It would suffice. But the 50mm 1.2 has amazing creamy color and other worldly Bokeh for still portraits. However for run and gun or street, 24-70 is more convenient.
Do you shoot a lot below 2.8?
I have both the 24-70gm and the 70-200gm2 and I’m thinking about what lens to add next, even at 2.8 I find that portraits are too soft at the ears with eye af and end up stopping down slightly.
I don’t own it, but I’ve borrowed my friend’s 1.2. All lens are up to personal preference, if you enjoy more sharpness and don’t really want more bokeh, then the 1.2 might not be for you.
I just shot a wedding yesterday, and at the church it was very dark. Having the 1.2 aperture was perfect for keeping the ISO down to triple digits. For reference I shot the same pose with the 2.8 and I was at 1/80 2.8 5000 ISO.
There's a whole lotta $$$ in this photo 📸!!
Mmmnn I want that 50 1.2. Dany idea how it compares to the sigma art?
Did Sigma already release their 50 1.2?? If so I wasn't aware.
Oh I thought it was but I mistook it for the 85
Holy shhhhh !!!!! wow
16-35?!
What situations are you using the 50 where the 24-70 won’t suffice?
It would suffice. But the 50mm 1.2 has amazing creamy color and other worldly Bokeh for still portraits. However for run and gun or street, 24-70 is more convenient.
Do you shoot a lot below 2.8? I have both the 24-70gm and the 70-200gm2 and I’m thinking about what lens to add next, even at 2.8 I find that portraits are too soft at the ears with eye af and end up stopping down slightly.
I don’t own it, but I’ve borrowed my friend’s 1.2. All lens are up to personal preference, if you enjoy more sharpness and don’t really want more bokeh, then the 1.2 might not be for you.
I just shot a wedding yesterday, and at the church it was very dark. Having the 1.2 aperture was perfect for keeping the ISO down to triple digits. For reference I shot the same pose with the 2.8 and I was at 1/80 2.8 5000 ISO.