Canon 24-70 II Or Primes Particularly 50MM 1.2L

[grassbl8d]

hi,

i'm thinking of getting 24-70 l ii but i'm reeading pretty much mixed reviews on it.

Right now, I have 24, 35 and 85. I may sell the 24 just to get the 24-70 ii. Or I might just use the money to buy the 50....

any advise? Should I sell the 24 and get the 24-70 ii or should I just complete the set with 50 1.2. As of the moment, I don't have any standard zoom lens, I could live without one but if the 24-70 ii is that nice, then I'd rather get that...

would appreciate your advise.

also, is it easy to correct distortion of 24-70 ii?

Thanks!

 

[lrfigueroa]

The 50 1.2 is a very useful lens specially in low light, but the 24-70 or the 24-105 would be also nice to have. It looks you might need a zoom unless you do no mind changing lenses. On the other side, prime lenses are a little bit more sharp.

 

[Alangeli]

I also have read the reviews. Yesterday I got the Canon 24-70mm II and the Tamron 24-70mm VC at once to be tested against my Sigma 24-70mm HSM:

The Sigma is the worst, particularly at 70mm. The Tamron also is unuseable below F8 at 70mm, IMHO. I would estimate only two F-stops efficiency for the stabilizer of the Tamron at 70mm. May be more with shorter FL, but I haven't tested this. The TDP test results of the Tamron at 70mm is exactly what I discovered with my sample.

Unfortunately, the long focal end of the Canon is comparably short, I guess 62mm.

In summary, I am overwhelmed by the IQ of the Canon, based on the reviews I have not expected this. The difference between the Tamron and Canon is much more than the PZ test implies.

 

[Crapking]

Here is a real-life, side by side comparison of 50 1.2 vs 24-70 II (@ 55 mm, close enough I hope)



_DXR1373 by PVC 2012, on Flickr

Camera Canon EOS-1D X
Exposure 0.001 sec (1/1250)
Aperture f/2.0
Focal Length 50 mm (50/1.2L)
ISO Speed 2500


And here is similar shot @ 55 MM with the 24-70 II, settings not exactly the same but real-life example

Camera Canon EOS-1D X
Exposure 0.001 sec (1/2000)
Aperture f/2.8
Focal Length 55 mm
ISO Speed 6400


_DXR1443 by PVC 2012, on Flickr

 

[IIIHobbs]

I have the 24L and 50L, no zoom can touch them IMO, plus the bokeh of each is wonderful.

 

[And-Rew]

Here is a real-life, side by side comparison of 50 1.2 vs 24-70 II (@ 55 mm, close enough I hope)



_DXR1373 by PVC 2012, on Flickr

Camera Canon EOS-1D X
Exposure 0.001 sec (1/1250)
Aperture f/2.0
Focal Length 50 mm (50/1.2L)
ISO Speed 2500


And here is similar shot @ 55 MM with the 24-70 II, settings not exactly the same but real-life example

Camera Canon EOS-1D X
Exposure 0.001 sec (1/2000)
Aperture f/2.8
Focal Length 55 mm
ISO Speed 6400


_DXR1443 by PVC 2012, on Flickr

Definitely prefer the shot from the 50mm f1.2 - apart from having better lighting, it also seems to be a 'cleaner' image.

 

[grassbl8d]

oh wow

50 l looks better... still hard to decide though given the different reviews

thanks for the replies

 

[Loswr]

On the fence about this one myself. I do have the 24-105mm as a standard zoom, as well as 35L and 85L II primes. I'm leaning towards the camp that indoors f/2.8 is often not enough, so I'm inclined toward the 50L. We'll see...

 

[RLPhoto]

I'm in the same boat. I recently purchased the 24-105L and going to pair with with my 50L. It will be my GP kit.

 

[Dylan777]

I sold my 50 f1.4 after my 24-70 II arrived. This lens now my favorite for indoor.

This lens is sharp, however, it does have little vignetting @ 24mm. I have tried two different copies from Crutchfield. Both lenses seem to have same sharpness and same vignetting. Here is my latest picture with 24-70 II. Distortion can be fixed in LR with 1 click.

I'll add 50L to my kit for creamy background shots. I'M KEEPING MY 24-70 II.

 

[Dylan777]

I have the 24L and 50L, no zoom can touch them IMO, plus the bokeh of each is wonderful.

You might have different POV if you try new 24-70

 

[Dylan777]

On the fence about this one myself. I do have the 24-105mm as a standard zoom, as well as 35L and 85L II primes. I'm leaning towards the camp that indoors f/2.8 is often not enough, so I'm inclined toward the 50L. We'll see...

Neuro...I think this lens is well worth for you to give it a try. I have a feeling you going to sell your 24-105

I don't even do AFMA on new 24-70 II. Here is another shot at Parking lot Trunk & Treat, Pre-school.

 

[robbymack]

How much are you planning on shooting between f1.2-2? If a lot then the answer is easy. If not much get the zoom.

 

[Axilrod]

I have the 24L and 50L, no zoom can touch them IMO, plus the bokeh of each is wonderful.

Have you used the 24-70 II? I compared it with the 24LII at 24mm and the 24-70II is definitely sharper (although the distortion is controlled much better on the 24L). The 24-70II is also sharper than the 50L. Of course sharpness isn't everything, the bokeh is much better on the primes, but the 24-70II is one sharp zoom.

 

[Loswr]

Neuro...I think this lens is well worth for you to give it a try. I have a feeling you going to sell your 24-105

I'm sure I'd like the 24-70 II, in fact, I had planned to get it next. But I've been doing a bit of shooting indoors in the evenings with the 35L and 85L II, and I'm usually around f/2 and high ISO (6400 and up), and for many of the shots the 35L is too wide and the 85L too long. The 24-70 II would be convenient, I'm just not sure it's fast enough. If I need to use the 600EX-RT, f/4 would work, too.

Eventually, I'll likely have both the 50L and the 24-70 II, it's just a matter of sequence. The 50L may be more useful in fall/winter indoors.

The other 'problem' with the 24-70mm range is that I use 105mm a lot:

 

[artsmalley]

Neuro...I think this lens is well worth for you to give it a try. I have a feeling you going to sell your 24-105

I'm sure I'd like the 24-70 II, in fact, I had planned to get it next. But I've been doing a bit of shooting indoors in the evenings with the 35L and 85L II, and I'm usually around f/2 and high ISO (6400 and up), and for many of the shots the 35L is too wide and the 85L too long. The 24-70 II would be convenient, I'm just not sure it's fast enough. If I need to use the 600EX-RT, f/4 would work, too.

Eventually, I'll likely have both the 50L and the 24-70 II, it's just a matter of sequence. The 50L may be more useful in fall/winter indoors.

The other 'problem' with the 24-70mm range is that I use 105mm a lot:

Love the histogram of usage lengths. I would like to make one of these for my shots. How did you obtain the data? Is there an easy way to obtain it so I don't have to do it manually? Thanks for any advice.

 

[ScottFielding]

I couldn't be without my 50L and will be looking to acquire the 24mm 1.4 next as opposed to going for the 24-70 II.

 

[Loswr]

Love the histogram of usage lengths. I would like to make one of these for my shots. How did you obtain the data? Is there an easy way to obtain it so I don't have to do it manually? Thanks for any advice.

I use a Mac freeware app called PhotoStats, but I downloaded it a long time ago, not sure it's still available. There's an Aperture add-on called Aperture Inspector, and I'm sure there are Windows apps, too.

 

[RLPhoto]

I just finished this review of the 50L. You may want to read its pros & cons.

http://ramonlperez.tumblr.com/post/34906285033/fast-prime-shoot-out-pt-2-50mm-1-2l-review

 

[bdunbar79]

The 50 1.2 is a very useful lens specially in low light, but the 24-70 or the 24-105 would be also nice to have. It looks you might need a zoom unless you do no mind changing lenses. On the other side, prime lenses are a little bit more sharp.

No, they're not.