24L II or 24-70 II ??

[HughHowey]

I'm torn. I love my primes. I love low light and bokeh, but I also like having that one walk-around lens that does a little of everything. With a new 5DIII on the way, I'm losing the 15-85 EF-S lens. I have a 28mm 1.8, which will show its weaknesses on the 5DIII, I'm afraid. I have a 50mm, a 135L, and a 200L. No zoom lens.

I feel like pulling the trigger on the 24L II, but I worry I'll be swapping lenses all the time or never having what I need with me. Will I be okay with a "boring" 2.8 lens? Should I be thinking about the 24-70 II and 70-200 II combo?

I need help. I know there's no "right" solution and that it's all based on tastes, but I'm swayable. So sway me!

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I'm torn. I love my primes. I love low light and bokeh, but I also like having that one walk-around lens that does a little of everything. With a new 5DIII on the way, I'm losing the 15-85 EF-S lens. I have a 28mm 1.8, which will show its weaknesses on the 5DIII, I'm afraid. I have a 50mm, a 135L, and a 200L. No zoom lens.

I feel like pulling the trigger on the 24L II, but I worry I'll be swapping lenses all the time or never having what I need with me. Will I be okay with a "boring" 2.8 lens? Should I be thinking about the 24-70 II and 70-200 II combo?

I need help. I know there's no "right" solution and that it's all based on tastes, but I'm swayable. So sway me!

I had been doing the 24 1.4 II + 70-200 f/4 IS (and now 70-300L) plus some other primes dance. But the samples I saw from the 24-70 II look really good at 24mm so I think I may sell my 24 1.4 II and get the general purpose convenience of the zoom. The 24-70 I, Tamron 28-75 and especially 24-105 were not good enough at the wide end for me to go that route, my 24 1.4 II was so much better even at f/8-f/11 for landscape stuff and it did have the speed for occasional low DOF shot, but I took such a low percentage of shots near f/1.4 I think I might gain more by having the zoom now that there may be one that delivers the quality.

If i ever got a fast widerish lens again maybe I'd add the 35mm which seems a bit more generally useful at f/1.4, although I have seen some 24 1.4 at 1.4 stunners to be sure and taken a few cool ones myself.

The 24-70 II + 70-200 II (or 70-200 f/4 IS or 70-300L) combo sounds kinda nice and add in a 35 1.4 and that really sounds nice. ;D

 

[HughHowey]

Awesome reply. Much appreciated!

 

[Tammy]

With the 24-70 II on its way any time now I am in a similar thought boat. I have the 24L II on my 5D3 and it is such a great lens. It stays on my camera a vast majority of the time. I just got back from a trip to Europe and it stayed on 95% of the time.

From the resolution charts and initial figures it seems like the 24-70 II at 24 mm will be even sharper edge to edge than even the 24L II at F/2.8, where the 24L II's center resolution scores are some of the highest of any lens at any focal length.

A vast majority of the time I don't shoot the 24L II wider than F/2.8 but it's just those instances when that extra stop or two sure could help.

 

[Random Orbits]

When I moved from a crop to a FF, I sold the 17-55 and replaced it with primes to supplement the 35L that I already had rather than getting a midrange zoom. I ended up picking up a used 50mm prime at a good price, but I tend to use the 35L more as a general walk-about lens because I like its wider AOV. I also ended up getting a used 16-35 to replace the 10-22. When I travel, I bring the 16-35, the 50 and the 70-200. I chose the 50 over the 35 because it fits between the two zooms better and it still gives me a low light option. I got the 16-35 because it was much less expensive than trying to cover the UWA range with comparable primes (14 and 24).

In the end, the choice is a trade between focal length flexibility versus depth of field/low light flexibility. You really can't go wrong either way; it's a matter of personal preference.

 

[birtembuk]

I am haunted with the same doubt actually - and it won't help you here . Had it be released as planned, I'd surely have a 24-70II in my bag. But as time goes, mind grinds (still no sign of it at my shop). Sure, that 24-70II is a killer but I still favor fast prime much more than zooms. To tell you how far I'd go, I'm now torn between this 24-70II and a 24L knowing I'll have to swap frequently. In this price range, I'm even contemplating a 24 f/2.8 IS with a 6D. I'm not too often at 24 and I would most of the time keep my 35L and 85L on my two FF then. Crazy?

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Awesome reply. Much appreciated!

the 24-70 II does have more distortion at 24mm than the primes though, quite clearly