09-11-2015, 07:39 PM
Answering my own question: To leave space for another prime in my bag, they went this way. And if lensrentals checks 10 lenses and found them on par with primes, especially regarding sample variations and overall performance, well, I only can recommend any person not able to decide between 24, 28 or 35 and all reasonably fast lenses to go for all of them in one barrel.
Last weekend I had such a situation when that lens would have been great. I took pictures of a group of 4 persons in narrow and wide spaces. One body with that lens and another with a 85/1.4 would have been THE right combination. The 50 mm sometimes was too limiting and I found myself cropping a lot.
I had a 24, 50, 85 and 300 with me, left the 35 at home and after deleting the worst shots I see the distribution
24: 44% (and of them, ¼ I had to crop)
50: 28%
85: 23%
300: 5%
Why I didn't take the 24-105? Nearly 40% of all shots I took at a faster aperture than f/4, but only 6% were faster or equal to f/2
Of course, those are only numbers, I would have guessed something like that, but the amount of wide open shots surprised me. To be fair, the numbers are a result of having only a 24 at hand and no 35, but here's the thing with changing between wide angle primes: I simply don't want to interrupt the flow with 4 nice persons by changing lenses. I'm no superfan of primes, if a zoom delivers the same IQ, I'm all eyes.
To sum it up: For that session, the 24-35/2 would have been THE lens to have with me.
Last weekend I had such a situation when that lens would have been great. I took pictures of a group of 4 persons in narrow and wide spaces. One body with that lens and another with a 85/1.4 would have been THE right combination. The 50 mm sometimes was too limiting and I found myself cropping a lot.
I had a 24, 50, 85 and 300 with me, left the 35 at home and after deleting the worst shots I see the distribution
24: 44% (and of them, ¼ I had to crop)
50: 28%
85: 23%
300: 5%
Why I didn't take the 24-105? Nearly 40% of all shots I took at a faster aperture than f/4, but only 6% were faster or equal to f/2
Of course, those are only numbers, I would have guessed something like that, but the amount of wide open shots surprised me. To be fair, the numbers are a result of having only a 24 at hand and no 35, but here's the thing with changing between wide angle primes: I simply don't want to interrupt the flow with 4 nice persons by changing lenses. I'm no superfan of primes, if a zoom delivers the same IQ, I'm all eyes.
To sum it up: For that session, the 24-35/2 would have been THE lens to have with me.