Would you give up 24-70 for the 24 1.4 ?

[kaiser]

Well - I just bit the bullet and bought the Nikon 24mm F1.4 G lens.

I am now considering whether I should let go of my 24-70 to help fund this new purchase and to simplify my kit. The 24-70 has been versatile, sharp wide open blah blah blah, I do notice however that I tend to take images at one extreme or another ie. more towards 24mm or 70mm.

I already have the 10-17 fisheye, 50mm and the 135mm - so I'm thinking a 24mm, 50mm and a 135 still offer a fairly good coverage of the range?

If I get rid of the 24-70, that makes my kit all primes (except for the fisheye, which I wouldn't consider an everyday use lens.

For those who exclusively use primes - do you miss the convenience of a mid-range zoom?

[RaoulIsidro]

Well - I just bit the bullet and bought the Nikon 24mm F1.4 G lens.

I am now considering whether I should let go of my 24-70 to help fund this new purchase and to simplify my kit. The 24-70 has been versatile, sharp wide open blah blah blah, I do notice however that I tend to take images at one extreme or another ie. more towards 24mm or 70mm.

I already have the 10-17 fisheye, 50mm and the 135mm - so I'm thinking a 24mm, 50mm and a 135 still offer a fairly good coverage of the range?

If I get rid of the 24-70, that makes my kit all primes (except for the fisheye, which I wouldn't consider an everyday use lens.

For those who exclusively use primes - do you miss the convenience of a mid-range zoom?

It really depends on your requirements. I use FF bodies for work.
For me, the 24-70mm f2.8 is indispensible for fashion and model work.
My 16-35mm f2.8 is a must for Architecture and Interior Design work.
I have an 85mm f1.8 for fashion and portraits.
I rarely use my almost new 70-200mm, and I am thinking of selling it...
Cheers!

[DAdeGroot]

It's an interesting conundrum. I'm slowly heading to a mostly prime lineup and will likely get rid of my 17-40 in favour of a 17/4 TSE, and a 35/1.4 (with maybe a 24/1.4 as well). However, I still find the 70-200 indispensable for events and weddings.

I'd say hang on to the 24-70 for a couple of months and see if it gets used.

[Xenedis]

I haven't had a standard zoom for a few years.

I cannot say I miss it, as the focal lengths just aren't useful to me; I like 'em wide and long, and not much in between. I also don't have a 50mm lens.

The purchase of an ultra-wide zoom sealed the fate of my "walkaround" zoom; I never used it again and later sold it.

My style, subject matter and interests evolved to a point that a standard zoom was not useful for what I do.

Most of my lenses (seven) are primes (five), but my UWA zoom (16-35/2.8) gets used almost exclusively at 16mm, so to that end it might as well be a prime.

If you're finding that you don't use your 24-70 beyond the outer focal lengths, and you don't need the versatility or focal lengths in between, sell it and go for fast primes.

It all depends on the type of images you capture, and whether you're at a point where having a broad range of focal lengths "just in case" is no longer something you consider desirable or even necessary, as you may have done earlier in your photographic development (no pun intended).

[jjphoto]

There's no right or wrong answer. It depends entirely on your needs and your needs will almost certainly not be the same as mine. I use all zooms for work yet I never take a zoom when I shoot for myself. When working I need to have the flexibility and speed that you get from zooms as pixel peeping image quality isn't essential (image quality is not an issue with good zooms). When I shoot for myself I have the time to stuff around with a selection of primes depending on my needs.

JJ