New 50mm Sigma ? There are other options !

[agierke]

the only thing zooms dont offer that fast primes do is the look you can get at F2.0 and wider. thats about it.

there is alot of nonsense in this thread...about outgrowing this/that or what pros know about whatever...

i carry both zooms and primes with me for work. currently i enjoy shooting with primes over zooms but that is ONLY because i seek out opportunities to shoot at wider than 2.8. that is simply a personal preference though. i wouldn't be caught dead on a job without my zooms but if i can, im grabbing my primes first.

its downright silly to make blanket statements about technique (especially in a creative medium) with only a modest "professional" career to back up those statements.

one of the things i have learned over my years is that you can make all the "rules" you want but a talented creative person will come around and smash those rules to bits. and make you and your "rules" look silly in the process.

 

[Viggo]

And if we really want to do the test chart, "35 IS is better than the zoom by far"- comparison, here it is:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=824&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=787&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=1&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

And the 35 is a full stop down while the 2470 is wide open.

 

[candyman]

And if we really want to do the test chart, 35 IS is better than the zoom by far comparison, here it is:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=824&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=787&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=1&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

And the 35 is a full stop down while the 2470 is wide open.

In the corner the 24-70 is better, no?

 

[Viggo]

And if we really want to do the test chart, 35 IS is better than the zoom by far comparison, here it is:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=824&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=787&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=1&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

And the 35 is a full stop down while the 2470 is wide open.

In the corner the 24-70 is better, no?

Yes

 

[Loswr]

And if we really want to do the test chart, 35 IS is better than the zoom by far comparison, here it is:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=824&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=787&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=1&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

And the 35 is a full stop down while the 2470 is wide open.

"By far?" Not really. It's pretty much a wash, and the Photozone testing shows the same. Also, that's only sharpness. The 24-70 II at 35mm has less distortion, similar vignetting, more CA, and less LoCA than the 35/2 IS. So for overall IQ, I'd call it a draw.

At any focal length other than 35mm, the 24-70 II has a significant advantage. At apertures wider than f/2.8, the 24-70 II has a major deficit.

But also, the 35/2 IS wide open is not as sharp as the 24-70 II wide open (link), and that difference is more apparent.

 

[Sporgon]

Neuro, I think you misread Viggo's sentence- as I did the first time !

 

[Viggo]

And if we really want to do the test chart, 35 IS is better than the zoom by far comparison, here it is:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=824&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=787&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=1&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

And the 35 is a full stop down while the 2470 is wide open.

"By far?" Not really. It's pretty much a wash, and the Photozone testing shows the same. Also, that's only sharpness. The 24-70 II at 35mm has less distortion, similar vignetting, more CA, and less LoCA than the 35/2 IS. So for overall IQ, I'd call it a draw.

At any focal length other than 35mm, the 24-70 II has a significant advantage. At apertures wider than f/2.8, the 24-70 II has a major deficit.

But also, the 35/2 IS wide open is not as sharp as the 24-70 II wide open (link), and that difference is more apparent.

I think there have been a misunderstanding, I AM NOT supporting the OP here, I support the 2470 being epic, as well as the 70-200 mk2. I have added ".." to my original post so that it's more clear I was being ironic and quoting, not agreeing ;D

 

[Loswr]

Neuro, I think you misread Viggo's sentence- as I did the first time !

Ahh, yes - I missed the "" marks around that phrase…but that might be because they weren't there the first time.

Thanks for clarifying, Viggo!

 

[Viggo]

Neuro, I think you misread Viggo's sentence- as I did the first time !

Ahh, yes - I missed the "" marks around that phrase…but that might be because they weren't there the first time.

Fair enough!

 

[Loswr]

Fair enough!

It's ok, we have an excuse - you misstated, and I misinterpreted your statement, because we haven't grown up enough to have outgrown zoom lenses! ;D

 

[Viggo]

Fair enough!

It's ok, we have an excuse - you misstated, and I misinterpreted your statement, because we haven't grown up enough to have outgrown zoom lenses! ;D

Ouch! HAHA ;D

 

[Andrew Davies Photography]

Fair enough!

It's ok, we have an excuse - you misstated, and I misinterpreted your statement, because we haven't grown up enough to have outgrown zoom lenses! ;D

Ouch! HAHA ;D

While we are talking about misquotes to the handful of people who keep yacking on about the 24-70 2.8 mk2 , there was never a reference to this lens in my post you all just forgot to read it properly, The lens i replaced and compared with is the 24-70 2.8 mk1 and as already stated i am not making assumptions about the mk2 it may well be better than the 35 IS i haven't used it so cant comment.

Just completed another two weddings with the 24 35 85 combo and very happy with the results so far certainly beats the quality that i was getting from the 24-70 MK1 - but as i keep saying i am not dismissing zooms they have their place too and the 70-200 and 24-105 i still have is used by my second photographer , therefore i am covering a wedding with three primes and two zooms most of the time ( best of both worlds )

I would be interested to see if Sigma bring out any more tele primes or maybe canon will bring out an 85IS as the first three IS primes have been well received.

www.andrew-davies.com wedding photographer north east and yorkshire

 

[Loswr]

While we are talking about misquotes to the handful of people who keep yacking on about the 24-70 2.8 mk2 , there was never a reference to this lens in my post you all just forgot to read it properly, The lens i replaced and compared with is the 24-70 2.8 mk1

Speaking for myself, I did not miss that point. The problem is that you generalized that to the assertion that 'primes are better than zooms', and further compounded that with the statement that you've 'outgrown zooms', which I hope you can see is a slam against a whole lot of people.

 

[pwp]

While we are talking about misquotes to the handful of people who keep yacking on about the 24-70 2.8 mk2 , there was never a reference to this lens in my post you all just forgot to read it properly, The lens I replaced and compared with is the 24-70 2.8 mk1 and as already stated i am not making assumptions about the mk2 it may well be better than the 35 IS i haven't used it so cant comment.

Just completed another two weddings with the 24 35 85 combo and very happy with the results so far certainly beats the quality that I was getting from the 24-70 MK1...

OK! There's the difference. Most copies of the 24-70 f/2.8 MkI were unmitigated pieces of shirt when compared to the prime beating MkII. I'm not the only photographer around CR (and elsewhere) who ploughed through five or six 24-70 f/2.8MkI lenses over a number of years in search of one of the rare good copies.

As a signed-up, paid-up life member of the Z Team, I'd also choose your primes, the 24 35 85 combo over the old MkI zoom for an important job. My first day shooting with the MkII zoom was one of the happiest days of my life. To say I was gobsmacked by the quality across a broad variety of situations is almost an understatement.

-pw

 

[Andrew Davies Photography]

While we are talking about misquotes to the handful of people who keep yacking on about the 24-70 2.8 mk2 , there was never a reference to this lens in my post you all just forgot to read it properly, The lens I replaced and compared with is the 24-70 2.8 mk1 and as already stated i am not making assumptions about the mk2 it may well be better than the 35 IS i haven't used it so cant comment.

Just completed another two weddings with the 24 35 85 combo and very happy with the results so far certainly beats the quality that I was getting from the 24-70 MK1...

OK! There's the difference. Most copies of the 24-70 f/2.8 MkI were unmitigated pieces of shirt when compared to the prime beating MkII. I'm not the only photographer around CR (and elsewhere) who ploughed through five or six 24-70 f/2.8MkI lenses over a number of years in search of one of the rare good copies.

As a signed-up, paid-up life member of the Z Team, I'd also choose your primes, the 24 35 85 combo over the old MkI zoom for an important job. My first day shooting with the MkII zoom was one of the happiest days of my life. To say I was gobsmacked by the quality across a broad variety of situations is almost an understatement.

-pw

Thats good to hear ! I am however surprised as i was under the impression from lots of reviews and talk over the years that the 24-70 2.8L was the best Canon had - I never got the performance out of it that i wanted and the day i started shooting the 35 IS was an eye opener to see how much sharper it was.

Would you say the 24-70 mk2 can seriously better the 24 35 85 primes ?

 

[pwp]

OK! There's the difference. Most copies of the 24-70 f/2.8 MkI were unmitigated pieces of shirt when compared to the prime beating MkII. I'm not the only photographer around CR (and elsewhere) who ploughed through five or six 24-70 f/2.8MkI lenses over a number of years in search of one of the rare good copies.

As a signed-up, paid-up life member of the Z Team, I'd also choose your primes, the 24 35 85 combo over the old MkI zoom for an important job. My first day shooting with the MkII zoom was one of the happiest days of my life. To say I was gobsmacked by the quality across a broad variety of situations is almost an understatement.
-pw

That's good to hear ! I am however surprised as I was under the impression from lots of reviews and talk over the years that the 24-70 2.8L was the best Canon had - I never got the performance out of it that I wanted and the day I started shooting the 35 IS was an eye opener to see how much sharper it was.

Would you say the 24-70 mk2 can seriously better the 24 35 85 primes ?

Well, the 24-70 f/2.8MkII arrival quickly prompted me selling a great copy of a 24 f/1.4MkII, a 35 f/2 and a Sigma 50 f/1.4. The new lens eclipsed them all in most respects. I very occasionally miss the f/1.4 to f/2 range, but the 5D3 can handle an awesome iso peak when the need arises provided it's perfectly exposed and suitably treated in post-pro.

On a balance, I prefer the lighter bag and the established zoom credentials. Other than the obvious 15mm less reach, the 24-70 f/2.8 MkII will outperform the 85 f/1.8 but the 85 f/1.2 is clearly in a class/genre of its own. I did have a very sweet 85 f/1.2 for a few years but my shooting style requires rocket fast, very responsive AF so it also got on-sold because of lack of use.

-pw

 

[Dylan777]

While we are talking about misquotes to the handful of people who keep yacking on about the 24-70 2.8 mk2 , there was never a reference to this lens in my post you all just forgot to read it properly, The lens I replaced and compared with is the 24-70 2.8 mk1 and as already stated i am not making assumptions about the mk2 it may well be better than the 35 IS i haven't used it so cant comment.

Just completed another two weddings with the 24 35 85 combo and very happy with the results so far certainly beats the quality that I was getting from the 24-70 MK1...

OK! There's the difference. Most copies of the 24-70 f/2.8 MkI were unmitigated pieces of shirt when compared to the prime beating MkII. I'm not the only photographer around CR (and elsewhere) who ploughed through five or six 24-70 f/2.8MkI lenses over a number of years in search of one of the rare good copies.

As a signed-up, paid-up life member of the Z Team, I'd also choose your primes, the 24 35 85 combo over the old MkI zoom for an important job. My first day shooting with the MkII zoom was one of the happiest days of my life. To say I was gobsmacked by the quality across a broad variety of situations is almost an understatement.

-pw

Thats good to hear ! I am however surprised as i was under the impression from lots of reviews and talk over the years that the 24-70 2.8L was the best Canon had - I never got the performance out of it that i wanted and the day i started shooting the 35 IS was an eye opener to see how much sharper it was.

Would you say the 24-70 mk2 can seriously better the 24 35 85 primes ?

The photo below was taken with 5D III + 24-70 II, SOOC,JPEG, no flash, zero edit.

What do you think?

 

[sagittariansrock]

While we are talking about misquotes to the handful of people who keep yacking on about the 24-70 2.8 mk2 , there was never a reference to this lens in my post you all just forgot to read it properly, The lens i replaced and compared with is the 24-70 2.8 mk1 and as already stated i am not making assumptions about the mk2 it may well be better than the 35 IS i haven't used it so cant comment.

Hmmm... so if you have never used the mk2 maybe you shouldn't have used the generalized comment below?

specifically we are talking mainly about quality, and in that respect the prime lens offers the client the best quality possible

 

[zlatko]

OK! There's the difference. Most copies of the 24-70 f/2.8 MkI were unmitigated pieces of shirt when compared to the prime beating MkII. I'm not the only photographer around CR (and elsewhere) who ploughed through five or six 24-70 f/2.8MkI lenses over a number of years in search of one of the rare good copies.

As a signed-up, paid-up life member of the Z Team, I'd also choose your primes, the 24 35 85 combo over the old MkI zoom for an important job. My first day shooting with the MkII zoom was one of the happiest days of my life. To say I was gobsmacked by the quality across a broad variety of situations is almost an understatement.

-pw

The problem with the 24-70/2.8 Mk.I is not that it was a bad lens. It was a very good lens when it was properly adjusted. They were generally fine when fresh from the factory, but would go out of adjustment with regular use. Within a year or two, even the good copies could become bad copies. The more one used it, the more likely it was to go out of adjustment. A heavy user of that lens was well advised to send it in for annual adjustments, even before the blurries started to show up. On the other hand, a light user might not ever see it go out of adjustment. Related to that, the adjustments themselves were not that easy to make. And finally, even when well adjusted, some users reported that the lens liked to focus on a distant background a little too often, no matter how carefully it was focused on the subject. It was a generally useful lens but with some reliability and maintenance issues.

The Mk.II version is better in all respects and truly prime-like in quality. That said, any lens with a complex zoom mechanism is likely to eventually need a tuneup with heavy use. Primes, being simpler mechanically, generally don't need as much attention.

 

[Andrew Davies Photography]

While we are talking about misquotes to the handful of people who keep yacking on about the 24-70 2.8 mk2 , there was never a reference to this lens in my post you all just forgot to read it properly, The lens I replaced and compared with is the 24-70 2.8 mk1 and as already stated i am not making assumptions about the mk2 it may well be better than the 35 IS i haven't used it so cant comment.

Just completed another two weddings with the 24 35 85 combo and very happy with the results so far certainly beats the quality that I was getting from the 24-70 MK1...

OK! There's the difference. Most copies of the 24-70 f/2.8 MkI were unmitigated pieces of shirt when compared to the prime beating MkII. I'm not the only photographer around CR (and elsewhere) who ploughed through five or six 24-70 f/2.8MkI lenses over a number of years in search of one of the rare good copies.

As a signed-up, paid-up life member of the Z Team, I'd also choose your primes, the 24 35 85 combo over the old MkI zoom for an important job. My first day shooting with the MkII zoom was one of the happiest days of my life. To say I was gobsmacked by the quality across a broad variety of situations is almost an understatement.

-pw

Thats good to hear ! I am however surprised as i was under the impression from lots of reviews and talk over the years that the 24-70 2.8L was the best Canon had - I never got the performance out of it that i wanted and the day i started shooting the 35 IS was an eye opener to see how much sharper it was.

Would you say the 24-70 mk2 can seriously better the 24 35 85 primes ?

The photo below was taken with 5D III + 24-70 II, SOOC,JPEG, no flash, zero edit.

What do you think?

Honestly, Its a nice shot and well composed however it would not make me want to rush out and buy the lens. The bokeh looks odd and it does not look tack sharp anywhere.