24-70mm II or primes?

[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.

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.

In all fairness, I did mention "your 24-70 II" in my comment ... I gather it is a personal choice for him.

 

[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.

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.

In all fairness, I did mention "your 24-70 II" in my comment ... I gather it is a personal choice for him, and that answered the question I had raised

 

[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.

In all fairness, I did mention "your 24-70 II" in my comment ... I gather it is a personal choice for him.

Ahhh, but that personal choice was then phrased as a general recommendation to others.

 

[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.

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.

In all fairness, I did mention "your 24-70 II" in my comment ... I gather it is a personal choice for him.

Ahhh, but that personal choice was then phrased as a general recommendation to others.

You can say that again

Anyhow, very nice images posted to this thread John.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

...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...

Or depth of field too...which is why my 5DII's have the fine focus screen. The difference through the view finder is quite apparent.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

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.

Firstly, it isn't good form to critique another's photo on an open forum, I avoid doing so even when severely tempted. I have done so on a few occasions and it rarely ends well I am a professional and maybe my choice of image to present here wasn't ideal. I wasn't expecting my work to be scrutinized. By way of explanation, this image is one photo from a supplied set of images from their day. This particular photo's narrative is about her and her new man, it's part of a three image set. Another (not shown) centering on him and the other is them both. It's just one photo from a larger collection.
The CA in this shot is so minimal...it's not a problem to me or the couple. I have had some purple fringing on spectacular highlights on some images, but this is easily corrected. But CA is really not that much of a distraction or a problem.
Maybe this photo would be more to your taste, from a family portrait shoot last year:

I'm sure you can see how decoupled the background is and how in focus the two subjects are.

The same is true with wild life...primes offer the same decoupling and flat plane of focus, a similar technique for sure:

Canon 5DIII, 400mm f2.8 LIS and a 1.4x TC

 

[pwp]

Option 1 is to buy the 24-70II from Canon.
What would you do?
Daniela

Daniela, go with option 1.

I could hardly tell you how many times I've posted on CR that the 24-70 MkII is such an outstandingly strong performer, I've sold off the primes that I had in the 24-50 focal length range. The 24-70 f/2.8 MkII bears no comparison to the old MkI 24-70 f/2.8. There are ok copies of that lens in existence but an overwhelming percentage of them were pretty hopeless. The weak MkI was the reason I bought three very high quality primes. That reason evaporated the day I bought the 24-70 f/2.8 MkII. I'm not alone in this experience. Other posts in this thread validate this.

-pw

 

[Ozarker]

My 24-70 f/2.8L II is perfect. I wouldn't get a prime unless I needed a faster lens. Mine is soooo sharp! It is an expensive lens, but well worth the money. I guess it might cost less than getting primes to cover this range. Not sure.

I hope you really like whatever you decide fits your needs best.

 

[YuengLinger]

My 24-70 f/2.8L II is perfect. I wouldn't get a prime unless I needed a faster lens. Mine is soooo sharp! It is an expensive lens, but well worth the money. I guess it might cost less than getting primes to cover this range. Not sure.

I hope you really like whatever you decide fits your needs best.

+1

 

[Don Haines]

Option 1 is to buy the 24-70II from Canon.
What would you do?
Daniela

Daniela, go with option 1.

I could hardly tell you how many times I've posted on CR that the 24-70 MkII is such an outstandingly strong performer, I've sold off the primes that I had in the 24-50 focal length range. The 24-70 f/2.8 MkII bears no comparison to the old MkI 24-70 f/2.8. There are ok copies of that lens in existence but an overwhelming percentage of them were pretty hopeless. The weak MkI was the reason I bought three very high quality primes. That reason evaporated the day I bought the 24-70 f/2.8 MkII. I'm not alone in this experience. Other posts in this thread validate this.

-pw

When the 24-70 MkII came out, many of the reviewers were making comments about how it was sharper than the primes it replaced....

 

[Loswr]

Firstly, it isn't good form to critique another's photo on an open forum, I avoid doing so even when severely tempted. I have done so on a few occasions and it rarely ends well I am a professional and maybe my choice of image to present here wasn't ideal.

Apologies, as I tried to state the point wasn't specifically about the image, but rather the fact that it illustrates that the wide aperture and thus shallow DoF of a fast prime is not always an advantage. You mention a shot with both subjects in focus - I wonder if that was taken at faster than f/2.8?

The CA in this shot is so minimal...it's not a problem to me or the couple. I have had some purple fringing on spectacular highlights on some images, but this is easily corrected. But CA is really not that much of a distraction or a problem.

I indicated that I (as in me, personally) found the CA objectionable. Everyone has different standards. Fact remains that LoCA is a 'feature' of fast primes, I see it in my 35L, 85L II, and 135L - and when I had the 85/1.8, that was the tragic flaw in what's otherwise I think the best IQ for dollar value in Canon's lineup.

Maybe this photo would be more to your taste, from a family portrait shoot last year:

I'm sure you can see how decoupled the background is and how in focus the two subjects are.

The same is true with wild life...primes offer the same decoupling and flat plane of focus, a similar technique for sure:

Canon 5DIII, 400mm f2.8 LIS and a 1.4x TC

Nice portrait, and it works wide open because their faces are in the same plane instead of at different distances. But certainly I can acheive crisp subject focus and background decoupling with an f/2.8 zoom.

Likewise, that flat plane of focus with foreground and background blur are not restricted to primes.

Overall, my point to the OP is that primes are not 'magic', and the 24-70/2.8L II is equal to or better than most primes – even L lenses – in it's range from an IQ standpoint. Faster lenses give you the flexibility to choose a shallower DoF if desired, zooms give the flexibility to rapidly and easily change framing. Personally, I want both options which is why I have both zooms and primes...but the zooms see far more use, and the 24-70/2.8L II is my most-used lens.

 

[nc0b]

I guess discussing the subject of extremely shallow depth of field, and in some cases significant CA, can get dicey. About a year ago a series of sample photos were posted, and the subject was a darling young girl with very creative poses. The lens used was a 50mm f/1.2 shot wide open. Both eyes were tack sharp, but nothing else. The tip of her nose was blurry, her ears were totally out of focus, and the CA of the polka dots on her blouse were strikingly awful, at least to me. Even her rosy cheeks had no skin texture. I asked two questions: Artistically why would one choose such a paper thin depth of field, and why would I spend $1500 on a lens with so much chromatic aberration? In other cases a photo may have the head rotated at a modest angle, and only one eye is sharp. A few comments later followed discussing why a DOF of 1/4 inch was good (or not), yet there was not one comment about obvious CA being distracting. So I will go out on a limb and post an outdoor portrait shot at f/5 using a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II at 135mm, ISO 400 on a lowly 40D. From my subjective point of view, the DOF is what I want, with some modest blur of the ears and hair that work for me. I cannot find the slightest CA, which at least is important to me. I am still scratching my head as to why we buy expensive equipment and then choose to have only one tiny part of the picture in focus. There are two subjects here: artistic choices and how important are lens aberrations to the overall presentation?

 

[Viggo]

I've tried many times to shoot the same things at 2.8 ("zoom aperture") and wide open with my primes over the years. And the conclusion for me is that the shot looses a lot of flavor and pop at 2.8 and smaller when the 1.2 and 1.4 shots look the way I like. And one eye sharp and the other not and so? I don't shoot at mfd very often so I have not that problem at all.

Here's a fun comparison , lots of dof vs small dof and my favorite piece of gear ever, a flash vs no flash.

 

[Alex_M]

Viggo,

What was the focus length, aperture and distance to subject (photo on the left)?

Was that at 24 mm and approximately 1 m to the girl?

I've tried many times to shoot the same things at 2.8 ("zoom aperture") and wide open with my primes over the years. And the conclusion for me is that the shot looses a lot of flavor and pop at 2.8 and smaller when the 1.2 and 1.4 shots look the way I like. And one eye sharp and the other not and so? I don't shoot at mfd very often so I have not that problem at all.

Here's a fun comparison , lots of dof vs small dof and my favorite piece of gear ever, a flash vs no flash.

 

[Viggo]

35mm @ f14 I think. Distance about 1-1,5 meter I guess.

 

[d]

Nice comparison, Viggo! Amazing what a pop of light can do.

Cheers,
d.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Firstly, it isn't good form to critique another's photo on an open forum, I avoid doing so even when severely tempted. I have done so on a few occasions and it rarely ends well I am a professional and maybe my choice of image to present here wasn't ideal.

Apologies, as I tried to state the point wasn't specifically about the image, but rather the fact that it illustrates that the wide aperture and thus shallow DoF of a fast prime is not always an advantage. You mention a shot with both subjects in focus - I wonder if that was taken at faster than f/2.8?

The CA in this shot is so minimal...it's not a problem to me or the couple. I have had some purple fringing on spectacular highlights on some images, but this is easily corrected. But CA is really not that much of a distraction or a problem.

I indicated that I (as in me, personally) found the CA objectionable. Everyone has different standards. Fact remains that LoCA is a 'feature' of fast primes, I see it in my 35L, 85L II, and 135L - and when I had the 85/1.8, that was the tragic flaw in what's otherwise I think the best IQ for dollar value in Canon's lineup.

Maybe this photo would be more to your taste, from a family portrait shoot last year:

I'm sure you can see how decoupled the background is and how in focus the two subjects are.

The same is true with wild life...primes offer the same decoupling and flat plane of focus, a similar technique for sure:

Canon 5DIII, 400mm f2.8 LIS and a 1.4x TC

Nice portrait, and it works wide open because their faces are in the same plane instead of at different distances. But certainly I can acheive crisp subject focus and background decoupling with an f/2.8 zoom.

Likewise, that flat plane of focus with foreground and background blur are not restricted to primes.

Overall, my point to the OP is that primes are not 'magic', and the 24-70/2.8L II is equal to or better than most primes – even L lenses – in it's range from an IQ standpoint. Faster lenses give you the flexibility to choose a shallower DoF if desired, zooms give the flexibility to rapidly and easily change framing. Personally, I want both options which is why I have both zooms and primes...but the zooms see far more use, and the 24-70/2.8L II is my most-used lens.

Those are two very nice shots. You are quite right, shallow DOF are not the primary (sorry for the pun) of fast primes. But it is easier to control for a given focal length and working distance. The photo with the couple in the woods was taken with an 85mm f1.2 wide open. During the same shoot I used a 70-200mm f2.8 wide open and at 200mm to achieve the same melted background. So yes an f2.8 zoom can achieve the same decoupling, but at a much longer focal length. A 24-70mm f2.8 will not be able to achieve the same thin DOF as an 85mm f1.2 prime, while assuming the same distance to the subject, which was the point I was trying to make and probably failing to.
There are a few reasons I prefer an 85mm f1.2 over a 70-700 2.8. Firstly as I have already mentioned, it is easier to control the background, although it is far harder to work with a very thin DOF in the first place. Secondly, I really like the focal length for portraiture. It's working distance is still quite close for a head and shoulders shot, where as a 200mm tends to move me quite a distance from the subject and becomes less personable. Also the 85mm focal length has less telephoto compression which I find more flattering to a person's face.
I use my 24-70mm a lot and on bright sunny days it's just too bright to use fast primes wide open. Sometimes the zoom is way more convenient and my first go to lens. Which brings me back to my original point: primes offer more brightness and a little more control over DOF while zooms offer more versatility and working speed. It really depends on your shooting needs and preference. When I shoot a wedding, I'm not constrained to only primes or only zooms. I tend to mix for a blend of creativity and versatility. My typical starting point is a 16-35IIL, a 35L and 85IIL, each on it's own full frame camera. I can pretty much cover most of the day with those three lenses. But I might swap out a 100LIS macro, 70-200 f2.8, 135L or 24-70L as needed for any given situation.

 

[awair]

I've nowhere near the level of experience (or gear) of many of the others who have contributed here; but how about the 24-70/4L?

In considering flexibility and convenience, this lens is also significantly lighter, which makes for a more comfortable day's shooting.

I normally shoot with the 135/2L, and needed a more "general-purpose" lens. I looked at the 24-105/4L and the 24-70/2.8L, which were both of a similar size/weight. I quickly settled on the newer 24-70/4L, which 'ticks the boxes' in my case.

It's also considerably cheaper!

 

[Loswr]

I've tried many times to shoot the same things at 2.8 ("zoom aperture") and wide open with my primes over the years. And the conclusion for me is that the shot looses a lot of flavor and pop at 2.8 and smaller when the 1.2 and 1.4 shots look the way I like.

Here's a fun comparison , lots of dof vs small dof

35mm @ f14 I think. Distance about 1-1,5 meter I guess.

35mm, 4 feet to subject, f/1.4 vs f/2.8 DoF is 4" vs 8". Shooting a reasonably close subject at f/2.8 doesn't yield lots of DoF, so while your comparison is a fun one, it doesn't illustrate the 'pop' of f/1.4 vs f/2.8 (the lighting comparison is great, though). With a single, not too close subject I'll often shoot wider than f/2.8 when using a prime, but f/2.8 can deliver plenty of pop.

When I got my f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses, I went through a 'because I can' phase. But I quickly learned to choose an aperture that gives sufficient DoF for the subject, and with the subjects that the OP mentioned – landscapes and children (plural) – that almost always means f/2.8 or narrower.

 

[Loswr]

Those are two very nice shots. You are quite right, shallow DOF are not the primary (sorry for the pun) of fast primes. But it is easier to control for a given focal length and working distance. The photo with the couple in the woods was taken with an 85mm f1.2 wide open. During the same shoot I used a 70-200mm f2.8 wide open and at 200mm to achieve the same melted background. So yes an f2.8 zoom can achieve the same decoupling, but at a much longer focal length. A 24-70mm f2.8 will not be able to achieve the same thin DOF as an 85mm f1.2 prime, while assuming the same distance to the subject, which was the point I was trying to make and probably failing to.
There are a few reasons I prefer an 85mm f1.2 over a 70-700 2.8. Firstly as I have already mentioned, it is easier to control the background, although it is far harder to work with a very thin DOF in the first place. Secondly, I really like the focal length for portraiture. It's working distance is still quite close for a head and shoulders shot, where as a 200mm tends to move me quite a distance from the subject and becomes less personable. Also the 85mm focal length has less telephoto compression which I find more flattering to a person's face.

85mm f/1.2 at 10 feet, DoF is ~3.5". Take a step forward to match framing at 70mm f/2.8, DoF is ~8.5". I certainly agree that the wider aperture offers more control over background, but in many cases the DoF is too shallow unless you have just one subject directly facing the camera (or more than one aligned on the same plane, as in your example).

I use my 24-70mm a lot and on bright sunny days it's just too bright to use fast primes wide open. Sometimes the zoom is way more convenient and my first go to lens. Which brings me back to my original point: primes offer more brightness and a little more control over DOF while zooms offer more versatility and working speed. It really depends on your shooting needs and preference. When I shoot a wedding, I'm not constrained to only primes or only zooms. I tend to mix for a blend of creativity and versatility. My typical starting point is a 16-35IIL, a 35L and 85IIL, each on it's own full frame camera. I can pretty much cover most of the day with those three lenses. But I might swap out a 100LIS macro, 70-200 f2.8, 135L or 24-70L as needed for any given situation.

On bright sunny days when I'm taking pics of just one person, I use a 3-stop ND on the 85L. I agree with your original point, and that's why I have both fast primes and relatively fast zooms. Also, shooting with three different lenses on three different bodies is a different sort of flexibiility, and one that can obviate the need for a zoom (but also one that most casual shooters don't have).

In the context of the OP's post (landscapes and children), it seems quite clear the 24-70/2.8L II would be a better choice than a bag full of primes.