24/1.8 or 24-70/2.8 - Backup lens

[ricardovaste]

<p>Been thinking about this for a while, not really sure which way to go. This is something I'd purchase perhaps March/April next year, so nothing urgent at all! Essentially, I need a backup lens for my 17-50/2.8, which I use on my A700(s), incase that lens blows up/becomes faulty/gets damaged on location. I've settled on these two Sigma lenses, simply because I like the balance of quality:performance. Two quite different lenses though of course, so which way to go:</p>

<p>24/1.8 - Would give me that extra light gathering ability at a wider field of view (compared to the 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 lenses). Covers a nice focal length as a 'one prime' everywhere type lens, to use alongside a short tele, or an ultra-wide-angle.</p>

<p>24-70/2.8 (later HSM model) - Would give me a touch more tele, making it more useful for people (I find the 17-50 too short in that regard for getting in close). Woud give me the flexibility of zoom. Similarly, sits at 24mm at the wide end, which is quite a comfortable focal lenght, and can be put easily alongside a short tele or ultra-wide-angle. I guess, if at any point in the future, I get a full-frame model for landscape photography, I would have a high quality standard zoom, but that's not something I plan on doing, nor is particularly important to me.</p>

<p>What do you think?</p>

[scott_meilicke]

<p>The prime seems quite a bit different than the two zooms. If you are looking for a backup to your zoom, get a backup.</p>

[isaac_leung]

<p>Personally, I cannot recommend the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8. It might be just my copy (or my camera) but performance at the 50 to 70mm range was a bit lacklustre for me, which basically just had me lugging around this large chunk of glass (82mm filters!) as a 24 f/2.8 lens. We'll see if it gets more use if/when I move to FF.<br /> Then again, I have pretty much converted into a prime lens kind of shooter (with the exception of telephoto, which the beercan serves well for). They just seem that much more reliable, although I am not a big fan of 24mm on crop. Have you considered a 35mm?</p>

[jiun_der_chung]

<p>Personally if you are intending on it as a backup, I would go for the 24/1.8, the wide aperture is always a big bonus particularly for wedding work. Having 2 standard zooms (though admittedly with slightly different ranges) really means that one is basically redundant unless you have a complete failure.</p>

<p>Don't you have the 50/1.4? With those 2 primes you basically would have the backup for the zoom in the worse case scenario and both primes would then be useful additions to your arsenal.</p>

<p>In the longer term if you are going to do more wedding work, I would recommend you get the 135/1.8. It is really useful for those low light short tele shots when you don't want to be in people's faces as well as for closeups of items for the DOF and bokeh. Really it is my favourite lens and I use it in all sorts of situations. It is pricey but you might be able to get it relatively cheap 2nd hand like I did.</p>

[ricardovaste]

<p>Thanks for your thoughts :-)<br /><br /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>The prime seems quite a bit different than the two zooms. If you are looking for a backup to your zoom, get a backup.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The thing is, that is also the 'attractive' reason, the fact that it would allow a faster aperture and that it's not a zoom. The range isn't really an issue, I like 35mm FOV & have lenses around it to 'fill in' (bearing in mind that I'd be using two bodies alongside each other). I appreciate your idea though, perhaps simply another 17-50 type lens would be the best backup... but with the lenses above, I felt they offered something different that I could use, as well as being a good back up, that is why I suggested them.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Personally, I cannot recommend the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for your thoughts Isaac, but I will have to stop you there. I will assume you are using the older model. I am talking about the later HSM model (as noted in OP), which has a completely revised optical design that rivals even the Sony/Canon/Nikon equivelents.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>They just seem that much more reliable, although I am not a big fan of 24mm on crop. Have you considered a 35mm?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't like the 50mm FOV, hence why I went with 24mm~35 equiv :-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Don't you have the 50/1.4? With those 2 primes you basically would have the backup for the zoom in the worse case scenario and both primes would then be useful additions to your arsenal.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for your thoughts Jiun :-). This was kind of my thinking. 24mm on APS-C sits very comfortably in there, where I can add either a 50mm above, or an 85mm above, and not feel like I missing much. Or I could even add something wider, and still feel okay.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In the longer term if you are going to do more wedding work, I would recommend you get the 135/1.8</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for your help. I essentially have that coverage though - remember that I use APS-C, and the 85/1.4, which gives me the same function as 135/1.8 on your A900/Dynax 7 really. I've actually come to really love this lens for that purpose too! It's just about the only lens I have where straight out of camera is bang on, almost all the time. It's pretty nicely balanced on the A700 as well. It's known for it's clunky old AF (being one of the first af lenses made of course) but I have no trouble using it for candid moments, very rarely get anything OOF with it :-)</p>

[isaac_leung]

<p>Actually, the lens I have and which I was referring to was the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM, but as noted, that's just my individual experience with that lens on a consumer-grade crop-frame camera. It could well be my particular combination or copy.</p>

[ricardovaste]

<p>Isaac, I must apologize, I was wrong to assume! Sorry to hear that too. Do you have any samples to show? I know my Sigma lens had a small focusing issue, that rendered images OOF at certain distances, which gave the impression of bad image quality at times. It's great since I had it serviced (around a year ago) under warranty of course.</p>

[jiun_der_chung]

<p>Yeah I have never been a big fan of a direct backup as it practically means that it ends up sitting there doing nothing. And let's face it, with wedding photography, you have enough other stuff to carry around without carrying direct duplicates not to mention the financial cost. I would rather carry another body/lens that could serve as a backup but still bring something extra to the table.</p>

<p>Before I got a 2nd digital body, I use to bring a film body as a backup (as I use film anyway) even though many people thought that I was crazy not to have a backup DSLR. But I am very comfortable with that because I am secure enough in my photography skills and knowledge of film to know that I can make it work. In fact I have shot an entire wedding on film only.</p>

<p>There is also the Zeiss 24/2 if you can justify the dollars. The funny thing about wedding photography is that of all the shots, the best ones are still always from the wide aperture lenses.</p>

[ricardovaste]

<p>Exactly my thoughts really. The 85mm is a backup to my 70-200mm really, if one fails, I could use the other quite happily as a complete replacement. But similarly, they are both so different (most obviously in size!) that they can also be used together, in slightly different situations.</p>

<p>The 24/2 Zeiss? Never! Waaay out of budget :-). I can only really surmise, with only two weddings under my belt, but in general I agree, the more successful images have generally been taken with faster lenses (by fast, do we mean f2 or wider? I only use 2.8 lenses or wider). My favourite images have undoubtedly been with the 85/1.4, as I'm sure yours have likely been with the 135/1.8 :-)</p>