If you were forced to do a microstock shoot with only one lens, which one would you pick?

I am starting to look at primes more recently and thinking they might be a good choice for shooting micro, but if I was forced to shoot with only one lens I think I would be tempted to go with a zoom.  Perhaps the 24-70 f/2.8  That way I could get some nice wide angle shots as well as have a decent portrait lens and get good diffused backgrounds using f/2.8

That said I also really like the 70-200 f/2.8 but if I was only using one lens I think I would really want a wide angle.

How about you?

I love my Olympus 24-120 2.8.  But I got tired of waiting for a better camera body (with a bigger chip) so I bought a Mark II with the 24-70 last month.  I found the 24-70 to be soft in the corners on the wide.  I took it to the Canon service center yesterday.  Hopefully they can fix it.

I only use the Canon 24-105 f/4 L.
It covers almost everything i need to shoot...

Patrick H.

Tamron 28-75 2.8

I love it! Had it for my Nikon and when I got the 5D II there was no choice for me regarding the first lens to purchase for it.

Nikon 24-70mm F/2.8.  It's the lens I use most for people.  I switch to the 17-55mm F/2.8 for landscape work, but could live with the 24-70 for that too if I had to.

Same here __ Canon's 24-70 f2.8 is already my lens of choice for about 98% of my stock images. It's the ultimate utility lens as far as I'm concerned.

+1 - but I miss the 100mm range for close portraits and macro/objects. I think I'll supplement it soon with a 100mm macro lens, non IS (to be used on tripod).

For me it used to be the 24-70 L.  It certainly has the best image quality of any lens I own, but I often find I need a bit more reach.  Now I am using the 24-105 more often.  Still good image quality, but better range.  And shooting with strobes the 4.0 max aperture is more than enough. 

For me it used to be the 24-70 L.  It certainly has the best image quality of any lens I own, but I often find I need a bit more reach.  Now I am using the 24-105 more often.

Did you find any quality (esp. sharpness) difference between the 24-105 and the 24-70?

I mostly use the 24-70 and pick up the 70-200 when I need to get in tighter.
All this talk about the 24-105 has got me thinking about changing things up, though.

Quote from: lisafx on May 22, 2010, 11:43

For me it used to be the 24-70 L.  It certainly has the best image quality of any lens I own, but I often find I need a bit more reach.  Now I am using the 24-105 more often.

Did you find any quality (esp. sharpness) difference between the 24-105 and the 24-70?

I get very sharp images with both lenses.  No noticeable difference.  Maybe the 24-70 is a bit more contrasty.    The main difference is low light shooting, and depth of field, where obviously the f2.8 is better. 

For my shoots the extra reach trumps the advantage of the wider aperture.  Another advantage is the lighter weight of the 24-105.  When shooting for 5-6 hours straight that makes a difference in my arm and shoulder.   

just Canon shooters eheh Nikon guy here but never tried a Canon, I use a cheap Sigma 18-200

Well that about seals it for me.
The Canon lineup of a 5D MkII with a 24-105mm sounds like the best setup for shooting stock.

The 24-105 does have more pillow distortion so if your shooting architecture more it's not as nice plus more vignetting at wide and open but is very sharp.

Well that about seals it for me.
The Canon lineup of a 5D MkII with a 24-105mm sounds like the best setup for shooting stock.

Unless you're a lens snob I don't think you'll be disappointed.

It's very sharp at center, and just a little softer at the edges. It's fairly contrasty. The stabilization works very well. Only downside is a little distortion and CA. Oh, and it's a bit heavy but hey, it's a solid lens.