24-70mm II or primes?

[bdunbar79]

When I purchased my 24-70 f/2.8L II I quickly sold my 24-105L, 24L, 35L, and 50L because the IQ of the zoom was noticeably better.

 

[Viggo]

Had lots and lots of fun with the 24-70 II. But since I sold it and traded in the 35 L II and the 85 L II, I have not missed it for a second. I'm a sucker for fast shutters and shallow dof.

 

[gsealy]

I have the 24-70II and it is an awesome lens for a zoom. It is f2.8 all the way and I usually set it to f4. I like it when I have a dynamic situation calling for AF. Perhaps I am attending a gathering with people moving about, and so on. I know that I will get quality shots. But I have also invested in primes in that FL region. I have been going more with the Zeiss products, recently purchasing the Milvus 85mm f1.4. These are manual focus only and the Zeiss lens are hard to beat. These are static or nearly static situations, and it is a different shooting experience for me. It is a little more rewarding and fun.

 

[slclick]

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.

2 planes of people in a portrait? I'd go to f/4 if not 5.6

 

[[email protected]]

I've moved in the direction you've suggested. I used to shoot a 24-70 and then pick it up with the 70-200 II. And then the Sigma 50 Art hooked me into primes. I also share your type of photography. Combination of outdoor wildlife and indoor (kids) wildlife. Some learnings:

- A few of the new wide angle zooms are so good, that I don't think you get any benefit from having a prime in that space. It's not just the Canon 11-24 L. The 24-35 Sigma and the 15-30 Tamron are about as good in their focal lengths the primes. If you play around with The-Digital-Picture's example image comparison tool, you'll find, for instance, that the Sigma zoom is a little better than Canon's 24mm L II prime, even shooting the Canon at f/2. That said I'd go (and did) with the Tamron for the VC, which is quite good. You could also consider the 16-35 f/4 IS. When I tested one, it wasn't as sharp as the other options, but many people say the opposite, so I may have had a bum copy. The f/4 wasn't going to do it for me, though.

- Once you have one of those zooms, it doesn't make sense to have a separate 35mm prime, unless you really need the low light capacity. If you were to go with a 35 prime for low light, the new Cannon 35 II is amazing. I own it, but I'm selling it because I can't justify the extra money versus the Tamron 35, which I'm about to buy. I do not find my Canon 35 L II to be any better at focus speed than my Simga 50mm Art, despite many people repeating on forums of various sorts that Canons are faster.

- You must have the Sigma 50mm Art, as you surmised.

- You might consider going for a Tamron 85 1.8 VC rather than assume the 70-200 will take over. It's much more portable and has more than a stop advantage on it. The MTFs make it look like it's as sharp or sharper as well.

- Then you have your 70-200 for low light telephoto. If you're serious about having fun with wildlife, you'll want the 100-400 II either as an addition or replacement.

 

[Efka76]

I have Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC which can be considered as equivalent for Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Sigma 50 1.4 Art and Canon 70-200 2.8L II IS USM. The 70-200 lens is really good, however, I use it very rarely because it is heavy and not very comfortable to carry. Also, in many cases I shoot portraits and 200 mm is too long for me (also, do not like that background is too blurred when shooting close portraits using 200 mm). 24-70 is the most used lens, which is really perfect in almost all conditions. So, I use it most of the time. Zoom lenses are very easy to use, comfortable to carry. However, when I want really crisp images, which have the most beautiful bokeh and light conditions are not perfect - Sigma 50 1.4 Art is the best option. It is heavy, however, produce really very high quality images. Conclusion is simple: you have to assess what is you shooting style, what are usual shooting conditions, are you ready to take with you 3 primes instead one quality zoom and carry the whole day, whether you do not see burden of constant change of primes on your camera and other aspects. My advice for you would be to buy Canon 24-70 2.8L II and 1 prime lense depending what objects you shoot the most.

 

[East Wind Photography]

I owned the 24-70 mk1 and tried the 24-70 mk2 and returned it. I decided that primes offered more in terms of iq. It boils down to what you shoot though. For landscapes i would stay with primes. If you shoot weddings or events where it is more challenging to adjust your framing then the zoom may be a better option.

Incidentally, i returned the 24-70 mk2 due to non linear focus issues. If i adjusted the afma to focus perfectly at infinity, the focus was off at 20 ft and vice versa.

 

[J.R.]

For landscapes i would stay with primes.

Why would you say that?

Landscapes would normally be shot stopped down quite a bit, wouldn't that make the case of the zoom stronger?

Not trying to be smart here, just want to understand your point of view on this.

 

[Viggo]

For landscapes i would stay with primes.

Why would you say that?

Landscapes would normally be shot stopped down quite a bit, wouldn't that make the case of the zoom stronger?

Not trying to be smart here, just want to understand your point of view on this.

Less distortion?

 

[J.R.]

For landscapes i would stay with primes.

Why would you say that?

Landscapes would normally be shot stopped down quite a bit, wouldn't that make the case of the zoom stronger?

Not trying to be smart here, just want to understand your point of view on this.

Less distortion?

Could be, but in how many landscapes would you be worried excessively about distortion? To my understanding, unless you have some geometrical shapes and a number of straight lines in your landscapes you wouldn't even notice the amount of distortion one gets from the 24-70 II.

That being said, my typical landscapes are taken in a rough mountain terrain which doesn't show distortion in my images - I mean, it must be there but I don't notice it. Cityscapes could be a problem but then I've got the 17 TSE for that.

 

[Loswr]

For landscapes i would stay with primes.

Why would you say that?

Landscapes would normally be shot stopped down quite a bit, wouldn't that make the case of the zoom stronger?

Agreed. In general, primes offer no meaningful IQ advantage over the 24-70 II at f/8 (and arguably not at f/2.8, either). They offer a wider aperture, which is usually of no benefit for landscapes. They're lighter, but if you have to carry 2-3 of them to get the framing you'll need that advantage evaporates, too.

The 24-70/2.8 II delivers excellent IQ, and allows framing flexibility, from a single shot to a pano in portrait orientation.

Kapellbrücke at Night

EOS 1D X, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM @ 50mm, 20 s, f/11, ISO 200

Rhine Basel

EOS 1D X, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM @ 59mm, 10 s, f/9, ISO 400; 13 shots in portrait orientation


IMO, the only primes that provide a significant advantage are the TS-E lenses, which enable shots not possible with other lenses, e.g. use of tilt for close foreground to background sharpness at reasonable apertures which avoid diffraction softening.

Rathaus Basel

EOS 1D X, TS-E 17mm f/4L, 30 s, f/11, ISO 100

 

[Viggo]

For landscapes i would stay with primes.

Why would you say that?

Landscapes would normally be shot stopped down quite a bit, wouldn't that make the case of the zoom stronger?

Not trying to be smart here, just want to understand your point of view on this.

Less distortion?

Could be, but in how many landscapes would you be worried excessively about distortion? To my understanding, unless you have some geometrical shapes and a number of straight lines in your landscapes you wouldn't even notice the amount of distortion one gets from the 24-70 II.

That being said, my typical landscapes are taken in a rough mountain terrain which doesn't show distortion in my images - I mean, it must be there but I don't notice it. Cityscapes could be a problem but then I've got the 17 TSE for that.

Bendy horizons are distracting.

 

[ThePhotoBrewery]

Hello Daniela,

I recently sold a couple of third party prime and zoom lenses (the zoom had image stabilization) and switched to the Canon 24-70 2.8 L II. The missing stabilization has not been a problem for me at all and so far I am very happy with this lens.

I am not an expert regarding technical or scientific image quality but I found that the lens performs as well as a prime lens and is now my go to lens for almost everything I do. However, the lens is very prone to lens flare (which is an effect I like so not an issue for me) but I can thoroughly recommend it.

Best of luck with your search!

 

[East Wind Photography]

For landscapes i would stay with primes.

Why would you say that?

Landscapes would normally be shot stopped down quite a bit, wouldn't that make the case of the zoom stronger?

Not trying to be smart here, just want to understand your point of view on this.

In my opinion the 24-70 does not have consistent IQ at all focal lengths. Aside from the AF issue I was having, and LS should be manual focused anyway, I found it particularly "soft" at the 70 end. 24 was better. A great prime will always consistently perform (if its a good prime) and many do correct for distortion but these days that can be corrected in camera or in post.

I just had way too many issues with the 24-70 for the money paid...and now the reports of coatings issues on some copies. I think specifically for landscape work, your money is better spent on something else.

 

[Sporgon]

When you look at a lens of the overall quality that the 24-70 II has, the zoom vs prime debate has nothing really to do with IQ; it's just down to the personality of the shooter. When I'm not under pressure to deliver I just like having a small, well balanced fixed focal length lens on the camera at any one time, with a very bright viewfinder: it's just a personal thing.

Incidentally Colin Prior, who is probably the best known and most successful (genuinely professional) landscape photographer of recent times in the UK uses the 24-70 II, 70-200 II and TS-E 24 on FF digital.

Just a point on the distortion differences: it is very easily corrected in post, as is nearly everything these days, but when stitching an image that has a flat horizon such as the sea, a low distorting prime with a shallow nodal point does make it easier to get the joins right and the horizon flat. Just analysing why I do what I do I think that this has some bearing on me liking primes; this and the fact that they are smaller and lighter on the camera. Which is why I'm not interested in lenses like the Sigma 50 Art.

Having said all that I reckon that over 50% of the images on my website are shot with a zoom.

 

[Loswr]

...with a very bright viewfinder

I trust you're aware that unless you've swapped out the stock focus screen for a -S high precision screen, there's no difference in viewfinder brightness between an f/2.8 zoom and an f/1.4 prime...

 

[Sporgon]

...with a very bright viewfinder

I trust you're aware that unless you've swapped out the stock focus screen for a -S high precision screen, there's no difference in viewfinder brightness between an f/2.8 zoom and an f/1.4 prime...

Good point ! But yes, I use the 's' screens all the time, even when using f/4 zooms. Again, it's personal preference, but I like to see the real dof at focus even if I'm going to be stopped down well beyond it.

 

[J.R.]

when stitching an image that has a flat horizon such as the sea, a low distorting prime with a shallow nodal point does make it easier to get the joins right and the horizon flat. Just analysing why I do what I do I think that this has some bearing on me liking primes; this and the fact that they are smaller and lighter on the camera.

I have the 40mm pancake for that

 

[J.R.]

For landscapes i would stay with primes.

Why would you say that?

Landscapes would normally be shot stopped down quite a bit, wouldn't that make the case of the zoom stronger?

Not trying to be smart here, just want to understand your point of view on this.

In my opinion the 24-70 does not have consistent IQ at all focal lengths. Aside from the AF issue I was having, and LS should be manual focused anyway, I found it particularly "soft" at the 70 end. 24 was better. A great prime will always consistently perform (if its a good prime) and many do correct for distortion but these days that can be corrected in camera or in post.

I just had way too many issues with the 24-70 for the money paid...and now the reports of coatings issues on some copies. I think specifically for landscape work, your money is better spent on something else.

Thanks EWP ... Given your troubles with your 24-70 II, I understand the point of view.

 

[Loswr]

For landscapes i would stay with primes.

Why would you say that?

Landscapes would normally be shot stopped down quite a bit, wouldn't that make the case of the zoom stronger?

Not trying to be smart here, just want to understand your point of view on this.

In my opinion the 24-70 does not have consistent IQ at all focal lengths. Aside from the AF issue I was having, and LS should be manual focused anyway, I found it particularly "soft" at the 70 end. 24 was better. A great prime will always consistently perform (if its a good prime) and many do correct for distortion but these days that can be corrected in camera or in post.

I just had way too many issues with the 24-70 for the money paid...and now the reports of coatings issues on some copies. I think specifically for landscape work, your money is better spent on something else.

Thanks EWP ... Given your troubles with your 24-70 II, I understand the point of view.

Not sure I do. I bought a Rokinon 14/2.8 that was horribly soft in one corner, I exchanged it and got an excellent copy. Granted, such things should happen less often with a Canon L lens than a SamBowRok lens, but still this seems like throwing the baby out with the bath water.