need help with a lens decision

[moonlight graham]

Currently I own a 24L II, 50L and 70-200mm L IS II. I have barely ever touched the 24L as was thinking about selling both the 24L and 50L and buying a 24-70 II. What do you guys think? I do both video and stills and a lot of the times I would like to just have the flexibility of a zoom. Plus I could always pick up a rokinon cine 35 and 85 for the times I do video? What do you guys think ? This is on full frame btw

[Menace]

I'd keep the 50L for low light, bokeh etc, sell the 24II and get the new 24-70II.

24-70L II       
70-200L IS II 
50L                 

Excellent combo IMHO.

Have fun

[moonlight graham]

That is what I would like to do but then I would have to put out over 1k .. was trying to do an even swap

[7enderbender]

Currently I own a 24L II, 50L and 70-200mm L IS II. I have barely ever touched the 24L as was thinking about selling both the 24L and 50L and buying a 24-70 II. What do you guys think? I do both video and stills and a lot of the times I would like to just have the flexibility of a zoom. Plus I could always pick up a rokinon cine 35 and 85 for the times I do video? What do you guys think ? This is on full frame btw

I personally would sell the 70-200 and buy more primes ;-)

[robbymack]

moonlight

I rented the 24-70ii two weeks ago to see what the deal was.  My thoughts are if you are in the market for, or looking to replace, any two of the following three lenses: 24L, 35L, 50L, with the added convenience of a zoom then it's price is not too steep and probably right on.  Essentially my feeling is this is a prime replacement zoom if you truly don't need the extra stops of light in a prime, but still want stellar IQ.  You don't give up any sharpness, in fact I suspect you gain some.  For just about anyone else either the mark I, or the be quite honest, the new Tamron 24-70, are probably more than adequate.  I'm still on the fence as to whether I will order the new Canon simply because the Tammy does a good enough job and is far sharper than any 24-70i I ever used.  The VC is a added bonus that does turn it into a very well equipped all around zoom.  Prior I would have said the 24-105 is the best all around zoom on FF, but I suspect now I'd take the Tamron instead.  What I lose in reach I gain in light and it means on family vacations I don't have to also think about packing a 50 1.4 and/or flash. I did however hate the reverse zoom, but I can live with that and the extra $1000 in my pocket pretty easily.

ps love the field of dreams reference 

[winglet]

I personally would sell the 70-200 and buy more primes ;-)

I have a beautiful selection of primes, but you would have to pry the 70-200mm II IS f2.8 from my cold, dead hands...it is just such a versatile, sharp lens, fantastic for portraits and reportage.

[moonlight graham]

moonlight

I rented the 24-70ii two weeks ago to see what the deal was.  My thoughts are if you are in the market for, or looking to replace, any two of the following three lenses: 24L, 35L, 50L, with the added convenience of a zoom then it's price is not too steep and probably right on.  Essentially my feeling is this is a prime replacement zoom if you truly don't need the extra stops of light in a prime, but still want stellar IQ.  You don't give up any sharpness, in fact I suspect you gain some.  For just about anyone else either the mark I, or the be quite honest, the new Tamron 24-70, are probably more than adequate.  I'm still on the fence as to whether I will order the new Canon simply because the Tammy does a good enough job and is far sharper than any 24-70i I ever used.  The VC is a added bonus that does turn it into a very well equipped all around zoom.  Prior I would have said the 24-105 is the best all around zoom on FF, but I suspect now I'd take the Tamron instead.  What I lose in reach I gain in light and it means on family vacations I don't have to also think about packing a 50 1.4 and/or flash. I did however hate the reverse zoom, but I can live with that and the extra $1000 in my pocket pretty easily.

ps love the field of dreams reference

thank you .. i am really tempted to purchase this lens to match with my 1dx

[moonlight graham]

Currently I own a 24L II, 50L and 70-200mm L IS II. I have barely ever touched the 24L as was thinking about selling both the 24L and 50L and buying a 24-70 II. What do you guys think? I do both video and stills and a lot of the times I would like to just have the flexibility of a zoom. Plus I could always pick up a rokinon cine 35 and 85 for the times I do video? What do you guys think ? This is on full frame btw

I personally would sell the 70-200 and buy more primes ;-)

ahh i can't sell my 70-200 .. it's my baby=)

what about picking up a used 24-105 as my walk around lens and keep the 50L

[IIIHobbs]

If you say you hardly use the 24, then why buy a 24- zoom?

You are also willing to part with the 50 as part of this exchange, what do you use the 50 for now? and how often?

If you want the new 24-70 (many do) then make the trade and be happy with it.

If you aren't shooting wide now, the new zoom isn't likely to change that.

[bow26]

Or you could look at the new Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC and trade it with the 24L lens. I've read that the Tamron's image quality is actually comparable and even beats the 24-70mm version I lens in some areas. So if you don't want to give up your 50L, which will be useful in low-light situation or times when you want a smaller DOF, then consider this suggestion.

[Marsu42]

Or you could look at the new Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC and trade it with the 24L lens. I've read that the Tamron's image quality is actually comparable and even beats the 24-70mm version I lens in some areas.

Nope, replacing a 24mm prime with the Tamron zoom is exactly the thing you *cannot* do because the Tamron isn't really sharp even stopped down, beginning from mid-frame on ff. If the op has the cash to get the new 24-70 mk2 from Canon this seems like the smart option, though the prime might have still better iq in some cases (no onion bokeh, better sunstars).

[paul13walnut5]

If video is very important to you then the flexibility of a fast zoom combo suits certain styles of shooting (like mine, I have 3x f2.8 zooms covering a wide range) saves time switching lenses and reduces exposure of the camera innards to dirt and dust in the field.

A lot of folk love the ultra shallow DoF look, and it's great if you also have a 7" hdmi monitor & follow focus, and the ability to direct and reset.  For running and gunning f2.8 zooms are better, and f2.8 on FF is still going to give you nice shallow DoF.

[Dylan777]

Currently I own a 24L II, 50L and 70-200mm L IS II. I have barely ever touched the 24L as was thinking about selling both the 24L and 50L and buying a 24-70 II. What do you guys think? I do both video and stills and a lot of the times I would like to just have the flexibility of a zoom. Plus I could always pick up a rokinon cine 35 and 85 for the times I do video? What do you guys think ? This is on full frame btw

If you happy with 70-200 f2.8 IS under low light, then the new 24-70 is for you. Both AF & SHARPNESS are better than 70-200 f2.8 IS II. Keep in mind, the 24-70 has little distortion at 24mm, but this can be fixed in LR.

Both 24L & 50L are GREAT lenses....some decisions to make

Goodluck

[Dylan777]

Or you could look at the new Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC and trade it with the 24L lens. I've read that the Tamron's image quality is actually comparable and even beats the 24-70mm version I lens in some areas. So if you don't want to give up your 50L, which will be useful in low-light situation or times when you want a smaller DOF, then consider this suggestion.

NO, DON'T DO IT....I got a chance to play with this lens 3 days ago through a friend, on my 5D III.

Unless I had a bad copy, otherwise here are my thoughts:
1. The AF is bad in low light
2.  Miss and can't focus in low and sometimes in decent light
3.  Not sharp at f2.8 in afternoon, sharper when step down 3.5 to 4,
4.  Reverse zoom
5.  Bad CA

What I like:
1. The build feel very solid
2. VC(IS) is good. I tried @ 1/10, and I like it

This is just an averge Joe's lens. . The lens is on the way back to Adorama for return.

[moonlight graham]

Thank you for all your responses. I originally bought the primes because I use to film a lot and it was mainly all with the 50. I bought the 24L for a wide but also to possibly get into shooting timelapses which I havent had the time to do yet. Right now I want to get more into photography and I feel like it would just be easier to walk around with the 24-70 then have to swap primes. The 2.8 shouldn't really be that big of an issue with a mark iii or 1dx. I also was considering switching my primes for video over to zeiss because of the hard stops and long focus throw.

Will i be able to shoot night timelapses with the 24-70? or would i still need like a prime ?