24-70mm II or primes?

[Sporgon]

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

Looks like there has been a serious break-down in relationships in the second picture !

 

[Viggo]

No matter what I shoot with a close subject the dof is less with the faster lens, and it looks better, simple as that. It might not be a lot in inches, but no doubt the subject stands out more with less dof. 8)

 

[Loswr]

No matter what I shoot with a close subject the dof is less with the faster lens, and it looks better, simple as that. It might not be a lot in inches, but no doubt the subject stands out more with less dof.

I suppose it depends on how you define 'looks better'. When shooting outdoor portraits of my two daughters, using f/1.2 means the background is more blurred, sure...but also generally means one of the two girls' faces is not in sharp focus. To me, an out-of-focus face does not look better, so I'll trade some background blur by shooting at f/2.8 or f/4 so my their faces can both be in sharp focus.

 

[Viggo]

No matter what I shoot with a close subject the dof is less with the faster lens, and it looks better, simple as that. It might not be a lot in inches, but no doubt the subject stands out more with less dof.

I suppose it depends on how you define 'looks better'. When shooting outdoor portraits of my two daughters, using f/1.2 means the background is more blurred, sure...but also generally means one of the two girls' faces is not in sharp focus. To me, an out-of-focus face does not look better, so I'll trade some background blur by shooting at f/2.8 or f/4 so my their faces can both be in sharp focus.

Absolutely, we all have a different point of view, no issue there 8) to include both kids in one shot never happens, lol. And with the 85 wide open I still have a bit of distance so that their whole head is in focus.

 

[Refurb7]

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.

I agree about the 24-70/2.8II. Really, really sharp. It is about as perfect as a lens should be at this price level. I love the bokeh too. And I love that Canon made it smaller and lighter than its predecessor, and mechanically more reliable. Just a win in all respects.

I still use primes in this focal length range too, but not for improved image quality as the 24-70 is already excellent for image quality. Instead, I'll choose primes if I want a smaller lens, a wider aperture, or simply the creative discipline of using primes.