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

[scotthillphoto]

I have used the 24-70 and own the 50L personally I shoot a TON of low light and really don't like killing the people with flash so I constantly shoot around 1.8-2.2 and get AWESOME results with my 5D3. Now the 24-70 is a better all around lens but if you are willing to do a little more work in your framing of an image the 50L is the way to go.

 

[IIIHobbs]

I sold all my zooms after changing to FF and adding the 50L to my kit.

You didn't say what body you are using but if the lenses you listed are all L glass, the 24-70II will probably not impress you as much as you think it might, other than convenience.

 

[grassbl8d]

im using a 1dx

i already have 24,35,85l and 70-200.

im thinkng of selling the 24 and get a 24-70 or get a 50l.
im quite torn on what to get, i thnk ill miss the 24, its giving out really good images,

 

[Gino]

im using a 1dx

i already have 24,35,85l and 70-200.

im thinkng of selling the 24 and get a 24-70 or get a 50l.
im quite torn on what to get, i thnk ill miss the 24, its giving out really good images,

Why do you want to sell the 24LII, and replace it with the 50L/1.2.....is it because the 24L limits the type of photography you're doing, and the 50L will give you more flexibility with the type of photos you can take: landscape, portrait, street, sports?

The reason I ask is because I'm considering purchasing the 24LII, but I feel the use will be limited to just landscape photography, where as the 50L would cover a variety of photography uses, therefore I will use the the 50L a lot more than I would the 24LII.

thanks

 

[Quasimodo]

I really don't understand the question I want both, not to mention your camera...

I tried the 24-70 II on a 1DX and it was an awsome combo. the 50L is however a brilliant lens which gives you creative opportunities that the 24-70 will not give you. Hence I will get both, I just need some persuasive work towards my better half

 

[grassbl8d]

i have to sell 24 if ill get 24-70 ii so i can have the money....
lol, the only thing that is stopping me from getting 1.2 is that according to many people, its not good on higher apertures.... im also looking at the sigma. on front page of CR there might be a new 50 coming soon, so i guess ill wait out a little.

 

[IIIHobbs]

I understand the need to raise funds for the zoom, but at the loss of the 24LII?!? That I think is a mistake. Being that the cost of the new 24-70 is steep, you may want to try it before you buy it.

 

[Dylan777]

I understand the need to raise funds for the zoom, but at the loss of the 24LII?!? That I think is a mistake. Being that the cost of the new 24-70 is steep, you may want to try it before you buy it.

How do you know? have you ever try 24-70 II? I tried 24mm and currently own 24-70 II....IT'S NOT A MISTAKE.

 

[bdunbar79]

I understand the need to raise funds for the zoom, but at the loss of the 24LII?!? That I think is a mistake. Being that the cost of the new 24-70 is steep, you may want to try it before you buy it.

How do you know? have you ever try 24-70 II? I tried 24mm and currently own 24-70 II....IT'S NOT A MISTAKE.

A big misconception is that primes are sharper than zooms. While that may have once been the case, it's not anymore for all primes. The new 24-70L II lens performs just as well as the 24L, 35L, and 50L from f/2.8 and narrower. The advantage of the 3 primes I listed are of course IQ and also wider aperture. But if you never shoot wider than f/2.8, the 24-70L II can replace those lenses. I kept my 24L because I use it at f/2, as do I with my 50 f/1.4. I sold the 35.

 

[Bosman]

Until this year when i got the 24L The 24-70 was a workhorse! I bought the 24LII because when going thru my images 24 and 70 were my most used focal lengths on the 24-70L F2.8 and the 1DM3 with a 24-70 was bangin out an average of 1300 images per wedding. Now If i was only FF i'd be using the 35mm most as the focal length on a 1dm3 is around 31mm. On occasion putting the 24 on the 5dm3 is necessary but not often. I also went with 24 rather than 35 because in the long run having wider is better than pressing against walls as far as you can to make things fit at 35mm focal lengths. When you need it its there. The 24L is so dreamy, I really like it. It is now taking 1/3 of all my wedding images.
For you selling it and spending $1000- $1300 just to get a good zoom seems like it doesn't add up. Plus, you will not be able to go below F2.8 with the 24-70. When its dark it can be a light saver, and a life saver lol.

 

[bycostello]

how much u wanna carry around.... studios, primes... street 24-70

 

[Michiel]

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...

Hi, if you already have the 35mm and the 85mm i don't see any reason for buying the 24-70 other than to be able to walk out the door with just one lens. From a weight-perspective it does't make sense to add another 800 grams to your bag.

I have the same dilemma but now that i read this forum, i tend towards buying the 5DIII again instead of the 24-70 II. Which is not a huge step, moneywise.

Any ideas anybody ?

I already have the 16-35 L II, 50mm 1.2 and 70-200mm L II IS.

 

[nda]

Well I have both, IMHO the 24-70II is the best standard zoom I've ever used and could easily replace the 24 & 35 primes>however I also have the 50L, I think you need a fast prime for bokeh and light gathering ability> I was thinking about one of the other fast primes (24 or 35) but just fell in love with the 50L so kept that and got the 24-70II very happy with both LR will correct distortion!

 

[syder]

I understand the need to raise funds for the zoom, but at the loss of the 24LII?!? That I think is a mistake. Being that the cost of the new 24-70 is steep, you may want to try it before you buy it.

How do you know? have you ever try 24-70 II? I tried 24mm and currently own 24-70 II....IT'S NOT A MISTAKE.

I use both the 24mm and 24-70 ii. They're different tools for different purposes. The 24mm lets in up to 4x as much light, and allows you to create wide shots with a shallow depth of field that simply cannot be achieved with the 24-70. If you don't use it for low light or shallow dof, say for example if you're mainly shooting landscapes at f8 then there's little reason to keep the 24mm.

However, the 24mm is a great lens which does things you cannot do with a f2.8 zoom. Whether its worth keeping alongside a zoom lens which covers 24mm depends on your style of photography/cinematography.