24-70mm f/2.8 L mkII & 50mm f/1.4???

[Sabaki]

So I just bought the Canon 24-70mm f2.8 L mk II yesterday and as luck would have it, was just offered a brand new Canon 50mm f/1.4 for a very, very good price.

So the question is, should I buy it? In fact, with the vaunted performance of the 24-70, does it still make sense to buy a 24mm, 35mm, 50mm or any other prime in that focal range?

I am thinking the only plus to those primes would be better bokeh, or am I being short sighted here?

I'm still learning this photography thing so apologies if my questions rankle.

 

[Vossie]

I have both lenses. The 24-70 is certainly sharper, but the 50 is 2 stops faster (and much lighter). I use the 50 for dimly lit indoor portraits and in cases I want only want to carry a light setup (in which case I may just as well take the 40 pancake). Opinions about the 50 are quite mixed if you browse the internet, but I do like the look. The lens is quite soft, so I typically stop it down to 1.8 or 2.0.

If you can get it for a good price, I suggest you go for it. I'm sure it will find its use in your kit.

 

[Dylan777]

So I just bought the Canon 24-70mm f2.8 L mk II yesterday and as luck would have it, was just offered a brand new Canon 50mm f/1.4 for a very, very good price.

So the question is, should I buy it? In fact, with the vaunted performance of the 24-70, does it still make sense to buy a 24mm, 35mm, 50mm or any other prime in that focal range?

I am thinking the only plus to those primes would be better bokeh, or am I being short sighted here?

I'm still learning this photography thing so apologies if my questions rankle.

24-70 II delivers sharp images, not much of special effect.

50mm, especially 50L will bring much more dreamy bokeh. I'm not sure what kind photography you into, but 85L II is one of my fav. lens for portrait.

 

[Menace]

I have both lenses. The 24-70 is certainly sharper, but the 50 is 2 stops faster (and much lighter). I use the 50 for dimly lit indoor portraits and in cases I want only want to carry a light setup (in which case I may just as well take the 40 pancake). Opinions about the 50 are quite mixed if you browse the internet, but I do like the look. The lens is quite soft, so I typically stop it down to 1.8 or 2.0.

If you can get it for a good price, I suggest you go for it. I'm sure it will find its use in your kit.

+1
You'll be reaching for the 50 1.4 a lot when the light is poor. It's small and light enough to carry around in your pocket.

If you are getting it for a VERY good price I'd say go for it.

Btw, you'll love the 24-70 2.8 II

 

[Jim Saunders]

Even if in the end you don't like the 50 you can sell it, and it sounds like you don't stand to lose anything for doing so. I have a 24-70 II and I still feel a place for something 1.4 or so.

Jim

 

[docsmith]

I just bought the 24-70 II. But I am planning on keeping my 50 f/1.4. It is a great lens. It is pretty darn sharp by f/2.0. And f/1.4 is available if you need it. That alone makes it worth the price. But the other benefit....peace of mind....at least I don't always like walking around with a $2,300 lens on my camera. Sometimes it is nice to have a simpler kit.

 

[Sabaki]

Thanks for the added perspective folks. That dreamy out of focus areas are awesome.

I'll add the 85mm f/1.8 to my bag in the next few months, I do enjoy that lens.

Can't wait to put the 24-70 through its paces

 

[bholliman]

I have both lenses. The 24-70 is certainly sharper, but the 50 is 2 stops faster (and much lighter). I use the 50 for dimly lit indoor portraits and in cases I want only want to carry a light setup (in which case I may just as well take the 40 pancake). Opinions about the 50 are quite mixed if you browse the internet, but I do like the look. The lens is quite soft, so I typically stop it down to 1.8 or 2.0.

+1

I have both lenses and plan to keep both. I also use the 50 1.4 for indoor portraits and shots of the kids. Its certainly not as sharp as the 24-70, but you don't need razor sharpness for portraits. I can achieve better subject isolation with the 50 and the bokeh is very nice.

 

[dsc888]

I have both lenses. The 24-70 is certainly sharper, but the 50 is 2 stops faster (and much lighter). I use the 50 for dimly lit indoor portraits and in cases I want only want to carry a light setup (in which case I may just as well take the 40 pancake). Opinions about the 50 are quite mixed if you browse the internet, but I do like the look. The lens is quite soft, so I typically stop it down to 1.8 or 2.0.

+1

I have both lenses and plan to keep both. I also use the 50 1.4 for indoor portraits and shots of the kids. Its certainly not as sharp as the 24-70, but you don't need razor sharpness for portraits. I can achieve better subject isolation with the 50 and the bokeh is very nice.

I completely agree with these 2 guys! I have both and the 50 1.4 is amazing by f2.0 and makes my 5D3 nice and light when I chase my kids around the house. The bokeh is more dreamy at f2.0 and it is actually slightly less sharp than the 24-70mm MkII at f2.8. Primes definitely have their place in your arsenal of lenses and they force you to "think" about the shot more. So try it out and see if it will get your creative juices flowing.