Used 24-70 pricing
06-22-2009, 08:35 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Used 24-70 pricing
Okay now that I've decided on the brick, i found one on my local craigslist ad for 990. Is that a pretty good deal?
Specs:
Datecode: UW, Bought beginning of this year. Has warranty and box.
Specs:
Datecode: UW, Bought beginning of this year. Has warranty and box.
06-23-2009, 03:55 AM
#2
The main differences are the pretty obvious ones; speed and range. One has longer range, but is only f/4 with IS. IS is great help indoors when the light isn't what you need it to be, but will not help with action. The other has a shorter range of focal lengths but has a wider maximum aperture, so will be quite a bit better indoors.
So think about what and where you shoot most often, but I don't think you could go wrong with either of them; one just may suit your needs more often then the other.
So think about what and where you shoot most often, but I don't think you could go wrong with either of them; one just may suit your needs more often then the other.
06-23-2009, 07:35 AM
#4
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Potomac Falls, VA
Posts: 2,472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had to recently choose between the 24-70 and 24-105 as well, I ended up choosing the 24-70 based on all reviews it seemed the 24-70 was a better lens (sharper, less vignetting on the wide end, fixed lens shade that is works at the matching focal length, etc). The extra speed of f/2.8 definitely helps too.
A good comparison between the two:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...es/28-105.shtml
Only negatives on the 24-70mm is the weight (that thing is not light, it is the heaviest lens in this range @ 2.1 lbs), and the lack of IS -- but adding IS would probably increase the weight even more!
A good comparison between the two:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...es/28-105.shtml
Only negatives on the 24-70mm is the weight (that thing is not light, it is the heaviest lens in this range @ 2.1 lbs), and the lack of IS -- but adding IS would probably increase the weight even more!
06-25-2009, 11:53 AM
#5
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Hayward, Ca
Posts: 524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AssassinJN,Jun 23 2009, 04:55 AM
The main differences are the pretty obvious ones; speed and range. One has longer range, but is only f/4 with IS. IS is great help indoors when the light isn't what you need it to be, but will not help with action. The other has a shorter range of focal lengths but has a wider maximum aperture, so will be quite a bit better indoors.
So think about what and where you shoot most often, but I don't think you could go wrong with either of them; one just may suit your needs more often then the other.
So think about what and where you shoot most often, but I don't think you could go wrong with either of them; one just may suit your needs more often then the other.
Thanks for the advice guys!
