24mm F/1.4L II or 24mm-70mm F/2.8 II

[EvilTed]

This is a tough choice.
I love primes and got a 24mm F/1.4L II delivered yesterday.
I tried a few test shots @ F/2.8 and it is super sharp on my 5D MK3. Probably the best L lens I've tried to date.

Then I read the LenRentals.com article and Roger claims that @ F/2.8 the new zoom is sharper, particularly in the corners on FF.

There's not a lot in it in the center, but the zoom has more resolution at the edges - 940/750 vs 954/ 831.

The zoom is still a F/2.8 and I wanted the prime for low light too BUT having a lens that sharp and responsive across the whole range has got me wondering if I should return the prime and pick up the zoom.

What would you do?

Cheers

ET

[Random Orbits]

If you already have another prime that you can use in low light, then it would make sense swapping the 24L II for the 24-70L II.  But if you intend to use the 24L II wide open, then keep it.  Assuming that you already have a midrange zoom, the 24-70L II will make your pictures incrementally better.  The 24L II gives you shallower DOF to get shots will not be possible at f/2.8 and smaller.  Just realize that your wallet will be lighter in the future when you decide to replace your mid-range focal lengths options.   

[Axilrod]

That's a really tough decision, the 24L II is an amazing lens, but after playing with the 24-70 II for most of the day I'm really digging it.  They're two totally different lenses though. 

[K-amps]

The fact that you are asking the question means you take the f1.4 aperture as a nice to have, and not a requirement or must have. This then makes it a comparison  of sharpness which the zoom wins and the flexibility of zoom, which can make the difference between getting a shot or missing it while changing primes.

It is a tough choice and unless you want to pony up $4k+ to own both... it is looking very tempting to return it and get the Zoom...

[drjlo]

f/1.4 is still two full stops faster than f/2.8, and while my 70-200 f/2.8 II is very sharp and versatile, I would sell a kidney if it was f/2 or f/1.8 (I know, will never happen).

I'm thinking about the 24-70 II, too, but even if I got it, I would still need my 35 f/1.4, 50 f/1.2, and 85 f/1.2 II..

[pwp]

It begs the question doesn't it? If the new zoom is as good as claimed, I just wonder how often I'll be reaching for the 24 f/1.4II. I rarely shoot the 24 f/1.4II below f/2.8 anyway, so it's looking like a potential surplus lens in the bag. And selling it would go a long way to financing the new zoom. We'll see.

-PW

[EvilTed]

Yeah what pwp said...

The fact is, while the 24 F/1.4 has two stops over the zoom, the resolution figures are piss poor, even in the center.

624 center - 545 average

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/06/the-other-canon-primes-why-did-they-do-that

So yeah, it has low light capability, but it is soft as sh@t and vignettes like hell

It only really is a great sharp lens at F/2.8 and here the zoom trounces it AND gives every other lens from 24 - 70mm a good run for it's money.

Decisions, decisions

ET

[Rokkor 58mm 1.2]

Since you just got your 24mm f/1.4L II, I'd suggest you enjoy it and learn it's strengths and weaknesses for awhile before seriously considering buying the 24-70mm f/2.8 II. I have no doubts that the 24-70 is fantastic as Roger reported, but I think it would be best to wait awhile to see what a large group of owners report about it's performance, and if it's worth the high price it commands. I've had thoughts about getting one eventually, but i'd rather wait until more information is in so I can make a real world decision. That said, this doesn't matter if you have a real need for it soon, or have money to burn.

[Dr.Jones]

I have, just as you, given it a thought whether or not et would be "better" to have the 24L II or the new 24-70.

For many purposes you probably would be better of with the zoom, as it is more versatile. And with todays crazy-high ISO levels, getting enough light, might not be as big of a problem.

Of course i know there is a difference between large apertures and high ISO's. But that's one of the things you'll have to decide with yourself, do you use your 24mm a lot at f 2.8 or faster?


For me there is a whole other aspect which haven't been mentioned yet.
As a street photographer, the feeling of using a prime. Getting to know it. Knowing it's exact framing without looking through the viewfinder, or at least only for a breif moment, is one of the things i enjoy most. This lets me take pictures faster then people get irritated by some random man(me) talking pictures of them. Which in some situations, means getting the shot.
Same goes for the size of the prime, which is not so aggressive and provocative, as it is often smaller.

So, which is most convenient for you?
Do you like walking around all day with one prime or are willing to have multiple lenses with you?

Last but not least, can you afford buying three primes, like a 24, 50 and 85, to replace one zoom lens like the 24-70?


I love my primes, and i will stick with them, they have something special upon them, which a like, including huge apertures 

Just my 2 cents, hope it helps solving you matter.

[IIIHobbs]

Before moving to digital, I only shot with Primes on my 35mm (24, 50, 85 & 200).

When I began my move to digital, I started with a Canon G3, it had a zoom lens. When I eventually purchased my first digital SLR, I chose a mid range zoom (of course). With my second digital SLR I purchased a better mid range zoom and added a telephoto zoom and ultra wide. I was satisfied with the results but had become very lazy.

With my third SLR, the 5DIII, I began to add primes and eventually sold all my zooms. I find that I am much more aware of what I am photographing again. It's refreshing to be back at/near the beginning, seeing more clearly what it is I intend to capture.

[dave]

Hi,

I got my 24-70mm ii yesterday (in Australia). Because I have bought quite a bit of stuff this year and the new lens is expensive I had to get rid of one of my more expensive primes. With a sinking feeeling that I was making a bad decision I sold the 35mm f/1.4. I LOVED the colours and but never got anything out of it at less than f/2.8 that I was happy with.

The new lens is an absolute beast. I did really like shooting with the 35mm prime, but I definitely feel like I have gained a lot more than I lost. Unfortunately I can't afford to just accumulate lenses so it is about balance. Being able to carry one 24-70mm ii lens around that does not feel like a compromise is a liberating feeling in itself. It has a zoom lock so you need never take it off 24mm if you want to use it like the 24mm prime (obviously it will be slightly slower).

I had a similar dillemma when I bought the 70-200mm is ii, except I couldn't bear to part with my 135mm f/2. I would have felt like I was giving up something that made photography special. The colours, size and sharpness are magic. Basically in this case I had to sell the 35 or 135 and went with the 35mm. If you don't absolutely love your 24mm ii, then try the zoom. If you absolutely love the 24mm ii and frequently use it at less than f/2.8 then you have a really difficult decision. As much as some people would probably flame me I didn't absolutely love my 35mm f/1.4. I could have kept it, but I really want an ultra wide angle lens and in that range I am definitely keen on a prime (TS-E 17 or 14ii) (aaargghhh $$$$$$$$$$), so it's swings and roundabouts.

Hope this helps,

dave

[EvilTed]

Well I'm into street photography more than most other genres so bought the 24mm for that.
I tried using the 16-35 F/2.8 for street work but the results are too soft for my taste and the thing is kinda large.

The Canon 5D MK3 is fine with the 40mm Pancake for street work and I considered the new 28mm F/2.8 as a partner for it, but bought the 24mm F/1.4 instead.
I think it's rather large and heavy for my kind of street work and I'll keep using the Fuji X-Pro 1 for that.

I think I'll return the 24mm F/1.4 and pickup the new zoom. It's a better GP lens and mates well with the 16-35 F/2.8 II and 70-200 F/2.8 that I have.

Cheers

ET

[dirtcastle]

For street primes, it seems like 35mm and 50mm primes are the most versatile lengths.

[EvilTed]

Most of the old famous street photographers used wider, around 28mm being a favored length.

I use 24mmm 28mm, 40mm and sometime 50mm on FF.
Some people are taking candidate shots with 300mm and calling it street photography these days

ET

[hammar]

Interesting thread, I have a 5D3 and the 24/1.4II and was just thinking about the possibility of switching to the new zoom if it, in fact is sharper than the prime. I would like something more versatile, even though I use my prime mainly for landscape and street. I also like to shoot at night, so f/1.4 is nice to say the least.

I just ordered the 40mm to use when I want to be more discrete (good luck with the 5d3).

Too many decisions!