EF 24-70mm F2.8 L ver 2 or 3 Prime Lens

[cfcis99]

Hi,
I was thinking of buying the 24-70mm ver 2 and it around 90K CMPI. With that amount of money, I can already buy 3 prime lens (non-L).
I want to know how others think, will you go for the ver 2 or 3 prime lens w/c are sharper and faster?

Prime Lens:
EF 35mm F2 IS USM
EF 50mm F1.4 USM
EF 100mm F2 USM

vs.
EF 24-70mm F2.8 USM ver 2

thanks

 

[Loswr]

The 24-70 II is sharper. The primes have wider apertures, and one has IS. You've got to decide what's more important to you.

 

[RMC33]

Pretty much what Neuro said. I honestly love my 24-70 MKII but still use my 50 1.4 quite a bit.

 

[Menace]

Personally, I'd get the 24-70 2.8 II over the primes - a constant aperture and L built quality etc .

You'll gain at the wide end and lose at the long end compared to the primes so only you can decide if that will affect your shooting style.

Cheers

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I have been using primes, but I just bought a 24-70L MK II. After I have used it a while, I'll decide on my 35mmL, but I've sold four 50mm's and my 85mm f/1.8 in favor of zooms.

I still have several prime lenses, 15, 17, 35, 100, and 135 I'm not really expecting to sell them. I've kept my 24-105 as well.

 

[Dylan777]

If you shooting with FF, it is almost a no brainer to take 24-70 II over 3 non-L primes

 

[Random Orbits]

Get the 24-70 II first, and if you need something faster later at a particular focal length, then supplement the zoom with a prime. Plus it's always easier to get the less expensive items piecemeal later. :

 

[Click]

Get the 24-70 II first...

+1

 

[tron]

If you shooting with FF, it is almost a no brainer to take 24-70 II over 3 non-L primes

+1

 

[pwp]

I feel like I'm repeating myself a bit with this reply, but the new 24-70 f/2.8II is so good I've sold my EF 24 f/1.4II and my Sigma 50 f/1.4 and if I had a 35mm prime that would have been sold too. The new zoom is so good my primes were gathering dust. Get the zoom.

-PW

 

[Dylan777]

I feel like I'm repeating myself a bit with this reply, but the new 24-70 f/2.8II is so good I've sold my EF 24 f/1.4II and my Sigma 50 f/1.4 and if I had a 35mm prime that would have been sold too. The new zoom is so good my primes were gathering dust. Get the zoom.

-PW

I do use my 50L here and there, but not often as 24-70 II & 70-200 f2.8 IS II.

 

[Chosenbydestiny]

Depends on what you already own, and what you want to shoot. I'd be as practical as possible when starting out your set of lenses. A 24-70 II is a very practical focal length for most common use and has prime-like quality and performance. However, for about the same price you could also get a 24-105mm and that same set of primes. I'd personally still get the 24-70 II to avoid lens changes and the great sharpness from 2.8 on down. I can't sell my primes just yet because I shoot a lot of indoor events with moving subjects, but I'm going to add the 24-70 II very soon.

 

[TM]

If you shooting with FF, it is almost a no brainer to take 24-70 II over 3 non-L primes

Agree with Dylan777. 3 non L primes will not equal the 24-70 II in any way. Get the zoom first, then some L primes as needed. Happy shooting.

 

[scottkinfw]

One lens vs. three. Something to consider for weight, and also in the field when you may need to change in dusty conditions. Also, during lens changes, may miss a shot.

sek

Hi,
I was thinking of buying the 24-70mm ver 2 and it around 90K CMPI. With that amount of money, I can already buy 3 prime lens (non-L).
I want to know how others think, will you go for the ver 2 or 3 prime lens w/c are sharper and faster?

Prime Lens:
EF 35mm F2 IS USM
EF 50mm F1.4 USM
EF 100mm F2 USM

vs.
EF 24-70mm F2.8 USM ver 2

thanks

 

[samueljay]

Get the 24-70mm Mk II, I haven't used any of my primes since I got it, it's sharper than all of them, and a hell of a lot more versatile! And my primes are L lenses too.

 

[AudioGlenn]

Get the 24-70 II first

+1

 

[bholliman]

I'd go with the 24-70 2.8 II. But, adding at least one fast prime in this range for low light photography would be a good idea. A 35mm or 50mm would be my preference.

 

[jcollett]

If I may, I'd like to buck the trend here a bit. We do not really know what the OP wants out of the equipment. If one were to want discrete shooting in the street and interiors, then a 24-70 would be a rather poor selection. For convenience and overall sharpness, then the zoom will come out on top but if the OP wants to frame something that the 100mm does well, then the 24-70 will have to be shot wide and then cropped in post. If shooting film, this may be more hassle than it is worth.
There are just so many possible photographic situations with ideal equipment selections for each that it is truly impossible to suggest an ideal without knowing the use scenario.
That said, why not get the 50, 100, and the zoom? 50 is inexpensive and a low light monster, the 100 covers a focal length the zoom does not cover, and the zoom can be used when the focal range is right and IQ is paramount.

 

[RLPhoto]

Speed or Zoom? That's the choice.

 

[sdsr]

It all rather depends on what body you own (FF or crop), what other lenses you own, what focal lengths matter to you, how much speed you need, how much sharpness matters (including whether the extent to which the difference in sharpness would be noticeable in the sort of photos you takes), how much being able to achieve shallow focus matters, whether weight matters, etc.

For instance, the three primes you mention together weigh a bit more than the zoom, but you might rather travel light and carry just one or two of them all day long and achieve similar results by getting closer or farther away. The range covered by the three primes you mention is significantly different from the zoom - does wider than 35mm not matter much, if at all, to you? Do you regularly want to go beyond 70mm? It might make sense to consider something else entirely - e.g. 24-105L plus a couple of primes. Or 24-105 + 70-300L. (Or, dare I say it, the Tamron 24-70 VC + a prime or two.) Or....