John, Have you tried a Canon 5DSr with the 24-70 2.8II? In my experience, the Canon 24-70 2.8II is as sharp or sharper than most primes, that is why it's such a big deal. I also like primes but the 24-70 is THE most important lens to most working pros. To say you can use a 50 and just move closer or farther away is silly as pro's don't always have that option.
No, I haven't tried the 5DSr. I wasn't willing to spend $3500 for a camera that, ultimately, isn't as good as the $2,900 Nikon D810.
Also, I no longer use zooms at all, as they simply suck in some important areas compared to primes (especially in the bokeh department, but also in the close-range department).
And what do you define as a "working pro," exactly?
I can assure you that, as a person who documents death, dismemberment, injuries, and other forms of horrific crimes/property damage insurance claims, there is nothing "silly" about the need for good equipment ... and (IMO) some of your concerns, quite frankly, I find "silly" compared the gravity of the work which
I do.
With that reality check in place, I do admit that (in minor cases) hell a cell phone is all that is needed, or a P&S.
Most cases, really.
Therefore, I would have to agree that the Canon 24-70 II would be an excellent choice in most cases. (FYI, I used to use the original 24-70 and it remains the best zoom I ever used).
However, in *some* cases of
my work, specialization
is necessary.
For example, one of the trouble with zooms is, they don't have close-range capabilities. Both the elder, and newer, 24-70 Canon lenses had a min. focus distance of 1.25' (15").
By contrast, my
Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 AI-S has a min focus distance of
8.4",
and it also has
close-range correction, which can be a key in getting all the details of the damage/injury
in relationship to the background captured.
So, when you speak of "professionalism," IMO, you're confusing "casual snapshooter" with
truly niched professionalism And finally, as far as 50mm goes, your 24-70 "at 50mm" can
never do what my
Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 AI-S can do, and that is
totally isolate the subject and turn the background into creamy-blur. Not only is this "artistic," but is is
impactful in certain contexts.
So, we agree on some basic principles (you carry the 24-70 II, while I carry the 28mm AI-S + 50mm AI-S in
this fine leather bag), but the reality of the situation is ... I can do anything you can do with these two lenses ... but you canNOT do things with with your "catch-all" zoom ... that
I can do with my specialized tools ... and those "things" that my equipment allows me to do are important to the professionalism of
my work, if not yours
According to one very respected reviewer, the new Sony 24-70mm 2.8 is the first zoom that tests better than the Canon, which had set the bar since it's release a a few years ago. The new Canon 11-24 is also the first WA zoom to outperform the Nikon 14-24 which was the best for a while. As great as you think Nikon is, to me, the evidence is not there to support it.
Honestly, I could care less about zooms anymore. They all fail miserably when compared to specialized primes.
As great as you think Nikon is, to me, the evidence is not there to support it. I do think the D810 is a great body, but not good enough to make up for the other issues for what I shoot.
Bullshit. The evidence is not there to support the Canon 5DSr. It is ranked LOWER than the Nikon D810 in every ranking system, and website, on the internet.
Wake up and smell the coffee
I have no personal attachment to any brand at all, I just buy or rent the best tool for the job and for me and many others, Nikon isn't it.
We simply disagree, and you simply don't have a factual leg to stand on.
There is NO rating system that doesn't rate the 5DSr
lower than the Nikon D810.
Denial isn't rebuttal; it is only denial.
Jack