I perhaps know the answer because google does, and same goes with you guys as well. But here is a point; I need a little insight over buying an additional lens for indoor photography when I already have a top dollar lens in my camera bag. I have been extremely confounded with the blogs and reviews with all positive and negative feedbacks, and if I follow the law of averages, I can choose either to buy or not and I will still be alright.

Rather than aggravating you guys ranting about my next to non-existent photography skills, I shall come straight to the point. I have recently bought a Nikon 24-70mm/2.8G, and have been shooting pictures more than ever, great lens, I know, I mean really really great (of course, the darn price tag was a whooping 1900 dollars + tax). It works great for landscape, indoor photography, portraits and every other category photography pundits have created, but I still am not satisfied with the pictures taken indoor, especially when there is minimum light.

The answer would be to get a 50mm/1.4G, and that will cost an additional (almost) 500 dollars, but I am not sure whether I should buy that lens because I was almost certain my 24-70mm would get me pictures an ‘I-can-never-afford’ Hasselblad does. The question is, is there a way to shoot better indoor pictures with 24-70mm/2.8? Am I missing something? Am I such a fool that I do not really understand the difference between 2.8 and one f-stop less? Cos I don’t want to put 500 extra dollars on that 50mm lens right now and then a year later I realize I could’ve done the same with my existing premium lens.