Canon 24-70L vs primes (24L, 35L etc)

[Cptn Rigo]

I everyone!!

I currently own a 7D, 24-70L, 50 1.4 and 135L, I really like mi 24-70L, its super sharp and love the IQ...

The 135L is the new member of the family  , after used it I'm shocked with the IQ of the Prime L lens... my question is:

It is noticeable the IQ "jump" from a 24-70L zoom to a 24LII prime, keep my 50... and maybe an 85L???

Someone has been in this situation??

(Btw: You guys have a really nice community here    have been around a long time without been a member)

[alipaulphotography]

Image quality wise - No. I doubt you will notice much difference.

You buy primes because you need the wider aperture for either shallow depth of field or shooting in low light.

[elflord]

I everyone!!

I currently own a 7D, 24-70L, 50 1.4 and 135L, I really like mi 24-70L, its super sharp and love the IQ...

The 135L is the new member of the family  , after used it I'm shocked with the IQ of the Prime L lens... my question is:

It is noticeable the IQ "jump" from a 24-70L zoom to a 24LII prime, keep my 50... and maybe an 85L???

Someone has been in this situation??

(Btw: You guys have a really nice community here    have been around a long time without been a member)

I don't completely understand the question, but I'll try to address it anyway.

First, what subject matter do you shoot and what is it that has you thinking about primes ?

I made a move to an all prime set because I wanted faster lenses. I I had the 15-85mm and I found it quite good optically but I wanted faster lenses for shallow depth of field and low light. If you look at photozone's reviews (for example) you'll see that the 24-70 struggles at the wide end, so if you wanted a lens just to shoot at 24mm, the 24-70 might not be the best (or even the best zoom lens)

Basically, I'd suggest go ahead with all primes if you find that style of shooting agreeable, you want faster glass, and don't have much use for the functionality of a zoom lens.

Hang on to your zooms if you like to be able to rapidly switch between focal lengths and don't have much use for the extra stops.

BTW I ended up with the 35L, 50 f/1.4, Sigma 85mm f/1.4 and the 135L (with a full frame body). I've found this works really nicely, though the 24L would make more sense for someone shooting a lot of landscapes.

[alipaulphotography]

I everyone!!

I currently own a 7D, 24-70L, 50 1.4 and 135L, I really like mi 24-70L, its super sharp and love the IQ...

The 135L is the new member of the family  , after used it I'm shocked with the IQ of the Prime L lens... my question is:

It is noticeable the IQ "jump" from a 24-70L zoom to a 24LII prime, keep my 50... and maybe an 85L???

Someone has been in this situation??

(Btw: You guys have a really nice community here    have been around a long time without been a member)

BTW I ended up with the 35L, 50 f/1.4, Sigma 85mm f/1.4 and the 135L (with a full frame body). I've found this works really nicely, though the 24L would make more sense for someone shooting a lot of landscapes.

You've got the same set up as me! Although the 50 1.4 just got upgraded to the 1.2. The set up does work nicely indeed!

[rj79in]

I everyone!!

I currently own a 7D, 24-70L, 50 1.4 and 135L, I really like mi 24-70L, its super sharp and love the IQ...

The 135L is the new member of the family  , after used it I'm shocked with the IQ of the Prime L lens... my question is:

It is noticeable the IQ "jump" from a 24-70L zoom to a 24LII prime, keep my 50... and maybe an 85L???

Someone has been in this situation??

(Btw: You guys have a really nice community here    have been around a long time without been a member)

Do try out the TSE-24mm, a really outstanding lens with amazing IQ. The learning curve is steep though

[bycostello]

depends on how much you wanna carry around...

[l0pht]

It all depends on your shooting style.  I refuse to shoot with zoom lenses, I think they make you lazy and love the feel and look of prime lenses, especially wide open.  But it fits my style.  Quality wise there really isn't much difference once you get into the F/4.0+ range but there isn't a single zoom that will look as nice as my 35 or 50 @ 1.4 or my 135 @ 2.0.

YMMV though

[Matthew19]

The 35L on your 7d would be a 55mm equiv. Very useful focal length. I just bought the 24mm 1.4ii and also on the 24-70, 16-35mm. The 24 can get really shallow DOF if the subject is close on my 5d. Its and interesting look, sharper than the zoom for sure. If your doing mostly landscapes at 24mm stopped down then it is less useful.

[Kernuak]

Quality wise there really isn't much difference once you get into the F/4.0+ range but there isn't a single zoom that will look as nice as my 35 or 50 @ 1.4 or my 135 @ 2.0.

YMMV though

I would disagree. There is simply no contest between my 24-105 (which is usually considered on a par with or sharper then the 24-70) and my 24 f/1.4 MkII or 135 at any aperture that I tend to use (the gap is undoubtedly smaller around f/8 though). Even my 50mm f/1.4 is a little sharper, with less CA and flare, although I'm inclined to prefer the look of images from the 24-105, due to the difference in contrast. However, I wouldn't want to carry all the primes around all of the time instead of the 24-105, as they aren't as flexibile. Also, the 24-70 MkII is likely to match the primes in image quality, judging by recent releases (such as the 70--200 MkII).

[Cptn Rigo]

It all depends on your shooting style.  I refuse to shoot with zoom lenses, I think they make you lazy and love the feel and look of prime lenses, especially wide open.  But it fits my style.  Quality wise there really isn't much difference once you get into the F/4.0+ range but there isn't a single zoom that will look as nice as my 35 or 50 @ 1.4 or my 135 @ 2.0.

YMMV though

Im with you on that... I really love my 50 1.4 and 135 2.0 wide open, the bokeh, the light gathering capacity... I think that some shoots with the 24-70L could be better with faster primes... thats my doubt

[Radiating]

I everyone!!

I currently own a 7D, 24-70L, 50 1.4 and 135L, I really like mi 24-70L, its super sharp and love the IQ...

The 135L is the new member of the family  , after used it I'm shocked with the IQ of the Prime L lens... my question is:

It is noticeable the IQ "jump" from a 24-70L zoom to a 24LII prime, keep my 50... and maybe an 85L???

Someone has been in this situation??

(Btw: You guys have a really nice community here    have been around a long time without been a member)

Telephoto primes have incredible image quality so you will get much better results with the 85mm 1.2 L or 135mm L.

Do not expect these sorts of results on normal and wide primes. You will get nearly identical image quality with the 24mm II L, 35mm L and 50mm L.

If you want quality I'd recommend getting Canon's upcoming 24-70mmm f/2.8 II L, that lens will have noticably better image quality than Canon's primes or Canon's 24-70mm f/2.8 L.

Personally I only use telephoto primes. Canon is also gearing to release a 35mm 1.4 II L which might be worthwhile over their f/2.8 zooms but we'll have to see.

[elflord]

Personally I only use telephoto primes. Canon is also gearing to release a 35mm 1.4 II L which might be worthwhile over their f/2.8 zooms but we'll have to see.

According to photozone's tests, the 24mm prime does quite a lot better than the 24-70 at 24 (quite a bit sharper, less distortion). Normal to wide zooms tend to struggle a bit at their wide end.

[Dylan777]

It all depends on your shooting style.  I refuse to shoot with zoom lenses, I think they make you lazy and love the feel and look of prime lenses, especially wide open.  But it fits my style.  Quality wise there really isn't much difference once you get into the F/4.0+ range but there isn't a single zoom that will look as nice as my 35 or 50 @ 1.4 or my 135 @ 2.0.YMMV though

have u try 70-200 f2.8 IS II? I'll this lens over any prime

[Radiating]

Personally I only use telephoto primes. Canon is also gearing to release a 35mm 1.4 II L which might be worthwhile over their f/2.8 zooms but we'll have to see.

According to photozone's tests, the 24mm prime does quite a lot better than the 24-70 at 24 (quite a bit sharper, less distortion). Normal to wide zooms tend to struggle a bit at their wide end.

They have nearly identical boarder performance (within 5%) and other websites show they have nearly identical mid frame performance. The 24mm L II is quite a bit sharper than the 24-70mm f/2.8 L in the very center but over the most of the image area they are about even it seems.

[Marsu42]

I currently own a 7D, 24-70L, 50 1.4 and 135L, I really like mi 24-70L, its super sharp and love the IQ...

I'm in the same predicament - I wanted to get a used 35L, but now that the (sealed!) Tamron 24-70is is out at about the same price, I really have doubts. I know it is somewhat strange bordering on stupid to ask "35/1.4 or 24-70/2.8is?", but fact is my budget only includes one of these for the time being, because I still have to get a ff body, more flashes, filters, ... I'll dual-use the lens on my crop body and later on ff.

There's no big center sharpness difference between 35L & 24-70 @f4, at f2.8 it's small. I'll shoot portraits & maybe events/weddings with the lens. Thus my question is: How often do you really use the f1.4 to f2.8 range on the 35L, or do you have it mainly for the stellar iq?