked without one!
     
  2. mackmgg macrumors 65816

    mackmgg

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2007
    #2
    If you don't think you need the 24-105mm, then there's no reason for you to keep it. If you don't think you'll need the 100mm macro any more though, why bother trading the 24-105mm for it?
     
  3. Phrasikleia macrumors 601

    Phrasikleia

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2008
    Location:
    Over there------->
    #3
    Since you already have a lens that can do 100mm at f/2.8, I can see two reasons why the 100mm macro might be a good option for you:

    1) Because you want to do some macro photography (which does not seem to be the case)

    2) Because the 70-200 f/2.8 is such a behemoth that you rarely carry it anywhere

    Otherwise, I don't see why you would have much of a need for that lens.

    I have the 100mm L macro myself. It's a very versatile lens, so it was one of the lenses I used the most up until I got the 70-200 f/4L IS, which I favored over the f/2.8 version because of its great portability. I take it everywhere and mostly leave the 100mm at home now. I keep the 100mm around for macro shots and occasions where I'm likely to need f/2.8.

    As for the 24-105mm: you have most of that range covered by other lenses, so it does seem rather redundant.
     
  4. tamasvarga67 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2007
    #4
    I had a similar dilemma and I sold the 24-105 to help funding a Zeiss MP 50.
    It is interesting because it seems like the best option for the 5DII but it was my least used lens...
     
  5. steveash thread starter macrumors 6502

    steveash

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #5
    Not so much Macro but certainly close-up photography. Both 85 and 70-200 have long min focus distances so I am making do with an extension tube. It would be nice to have full macro capability but not essential, I can always hire if I need it. The 70-200 is a bit hefty but I put up with it!!

    Perhaps I should sell the zoom and put the money in the bank until there is something I need rather than just want...

    Had any regrets?
     
  6. tamasvarga67 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2007
    #6
    Not at all... I never really liked the IQ of the 24-105.
     

Share This Page