24-70 f2.8L II or.....

[lastcoyote]

ok just wondering what peoples thoughts are on this...
take a look at my sig for my current lenses. notice the widest lens i have is my 50mm. I need to rectify this.
now what would you do in my position:

A) 24-70 f2.8L II
B) 35 f1.4L + 24-105 f4L IS

note I can get either option for essentially the same money.
oh yeah.. will be used mainly on my 5D MKIII.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

In your position, I'd get the one I need.

Only you know which, you did not give anyone a hint as to what it is that you currently photograph, or problems you are having.

 

[lastcoyote]

In your position, I'd get the one I need.

Only you know which, you did not give anyone a hint as to what it is that you currently photograph, or problems you are having.

i photograph everything.
i want to be able to have this range covered. i don't want to be pinned down to a specific use but rather to be used for a broad range of applications.

 

[3kramd5]

Option C:

used 24-70 f/2.8L (here's one for 1050: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=233131)
+ 35 f1.4L

You may be able to get the 24-105 new cheaper than a grand (though taxes may be an issue depending on your location), but not significantly cheaper.

 

[RLPhoto]

Or Sigma 35mm 1.4 + Tamron 24-70 VC? If it was my money, I'd buy that combo.

 

[lastcoyote]

Or Sigma 35mm 1.4 + Tamron 24-70 VC? If it was my money, I'd buy that combo.

Something else to know about me is that if I went my option A, I'd most likely further down the line get a 35 prime. Sigma or current Canon or MKII (if one is out when this happens).

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

In your position, I'd get the one I need.

Only you know which, you did not give anyone a hint as to what it is that you currently photograph, or problems you are having.

i photograph everything.
i want to be able to have this range covered. i don't want to be pinned down to a specific use but rather to be used for a broad range of applications.

If you have 50mm as your widest lens, you are missing out on a huge range of focal lengths.

I'd get the 24-70L MK II. I have the 35L and 24-105L, but am going o try the 24-70 to see if I can get by in low light. It might be difficult.

I won't sell my existing lenses until I can see how I do with f/2.8 and extreme low light. I will be at ISO 12800 and maybe higher.

 

[bdunbar79]

ok just wondering what peoples thoughts are on this...
take a look at my sig for my current lenses. notice the widest lens i have is my 50mm. I need to rectify this.
now what would you do in my position:

A) 24-70 f2.8L II
B) 35 f1.4L + 24-105 f4L IS

note I can get either option for essentially the same money.
oh yeah.. will be used mainly on my 5D MKIII.

24-70L II hands down. In fact, for me, it wouldn't even be close. The zoom is sharper than the 24L II, 35L, and 50L at f/2.8. If you don't need wider than 2.8, oh my gosh this lens is awesome.

 

[lastcoyote]

In your position, I'd get the one I need.

Only you know which, you did not give anyone a hint as to what it is that you currently photograph, or problems you are having.

i photograph everything.
i want to be able to have this range covered. i don't want to be pinned down to a specific use but rather to be used for a broad range of applications.

If you have 50mm as your widest lens, you are missing out on a huge range of focal lengths.

I'd get the 24-70L MK II. I have the 35L and 24-105L, but am going o try the 24-70 to see if I can get by in low light. It might be difficult.

I won't sell my existing lenses until I can see how I do with f/2.8 and extreme low light. I will be at ISO 12800 and maybe higher.

thats more the sort of reply i was after
yep as I said in my opening post the whole point of my purchasing one of these options is the very fact that my widest lens is 50mm and this needs rectifying.

i have to say i am really leaning towards the 24-70 II considering the mostly positive reviews it's had.

 

[dexstrose]

I have been reading a lot about the canon 24-70 ii, some reviewers say that it's close to primes in that focal range in sharpness.

I have the 24-105 and think its a little soft for my taste. I want a faster lens cause I shoot in low light often. Having that option of 2.8 can make a diffrence for me since I shoot around 70mm and under.

 

[bdunbar79]

I can speak from experience that it is sharper than the 24L II, 35L, and 50L at f/2.8 and narrower. Of course, you can also consult the charts. I sold my 35L and 50L when I got the zoom because I don't use those focal lengths wider.

 

[robbymack]

Since money doesn't seem to be an issue here go ahead and get the 24-70ii. If it was my money I'd be hard pressed though to ignore the value of the tamron 24-70 vc and a siggy 35 for the same price as the canon.

 

[lastcoyote]

Since money doesn't seem to be an issue here go ahead and get the 24-70ii. If it was my money I'd be hard pressed though to ignore the value of the tamron 24-70 vc and a siggy 35 for the same price as the canon.

For sure those two are great value.
I know some will groan when I say this but for now I'd like to keep to the 'all Canon' theme.
I'll maybe stray from that path at some point down the line though. Most likely starting with a siggy 35 next year sometime.

 

[Dylan777]

24-70 f2.8 II of course

 

[gary samples]

24-70L II just rented it wonderful Len

 

[iso79]

24-70L II. Sell the lenses that you don't use to help pay for 8)

 

[pwp]

It only took one hour into a 48 hour test drive (courtesy CPS) of the new 24-70 f/2.8II and I was 110% convinced. This is an extraordinary lens. It's a game changer.

After five original 24-70 f/2.8 lenses which were all shockers, this lens is in another galaxy altogether. I thought my old 24-105 would be a keeper, only for the extra reach which is handy for some event work plus I wouldn't get much $$ for it anyway. But it's been unused since the 24-70 f/2.8II landed so I'll probably sell it.

My 24 f/1.4II will be up for sale soon...it's just not necessary any more. My Sigma 50 f/1.4 is gone...unnecessary too. I'll only be using my 16-35 f/2.8II up to 24mm. Am I getting through? The new lens is awesome.

If the budget is there, without question get the new 24-70. As a bonus it will future proof your system to some extent. If you update in a couple of years to the inevitable 40-50+ mp bodies, you'll be glad to own a lens that the new monster sensors won't punish.

-PW

 

[Eli]

Just got my 24-70 ii and it is AMAZING, sold my 24 ii.
Such an amazing lens it is!

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I have been reading a lot about the canon 24-70 ii, some reviewers say that it's close to primes in that focal range in sharpness.

I have the 24-105 and think its a little soft for my taste. I want a faster lens cause I shoot in low light often. Having that option of 2.8 can make a diffrence for me since I shoot around 70mm and under.

My local camera store called today. He ordered it two days ago, and it showed up today. I should have it Monday, since its being Fedexed to me.

I hope to try it out then. I've been waiting and watching reviews before I bought it, I was unimpressed with the five original 24-70mm L's I owned.

 

[ScottyP]

Buy the new walk-around lens.
Disregard the lack of IS and the $2,300 price.
Patiently await your next instruction.
Enjoy the tasty grass, but please keep the baaa-aaaaa-aaaaa-aaaaah-ing to a low volume.

Thank you.