Canon 24-70mmL II v Canon 50mmL 1.2

[gary]

Hi all,

I have recently sold a a 300mm L 2.8 IS and have some money burning a hole in my pocket. I have recently bought a Canon16-35L II with some of the proceeds and am now trying to make my mind up between the 24-70 and the 50L 1.2 Canon as a walk around lens with occasional use for portrait I have a 70-200L 2.8 II and a Macro 100L 2.8 IS, I use the lens on a 5D mkIII.

I have tried the 50L on the 5D III and it is fast and super sharp, I have read a lot of negative comments about this lens but my experience was very positive. I had a very short time with a 24-70 II at B&H today and it was a lovely lens. I am hoping that someone who has experience with both could give me the benefit of their experience so that I can make a decision.

Thanks   

[Ewinter]

We'd need to know more about what kind of things you like to shoot, really

[neuroanatomist]

I have no experience with either, but I very recently made that choice, and decided in favor of the 24-70 II. I believe it will be an excellent complement to the 70-200 II.

It's worth noting that I also have the 35L and 85L II, without fast primes in that range I may have decided differently. 

[Eli]

Depends if you want superior low light & bokeh or sharpness & versatility.
Whilst the 24-70 is an amazing lens, I love my 50 1.2, it just feels great, looks great and sparks my creative love for photography, and also a lot more fun to use so it says on my 5d mkiii most of the time!
But if you don't plan to shoot below 2.8, get the 24-70 II

[gary]

Ewinter
[We'd need to know more about what kind of things you like to shoot, really]

Nothing specific, yes I know that sounds vague, but I am looking for a lens that is versatile photographing what I see that takes my fancy, but which will also allow me to be creative

[Random Orbits]

Depends if you want superior low light & bokeh or sharpness & versatility.
Whilst the 24-70 is an amazing lens, I love my 50 1.2, it just feels great, looks great and sparks my creative love for photography, and also a lot more fun to use so it says on my 5d mkiii most of the time!
But if you don't plan to shoot below 2.8, get the 24-70 II

Nothing specific, yes I know that sounds vague, but I am looking for a lens that is versatile photographing what I see that takes my fancy, but which will also allow me to be creative

24-70 II first because you prioritize walk-around over portraiture.  The question is whether or not getting the 24-70 II will make the 24-105 expendable and make it a down-payment for the 50L.

[gary]

24-70 II first because you prioritize walk-around over portraiture.  The question is whether or not getting the 24-70 II will make the 24-105 expendable and make it a down-payment for the 50L.
[/quote]



My wife has laid claim to the 24-105 so no luck trading

[Axilrod]

I owned the 50L and it was one of my favorite lenses for a very long time.  It had it's quirks on the 5D2, but when you nailed it you really nailed it.  On the 5D3 it was 10x better.  But I shoot video mainly so I eventually got rid of it in favor of the Zeiss 50mm f/2 Makro.  It's way sharper on the edges, definitely sharper in the center.  But at the same time, I still miss my 50L and will probably get another one.

As for the 24-70 II, I've spent maybe a week total with it, and it's an amazing zoom, definitely one of the best in Canon's lineup.  Definitely sharpest on the wide end, and that would be a good thing since the 16-35mm is kinda weak at 24mm.   It's overall an excellent lens.

But it's your call really.  Do you find yourself wishing you had a good walkaround zoom?  Then get the 24-70mm.  But it seems to me that you have taken a liking to the 50L, and if you have maybe you should go with that.  As great as the 24-70mm is I've always found 24-70mm zooms to be a bit dull.  Yeah they are very practical/convenient, but they just aren't very special, you know what I mean?  It's just not a lens you get excited about strapping on your camera.  Now a 50mm that opens up to f/1.2, that gets me excited. 

[Radiating]

Hi all,

I have recently sold a a 300mm L 2.8 IS and have some money burning a hole in my pocket. I have recently bought a Canon16-35L II with some of the proceeds and am now trying to make my mind up between the 24-70 and the 50L 1.2 Canon as a walk around lens with occasional use for portrait I have a 70-200L 2.8 II and a Macro 100L 2.8 IS, I use the lens on a 5D mkIII.

I have tried the 50L on the 5D III and it is fast and super sharp, I have read a lot of negative comments about this lens but my experience was very positive. I had a very short time with a 24-70 II at B&H today and it was a lovely lens. I am hoping that someone who has experience with both could give me the benefit of their experience so that I can make a decision.

Thanks

Umm if you think the 50L is super sharp then you should be using an iPhone to take pictures... because the mid-frame sharpness of the 50L near wide open is actually lower than the resolution of an iPhone 5.

The 50L is one of the worst lenses ever made for any image quality metric there is, it is a horrible lens in every dimension because it sacrifices literally everything for that f/1.2 aperture. Most people forget that "L" simply means they use exotic UD glass not that it has a certain level of image quality.

The 24-70mm II is one of the best lenses ever made for any image quality metric there is (except for problems with the focus plane shifting during zooming but those can be ignored). It has virtually no chromatic abberation and on top of that is an apochomatic lens which means it has not purple or green fringing. It is one of the only lenses you can buy other than supertelephoto lenses that has APO correction in Canon's lineup, meaning it's one of the only lenses you can buy that produces perfect out of camera jpg's that do not need correction to submit to publishers. Copy variation is a problem, but if you get a good copy it's a very very sharp lens, which at certain focal lengths has some of the best resolution in it's class.

So your choice is simple. Do you want one of the worst lenses ever made with f/1.2 or one of the best lenses ever made with f/2.8 and zoom? I know my choice (it's the second option).

Zeiss is also coming out with a 55mm f/1.4 that has the same resolution at f/1.4 as the 50mmL has at f/8.0, that's my choice in this focal range.

Here's a comparison:

[bdunbar79]

Radiating,

I've felt the EXACT same way as you for a long time now.  I have a 24-70L II and it is RAZOR sharp across all focal lengths, at nearly all apertures, including f/2.8 wide open.  24mm is arguably sharper than Canon's 24L II prime lens, which is a terrific feat.  I agree that the 50L is Canon's worst L lens.  I don't think it has bad IQ, but it did sacrifice everything for that f/1.2 sharpness, and the price is outrageous.  Stop it down past f/2.2 and the 50 f/1.4 becomes noticeably sharper and your credit card will notice it's noticeably cheaper.  I personally owned a 50L and I can say this from experience, and I did decide to sell the lens for a rather large down payment for the 24-70L II. 

If you want versatility and sharpness across all apertures, then you get the 24-70L II.  If you only ever shoot from f/1.2 to f/2, then the 50L is your specialty lens just for that purpose.  It really is only a specialty lens and is not worth the huge price premium for a walkaround 50mm prime.

[Dylan777]

As an owner of 50L & 24-70 II...I will take 24-70 as my 1st choice then 50L.

Why 24-70?
1. Nice range on FF,  24-70mm
2. sharp from f2.8 through out
3. AF is fast

50L will give you creamy bokeh. This lens will require AFMA. I tried 4 diff 50L from Crutchfield and all four have back focus issues. The sharpness of 50L were around 780 to 815 at f2.8 with FoCal, where 24-70 lenses were above 900ish at f2.8. 50L sharpness were much lower at f1.2 to 1.8 with Focal. I wouldn't consider 50L as a sharp lens.

Since you shooting with 5D III, f2.8 can handle most cases in term of low light. However, if you want creamy background + extra shutter speed in low light, 50L will be the lens.

[jdramirez]

I don't know that I would call the 50mm the worst lens... but I know it isn't sharp at f/1.2.  I also know that the 50mm f/1.4 outperforms it in sharpness and that is unacceptable considering it is a 300 dollar lens v. a 1200 dollar lens. 

And the 24-70 is, from what I have read, just the best of its peer group.  I'd go that way.  Also... I really don't know what good f/1.2 would be because the depth of field is so thin...

[RS2021]

I have no experience with either, but I very recently made that choice, and decided in favor of the 24-70 II. I believe it will be an excellent complement to the 70-200 II.

It's worth noting that I also have the 35L and 85L II, without fast primes in that range I may have decided differently.

I am currently making the very same calculation also with 35L and 85L II already on board...while I am not a major fan of 50L, and have owned it at one point, I have softened of late and am considering it again. I tried a friend's  24-70II and was impressed with the AF speed and the IQ.  It is a significant upgrade to the original "brick". Not sure, tough decision....but I am leaning toward the zoom.

[gary]

Thanks for all the useful thoughts and experience, I think I will go with the 24-70 and hold out for a couple of years to see if the 50L is replaced by a new model.

Gary

[RLPhoto]

It's a matter of needs.

Do you need speed? If so, the 50L is over 2 Stops faster than the 24-70LII. It's the sharpest 50mm design canon makes from f/1.2-2.8 in the center, and generally where it matters most for portraits.

For everything else, the 24-70LII is better.