Difference B/W these two Lense ?

[faz]

Please can anyone know what is the difference b/w these 2 Lense ?
Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM VS Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM ?? Use of this one seems to be more of a portrait pictures
What is the use of this one Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM ?

Thanks
Faz

 

[takesome1]

The 24-70mm is a zoom lens that can shoot any subject you like from 24mm to 70mm. It has a reputation of having copy variance and some say you are lucky if you hit on a good copy. I never found one. It is not as sharp as some of the newer lenses in this range, especially wide open and this detracts from the usefulness of a f/2.8 lens.

The 50mm F/1.2 lens is a prime lens, its focal length is fixed. On a FF camera 50mm is close to the field of view as the human eye. It has the reputation of being soft, or not as sharp as some of its competitors. Portraits would be one use, but then portraits would be a use of both lenses. It is not a lens I have ever had a desire to own. Of course it can go to F/1.2 which can give you a narrower DOF and possibly better bokeh.

I wouldn't consider either lens in that range. Overall their use for me would be paper weights or dust collectors.

 

[faz]

Hi how would I know 24 - 70 which I got is a good one ? Any way I can test it and find out ?

thanks
F

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The 50mm f/1.2 lens is a very special lens, and best used by expert photographers who know how to work around its limitations. It is not a extremely sharp lens, but it lets in a lot of light and gives a creamy effect to portraits.

The 24-70mm lens is more of a general purpose lens. It is sometimes referred to as the wedding photographers lens, but it has become a very popular all around lens for professional photographers and amateurs with high end gear.

I would not recommend either one for someone just starting, merely because they are expensive and beginner has not yet developed a style and may not yet know just what he needs in the way of lenses. There are lenses for landscapes, portraits, sports, birds, low light, outdoors, each has attributes that assist the photographer to get a certain type of photo.

 

[takesome1]

Hi how would I know 24 - 70 which I got is a good one ? Any way I can test it and find out ?

thanks
F

Several good tutorials out.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2010/11/how-to-test-a-lens

Since I never had luck with the 24-70mm f/2.8 L the best I can suggest is stay away from it if you lack the skills to test it.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Hi how would I know 24 - 70 which I got is a good one ? Any way I can test it and find out ?

thanks
F

Are you referring to the new Mark II Version? They are all pretty good. The original versions had a lot of issues, its best to stay away. Get the newer 24-70mm f/4 IS if budget is a issue.

 

[Valvebounce]

Hi faz.
You don't say which camera you intend to use the lenses on, but don't forget that each lens will have a different look on a crop body from a full frame, the 50mm for example will look more like 80mm on a crop body. Also some people say that 24-70mm is not a good focal length for a crop body, I can't comment as I've not tried it.

Cheers, Graham.

 

[FTb-n]

One was replaced with a Mark II version that is one of the sharpest zoom lenses known to man. The other is long overdue for the same upgrade.

On a FF body, the 50 1.2L can be a great "standard" low light lens. I'm waiting for a sharper version.

 

[faz]

Hi faz.
You don't say which camera you intend to use the lenses on, but don't forget that each lens will have a different look on a crop body from a full frame, the 50mm for example will look more like 80mm on a crop body. Also some people say that 24-70mm is not a good focal length for a crop body, I can't comment as I've not tried it.

Cheers, Graham.

I have Canon 7D Mark II

 

[faz]

Hi how would I know 24 - 70 which I got is a good one ? Any way I can test it and find out ?

thanks
F

Several good tutorials out.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2010/11/how-to-test-a-lens

Since I never had luck with the 24-70mm f/2.8 L the best I can suggest is stay away from it if you lack the skills to test it.

This is a Tough very tough to test it

 

[YuengLinger]

The ef 24-70mm f/2.8 II is a great starter lens for a serious enthusiast, especially if people is your game. If you are looking at more formal portraits, or if you want to have more reach on your 7D II, you can later add an ef 70-200mm 2.8 IS II. If you want wider, check out wide-angle lens--there are several interesting options at this time.

The reason the 24-70mm f/2.8 II is so good to start with is because it covers the middle focal lengths very nicely and is good in relatively low light. Plus the image quality is unbeatable in a zoom. Once you shoot for a while, you will know if you next want to go longer or wider.

Eventually, if you stay serious, you will want to go full-frame, and this lens will be exciting all over again. It's a great investment in your photography.

As for the 50mm 1.2, it is too specialized, and, from all I've read and seen, very tricky to focus properly, which is why so many photographers are hoping Canon will come out with an improved version soon, as rumored.

 

[sanj]

The 24-70mm is a zoom lens that can shoot any subject you like from 24mm to 70mm. It has a reputation of having copy variance and some say you are lucky if you hit on a good copy. I never found one. It is not as sharp as some of the newer lenses in this range, especially wide open and this detracts from the usefulness of a f/2.8 lens.

The 50mm F/1.2 lens is a prime lens, its focal length is fixed. On a FF camera 50mm is close to the field of view as the human eye. It has the reputation of being soft, or not as sharp as some of its competitors. Portraits would be one use, but then portraits would be a use of both lenses. It is not a lens I have ever had a desire to own. Of course it can go to F/1.2 which can give you a narrower DOF and possibly better bokeh.

I wouldn't consider either lens in that range. Overall their use for me would be paper weights or dust collectors.

What? The reality is that BOTH lenses are capable and indeed have, created lots of greats images. Just Google and you would know.

 

[FTb-n]

FAZ, I'll answer a question that you didn't ask and suggest that you consider the 17-55 f2.8 IS for the 7D2. This lens is very sharp, focuses quickly (great for court side volleyball), and includes IS. Plus, the prices are dropping.

The optics are 'L' quality, but the weather sealing and build isn't. Unless you are particularly harsh on your gear or shoot in the rain, I wouldn't worry about build quality differences.

I have no clue what you shoot or whether a FF body is in the near future. If you're looking for a good zoom for wide to moderate telephoto focal lengths on a crop body, the 17-55 is tough to beat. My interest is primarily kids sports, events, candids, and portraits. For these subjects, I much prefer the 70-200 f2.8L IS II. Now that I've upgraded to FF bodies, this lens is still my favorite and most used. But, I kept the 17-55 for my old 7D. My "second" lens for FF is the 24-70 f2.8L II (and it is a fantastic lens). If your subject matter is similar, consider a long term plan that includes the 70-200. Of course, I've strayed into the land of many presumptions and none of this may apply to your needs.

EDIT:
By the way. Right now, FF or crop, I prefer the 40 f2.8 to any of Canon's current 50's. If I shot poorly lit wedding receptions, then the softness of 50 1.2 is more forgivable. But, the current 50's need to be stopped down close to f2.8 to sharpen up. The 40 is corner-to-corner sharp wide open. Of course, this all depends upon your need, but I'm eagerly waiting for an updated 50 1.4 or 1.2 before spending the dollars on a prime in this focal length.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

FAZ, I'll answer a question that you didn't ask and suggest that you consider the 17-55 f2.8 IS for the 7D2. This lens is very sharp, focuses quickly (great for court side volleyball), and includes IS. Plus, the prices are dropping.

The optics are 'L' quality, but the weather sealing and build isn't. Unless you are particularly harsh on your gear or shoot in the rain, I wouldn't worry about build quality differences.

I have no clue what you shoot or whether a FF body is in the near future. If you're looking for a good zoom for wide to moderate telephoto focal lengths on a crop body, the 17-55 is tough to beat. My interest is primarily kids sports, events, candids, and portraits. For these subjects, I much prefer the 70-200 f2.8L IS II. Now that I've upgraded to FF bodies, this lens is still my favorite and most used. But, I kept the 17-55 for my old 7D. My "second" lens for FF is the 24-70 f2.8L II (and it is a fantastic lens). If your subject matter is similar, consider a long term plan that includes the 70-200. Of course, I've strayed into the land of many presumptions and none of this may apply to your needs.

EDIT:
By the way. Right now, FF or crop, I prefer the 40 f2.8 to any of Canon's current 50's. If I shot poorly lit wedding receptions, then the softness of 50 1.2 is more forgivable. But, the current 50's need to be stopped down close to f2.8 to sharpen up. The 40 is corner-to-corner sharp wide open. Of course, this all depends upon your need, but I'm eagerly waiting for an updated 50 1.4 or 1.2 before spending the dollars on a prime in this focal length.

Good response FTb-n! I fully agree with your recommendations.
Faz,
I had both the 50L and 24-70L Mark I. I bought the 50L and sold it almost 1 month later because of lack of sharpness and focus shift issues. As beginner, stay away of it.
I regards to the 24-70/2.8L I, I was fortunate to own a very good copy but some others complained about this lens, even though is a very good focal range for almost every situation. I replaced it by the 24-70/2.8 Mark II and now it stays in my camera more time than any of my other lenses.

 

[Ruined]

EDIT:
By the way. Right now, FF or crop, I prefer the 40 f2.8 to any of Canon's current 50's. If I shot poorly lit wedding receptions, then the softness of 50 1.2 is more forgivable. But, the current 50's need to be stopped down close to f2.8 to sharpen up. The 40 is corner-to-corner sharp wide open. Of course, this all depends upon your need, but I'm eagerly waiting for an updated 50 1.4 or 1.2 before spending the dollars on a prime in this focal length.

The 50mm f/1.2L is a specialty portrait lens. It is not supposed to be tack sharp, as that would be unflattering in most portraits and getting to tack sharp with no artifacts could negatively impact the bokeh... If you want tack sharp that's what the 24-70 II is for. I think you might be waiting forever if you think Canon is going to replace the 50mm f/1.2L with a lens that offers clinical sharpness.

50mm f/1.2L is my most used lens b/c I shoot people and it excels at that, as does the 85mm f/1.2L II. I wouldn't recommend either though if you are just looking for artifact free edge-to-edge sharpness - I'd recommend the 24-70 II for that. Which is ironically my least used lens other than my macro lens.

Re: lens for 7DII starting out, the 35mm f/2 IS USM is a great, not too expensive, easy to use, light and portable prime that offers an attractive focal length for useful for many scenarios on the 7DII.

 

[takesome1]

The 24-70mm is a zoom lens that can shoot any subject you like from 24mm to 70mm. It has a reputation of having copy variance and some say you are lucky if you hit on a good copy. I never found one. It is not as sharp as some of the newer lenses in this range, especially wide open and this detracts from the usefulness of a f/2.8 lens.

The 50mm F/1.2 lens is a prime lens, its focal length is fixed. On a FF camera 50mm is close to the field of view as the human eye. It has the reputation of being soft, or not as sharp as some of its competitors. Portraits would be one use, but then portraits would be a use of both lenses. It is not a lens I have ever had a desire to own. Of course it can go to F/1.2 which can give you a narrower DOF and possibly better bokeh.

I wouldn't consider either lens in that range. Overall their use for me would be paper weights or dust collectors.

What? The reality is that BOTH lenses are capable and indeed have, created lots of greats images. Just Google and you would know.

I have googled both many times, and I have seen reports that there are copies of the 24-70mm that are very good. But I have also googled Big Foot and see reports of him being sighted, but despite many hours in the woods I have never seen a Big Foot in person either.

No doubt the 50mm L is a wonderful lens in capable hands. I have researched it many times and it has it's special abilities. They are abilities I would most likely never use or want.

 

[Hector1970]

Not sure whether you are a beginner by the question.
If you are you are starting with two expensive lens.
You may not be able to get the best out of a 50mm 1.2L for a while.
You could always buy a 50mm 1.8. Not much of an outlay but really pretty good for portraits.

 

[FTb-n]

The 50mm f/1.2L is a specialty portrait lens. It is not supposed to be tack sharp, as that would be unflattering in most portraits and getting to tack sharp with no artifacts could negatively impact the bokeh... If you want tack sharp that's what the 24-70 II is for. I think you might be waiting forever if you think Canon is going to replace the 50mm f/1.2L with a lens that offers clinical sharpness.

50mm f/1.2L is my most used lens b/c I shoot people and it excels at that, as does the 85mm f/1.2L II. I wouldn't recommend either though if you are just looking for artifact free edge-to-edge sharpness - I'd recommend the 24-70 II for that. Which is ironically my least used lens other than my macro lens.

Re: lens for 7DII starting out, the 35mm f/2 IS USM is a great, not too expensive, easy to use, light and portable prime that offers an attractive focal length for useful for many scenarios on the 7DII.

Decades ago, wedding photographers shied away from the Hasselblad 500 because it's lenses were too sharp. They flocked to the cheaper, Mamiya RB67 and it's more flattering, less sharp lenses. But, for $1,500, I do want a 50 mm 1.2 to be sharp. The 85 1.2L is another "specialty" lens targeted for portraits and it's far sharper than than the old 50 1.2. I'm still betting the the 50 1.2 Mark II will mirror the IQ of the 85 II -- and it's price tag.

I do agree that the new 35 2.0 IS is another fine choice for crop. It's very good on FF, but the the focal length is attractive on crop for people pics.

 

[FTb-n]

Things are getting way too complicated. Too many options.

The beauty of the ef 24-70mm f/2.8 II is its versatility. Great for events or landscapes. Great for impromptu portraits. Stops action well at f/2.8. Yes, it is a little tight on the wide end for FF, but buying the 17-55mm, fine as it is, limits it to cropped sensor bodies.

Invest now in great glass for the full frame you will crave. If you get tired of photography, you can get a very good price for most L glass used.

On a crop body, the 24-70 compares to 38-112 on FF. Essentially, this is a normal to short tele focal range. There's not much on the wide end at all. If this range satisfies the OP's need then it's good option.

I went from crop to FF and highly recommend FF to anyone with the means to make the leap. However, the 7D2 is a great body and suggests that the OP is invested in crop for a while. I think it makes the most sense to get the lens(es) that fits ones need (and budget) with the bodies that one plans to use today. Buying for a FF upgrade that may or may not happen will result in focal length sacrifices that may not fully exploit the OP's intentions with the 7D2. If the OP is left wanting for a wider view while using a 24-70 on a crop body, the fact that it will make the move to FF easier will be of little consequence. The OP should be enjoying his 7D2, not wishing he had a FF body because it will make the focal length range of his lens more useful.

 

[YuengLinger]

Things are getting way too complicated. Too many options.

The beauty of the ef 24-70mm f/2.8 II is its versatility. Great for events or landscapes. Great for impromptu portraits. Stops action well at f/2.8. Yes, it is a little tight on the wide end for FF, but buying the 17-55mm, fine as it is, limits it to cropped sensor bodies.

Invest now in great glass for the full frame you will crave. If you get tired of photography, you can get a very good price for most L glass used.

On a crop body, the 24-70 compares to 38-112 on FF. Essentially, this is a normal to short tele focal range. There's not much on the wide end at all. If this range satisfies the OP's need then it's good option.

I went from crop to FF and highly recommend FF to anyone with the means to make the leap. However, the 7D2 is a great body and suggests that the OP is invested in crop for a while. I think it makes the most sense to get the lens(es) that fits ones need (and budget) with the bodies that one plans to use today. Buying for a FF upgrade that may or may not happen will result in focal length sacrifices that may not fully exploit the OP's intentions with the 7D2. If the OP is left wanting for a wider view while using a 24-70 on a crop body, the fact that it will make the move to FF easier will be of little consequence. The OP should be enjoying his 7D2, not wishing he had a FF body because it will make the focal length range of his lens more useful.

Solid points here, FTb-n. I just look back and wish that I had known from the start that I'd get so serious and end up with FF. I wish I had spent in the beginning on the right tripod instead of spending much more by "working my way up" in quality.

Yes, it's easy looking back. We do know people who get excited, buy a lot of gear, then put it in the closet after a few months.