24-70mm II or primes?

[daniela]

Hi!

Now my professional Situation has changed and I am owner of muuuch more leisure. Reducing the working hours is really fine.
I have updated my equipment for wildlife photography. Updating my lens situation in the range from 24-70mm ist still a "to do". Primarily to photograph landscape and my children. Focus is on Image Quality.

So, I need your experience: Option 1 is to buy the 24-70II from Canon (no IS).
Option 2: I own the 24mm 2.8 IS Canon lens (I am happy with it) and the 70-200mm IS zoom 2.8 from Canon. If I buy the Tamron 1.8 35mm lens (seems to be very sharp as I read in tests) and the Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art I would own 24-35-50-70mm primes that (in tests) have an better IQ, have IS and have an better bokeh.
What would you do?

Daniela

 

[Sporgon]

It really depends on your photographic circumstances. A few people here on CR have said that professionally they use zooms for the flexibility and at leisure they use primes. I can really relate to this point of view too.

It sounds like you are using them for leisure, and if you'd get more pleasure using a number of fast primes then go down that route.

 

[tron]

Hi!

Now my professional Situation has changed and I am owner of muuuch more leisure. Reducing the working hours is really fine.
I have updated my equipment for wildlife photography. Updating my lens situation in the range from 24-70mm ist still a "to do". Primarily to photograph landscape and my children. Focus is on Image Quality.

So, I need your experience: Option 1 is to buy the 24-70II from Canon (no IS).
Option 2: I own the 24mm 2.8 IS Canon lens (I am happy with it) and the 70-200mm IS zoom 2.8 from Canon. If I buy the Tamron 1.8 35mm lens (seems to be very sharp as I read in tests) and the Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art I would own 24-35-50-70mm primes that (in tests) have an better IQ, have IS and have an better bokeh.
What would you do?

Daniela

24-70II is an excellent lens. But it is a matter of preference: Not having to change lenses so often versus photographing handheld in less light. It is your choice.

 

[Maximilian]

As the others mentioned, it's a matter of preference: More open aperture or more convenience of a zoom.

I just wanted to add that if you consider your "Option 2" buying a 35 mm prime and as you mentioned that you are very pleased with your 24/2.8 IS, then I'd take a closer look at the Canon 35/2.0 IS.
Compared to the Tamron you're losing a bit of aperture but you gain first party AF and a smaller (C:78x63mm T: 80x80mm) and lighter (C:335g T:480g) lens than the Tamron. It also has a lot of good recommendations and reviews. Also the actual price difference (in Germany: C: 480,- €. T: 700,- €) is making the Canon quite attractive.

I am considering that purchase myself and I came to the conclusion that I'd go for the Canon.

Also please note that this statement

... If I buy the Tamron 1.8 35mm lens (seems to be very sharp as I read in tests) and the Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art I would own 24-35-50-70mm primes that (in tests) have an better IQ, have IS and have an better bokeh.

is not 100% correct, because the Sigma has no IS. Here you would have to chose the Tamron 45/1.8 VC.

 

[Loswr]

If you enjoy comparing images shot with different lenses by viewing images at 100% on your monitor, you might notice an IQ difference between the zoom and the primes.

For kids, the flexibility of a zoom is a huge benefit. For landscapes/architecture, I use primes but that's for the tilt/shift capability not IQ per se.

 

[photennek]

I have the 24-70 II, 70-200 II IS, and more recently got the 35/f2 IS. I mainly grab shots from my family and especially kids, ages 3 and 7, as they are playing and running around etc and I find the 24-70 invaluable in being able to react to fast moving situations. Personally I find it's image quality to exceed even the 70-200, which is super too.

Then again, since I got the 35/f2, I find that using it makes me grow as a photographer more because of the foot zooming and "different process" in composing the shot and preparing in advance to potential photographic moments. Thus I sometimes use it instead of the zoom, and I enjoy it very much also. It's image quality is also very good, of course, even if it is not the flagship model. Comparing to 24-70, I find it at least equally good when using similar apertures. I enjoy it's IS and ability to focus close, creating very much background blur - the 24-70 doesn't come close in this sense.

So I see the benefits in both, and it really is up to you, there is no right or wrong. I like the flexibility of the zoom and the discipline and the additional benefits of the 35/f2... Personally I like that now I have the option to choose, based on the daily feeling...

 

[scottkinfw]

My 2 ccents:

I have 24- 70 2.8 II. I absolutely love the lens. Always great IQ and flexible. Don't need is. I consider it to be the most useful lens with the best IQ.

I also have the 70 - F4/L IS and the 70-200 2.8 IS II.

The 24-70 bests the 70 -200 in IQ (at least my copies). I also find that the 70-200 2.8 IS II is big and heavy, so it mainly stays at the office while the F 4/L version is lighter and smaller and takes great pics, so it is way more likely to go on trips with me- I don't appreciate any sacrifice in IQ at all vs. the 2.8. With great low light performance of the 5D III (and better with the 5D 4/X) I don't really miss the extra f stops.

Of course, be sure that afma is optimized.

So, that's my gear.

Congrats on less work and more fun, let us know what you choose.

sek

 

[photojoern.de]

I own the 24-70 f2.8 II for two years now. Great image quality, comparable to prime fixed focal length lenses, comparable and if not even slightly better than the Canon 70-200 L f4 / f2.8 latest versions. It´s my most used lens, by far. Landscape and Street photography. I don´t see the need for another lens in this focal area until they make the same with an IS. But there´s no rumor regarding this issue. So, buy it and you won´t regret it.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

It really depends on what is important to you and what you are trying to achieve.
I still believe that the older mk I was a slightly more versatile lens. It had a much better semi macro capabilities and due to the reverse nature of the zoom (as it got wider in focal length it lot longer in physical length) it's focal length got longer at the long end as the focus drew closer. It was amazing at differential focus type of shots at 70mm..which isn't very well documented and something that the newer mk II doesn't do as well.

The new mk II is a lot sharper and a little wider at the wide end and at the long end of the zoom range too. The new hood is next to hopeless compared to the old one...but it is better and handling flare and better contrast.
It's light and easy to use and very versatile. But like all versatile lenses...it's the master of none.

Primes, generally need a body for each prime to match the same versatility and you need more of them. This is expensive and heavy. You also need a carry / bag system that can cope with multiple cams. The best primes are the L fast primes and they are very expensive and quite heavy for what they are...but they are nearly indestructible
and have great resale value. My preference is a 24mm f1.4 IIL, a 35mm f1.4 L and an 85mm f1.2IIL. These are several stops brighter than the zoom but I lack a 50mm in there...it's just not me. I'd rather use a 35mm and move closer...I like the images better. But it's a hassle using these three lenses on an assignment compared to the zoom...but the results wide open really make the subject pop out of the background compared to the f2.8 zoom. The larger aperture makes the backgrounds a lot easier to decouple in my opinion.
But is you need versatility...go the zoom...or for landscape work...definitely get the zoom. For walkabouts...certainly get the zoom! But for relatively still portrait subjects which you have control over...then the primes are in a different league.

 

[docsmith]

I have updated my equipment for wildlife photography. Updating my lens situation in the range from 24-70mm ist still a "to do". Primarily to photograph landscape and my children. Focus is on Image Quality.

So, I need your experience: Option 1 is to buy the 24-70II from Canon (no IS).
Option 2: I own the 24mm 2.8 IS Canon lens (I am happy with it) and the 70-200mm IS zoom 2.8 from Canon. If I buy the Tamron 1.8 35mm lens (seems to be very sharp as I read in tests) and the Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art I would own 24-35-50-70mm primes that (in tests) have an better IQ, have IS and have an better bokeh.
What would you do?

First. I would think that 24-35-50-70 mm primes would be overkill, IMO. Most people I see have primes at 24, 50 and 135 mm or 35, 85, 135 mm. I would focus on quality over quantity if you go this prime route.

As to what I think you should do, my best guess is that the 24-70 II would be the best compromise between landscape and children. And "compromise" seems like a silly word, because really, it is an amazing lens for both.

I have the 24-70 II and a couple of primes (50A, TSE 24 II, etc). For a long while I primarily used the 24-70 II. But I've been working my primes in to the point where I am probably 30% prime and 70% zoom. But the deal is simple and obvious, any great lens is an amazing tool that lets you do amazing things. Amazing, but always limited. The zooms are more flexible and I get great pictures zooming in and out, adapting quickly and easily to different situations. But the primes, wow, it doesn't even have to be atf/1.4. But the corner to corner sharpness and minimized vignetting (or noise introduced when fixing in post) can really make some images pop, even at more narrow apertures such as f/5.6. I actually shoot my primes f/2.8-f/5.6 more than any other aperture. Of course, I do open them up to f/1.4-f/2.8 when desired, but there is something special about primes.

So:
24-70 II = flexibility to take amazing pictures at different focal lengths and adapt to changing situations with minimal effort.
Primes = Potential for special shots but you lose the flexibility to quickly adapt focal length

Either way, with quality glass you will have the potential to get great images. But either way, you will be limited in some way, shape or form.

But, again, because of the kids, I would think you would want the zoom. You would probably miss more "moments" by loosing the flexibility of the zoom vs the prime route.

 

[Random Orbits]

Get the 24-70 II first. My copy of the 24-70 II and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II are consistent with the results at TDP. My 70-200 is better at 70mm, but the 24-70 is still very good there and gets better with the shorter focal lengths, and it is primelike compared to the 24L II, 35L, 50L. The newer stuff (50A, 35A, 35L II) beat it, but then they should.

There is nothing like first party AF. I've used the 24-70 II for indoor basketball and volleyball, and it performs very well. I recently picked up the 20Art on discount, and it's IQ is great but it doesn't focus like a Canon. I have a 5DIII, and it hits accurately at the center point after AFMA, but it front focuses with the left and right outer points (so it's not a decentering issue). It's also not as fast and consistent as Canon primes. There are also many cases (here at CanonRumors and elsewhere) that report AF inconsistencies/inaccuracy with the 35A and 50A. Reliable and accurate AF is great to have when taking photos of kids on the move.

Agree with Maximilian on looking into the Canon 35 f/2 IS instead of the Tamron 35 f/1.8 VC. I'd gladly give up that 1/3 of a stop for Canon AF and for a smaller price.

I would also suggest that you consider if you plan on getting a UWA lens in the future. If you do, that could affect your midrange choice. Before the 24-70 II came out, I used a 16-35, 50, 70-xxx combo. Fast 50 also helped with inside shots where I could trade DOF/ISO/flash usage. At the end, it all comes down to priorities and budgets. The 24-70 is one of the most heavily used lenses for many photographers (including me) and for good reason. It delivers in IQ, has great AF and is very versatile. There will be times where you would prefer using a prime, but if you go prime, there will be a lot more instances where you wish you had the zoom.

 

[JonAustin]

I own the 24mm 2.8 IS Canon lens (I am happy with it) and the 70-200mm IS zoom 2.8 from Canon. If I buy the Tamron 1.8 35mm lens (seems to be very sharp as I read in tests) and the Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art I would own 24-35-50-70mm primes that (in tests) have an better IQ, have IS and have an better bokeh.

You didn't state whether your 70+200/2.8 IS is the I or II version, and while both are brilliant zooms, I wouldn't qualify either as a "70mm prime" ... too big and heavy, and not especially fast.

I agree with other posters that the 24-70/2.8L II might be the better choice for your application. However, if you do decide to go the primes route, I would recommend either the 85/1.8 or 100/2 and -- if you really feel the need for something in the middle after using one of these with your 24/2.8IS, either a 35 or 45-50. And I concur with Maximilian on recommending that you consider the Canon 35/2 IS, if you decide you want a prime at that FL.

 

[Zeidora]

For IQ, primes beat zooms of equal vintage/quality level (e.g. L-zoom vs. L-prime). Needless to say, depends what you care about (distortion), how much you are prepared to fiddle on computer (various chromatic aberrations), and target output/size. Once you print >A3, you will see the difference.

IS should be irrelevant for landscapes, because landscapes are mainly shot on tripod. If you really want IQ, think hard about Zeiss. For landscapes, I would also consider TS lens instead of IS. I don't find 24-35-50 an overkill at all, have 25-35-55 myself. I don't have TS lenses (yet), because I shoot LF for serious landscapes with much more refined adjustment options than SLR-TS can offer.

 

[NancyP]

Don't knock the usefulness of the very recent cheapo STM primes from Canon, particularly when assembling a multilens landscape kit that you need to carry for a long distance. Remember, for landscape generally you have a tripod and a lens stopped down to f/8 or thereabouts. I really like the Shorty Forty (EF 40mm f/2.8 STM) - bought it used for $125.00 - it has supplanted the Sigma Art 35mm f/1.4 for long-haul hiking, unless I plan to do some night landscape. Typical hiking kit for landscape and macro: 21mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.8, 125mm f/2.5 macro, 6D. If I happened to be working in a dusty harsh environment, that would be the perfect use for a 24-70 or 24-105, to avoid lens changes.

 

[Loswr]

The larger aperture makes the backgrounds a lot easier to decouple in my opinion.

...But for relatively still portrait subjects which you have control over...then the primes are in a different league.

Thanks for sharing an image! Without meaning to offend, I will say that your example highlights a couple of potentially negative things about that 'different league' of the prime lens.

In your example, your DoF is thin enough that only one of the two subjects is in crisp focus - in addition to decoupling subject from background, you seem to have decoupled your two subjects from one another, or to put it another way you've included one half of the couple as background. Now it may be that was intentional, but still, if I was one member of that couple in the image I would be less than pleased that one of us was blurry.

The other thing that's evident in your example is that fast primes shot at wide apertures generally suffer from noticeable longitudinal CA. Personally, I find the green fringing around the male subject's shirt collar and around the gold accent on his jacket collar to be distracting.

Stopping down would have eliminated both of those considerations, and I suspect f/2.8 would still have provided good background separation. Having said that, a faster aperture cetainly offers creative opportunities not available with zoom lenses if used judiciously.

 

[takesome1]

I was a prime over zoom user when I owned the 24-70mm original. The IQ was just not where I wanted it to be.
The IQ argument for the most part went away when the 24-70 II was released. I own the 24mm f.1.4 II and 35mm f/1.4 II. The IQ of these two lens isn't significantly different from the 24-70 II when shot at equal apertures. You have to be an extreme pixel peeper to notice the subtle differences, and I am one of those that notice.

But, the 24 and 35mm can do things that the 24-70 II cannot and that is shoot at wider apertures. They open up a wider range of creative ability.

If you do not use an aperture wider than F/2.8 and you do not care about tilt shift I see no reason to go prime over the 24-70 II. A few years back I would have told you the opposite when there was only the 24-70 original.

 

[Pookie]

Hi!

Now my professional Situation has changed and I am owner of muuuch more leisure. Reducing the working hours is really fine.
I have updated my equipment for wildlife photography. Updating my lens situation in the range from 24-70mm ist still a "to do". Primarily to photograph landscape and my children. Focus is on Image Quality.

So, I need your experience: Option 1 is to buy the 24-70II from Canon (no IS).
Option 2: I own the 24mm 2.8 IS Canon lens (I am happy with it) and the 70-200mm IS zoom 2.8 from Canon. If I buy the Tamron 1.8 35mm lens (seems to be very sharp as I read in tests) and the Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art I would own 24-35-50-70mm primes that (in tests) have an better IQ, have IS and have an better bokeh.
What would you do?

Daniela

If money is not an issue... why do you have to choose one over the other. Why not a set of primes and zooms? You'll appreciate a wider ap when darker and the zooms when time & situation calls for it.

 

[takesome1]

The larger aperture makes the backgrounds a lot easier to decouple in my opinion.

...But for relatively still portrait subjects which you have control over...then the primes are in a different league.

Thanks for sharing an image! Without meaning to offend, I will say that your example highlights a couple of potentially negative things about that 'different league' of the prime lens.

In your example, your DoF is thin enough that only one of the two subjects is in crisp focus - in addition to decoupling subject from background, you seem to have decoupled your two subjects from one another, or to put it another way you've included one half of the couple as background. Now it may be that was intentional, but still, if I was one member of that couple in the image I would be less than pleased that one of us was blurry.

The other thing that's evident in your example is that fast primes shot at wide apertures generally suffer from noticeable longitudinal CA. Personally, I find the green fringing around the male subject's shirt collar and around the gold accent on his jacket collar to be distracting.

Stopping down would have eliminated both of those considerations, and I suspect f/2.8 would still have provided good background separation. Having said that, a faster aperture cetainly offers creative opportunities not available with zoom lenses if used judiciously.

I wonder which lens created the green fringing. I do not own the 85mm L but I haven't noticed this in the 24mm or 35mm, at least without major pixel peeping.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

After using primes for years due to my dislike for the 24-70L MK II (I owned 5 of them), when I tried the MK II, the primes were never used again. Changing primes was a pain, I often could not move to compose a image, and the flexibility of the zoom combined with IQ equal to or better than the primes plus the high ISO capability of the 5D MK III just made me reach for the zoom every time.

One exception was the 16-35mm L, I could never warm up to it, so I kept one old 17mm Prime, the Tokina 17mm f/3.5. I seldom use it, but it was cheap, so I just hang on to it.

 

[Haydn1971]

I've an excellent set of zoom lens for my 6D, I've bought into primes and lensbaby for fun, just to add a different dimension... My photos go on Flickr at 1600 pixels along the long side... That's all...

But what makes you happy, but don't fall into the delusion that glass will make you happy, you need the experiences in life where you get to use your glass... That's what makes the photo, subjects not quality of equipment