Which Lens ... 24-70 II or primes?

[J.R.]

Hi CR folks,

I've run into a very serious dilemma and need your help on this. I am having a hard time in choosing between the 24-70 2.8L II and a combo of 24mm 1.4L II and the 35mm 1.4L.

I have shot with the 24-70 II recently and was very impressed with the IQ and was considering the zoom but lately I have been considering the primes as well.

BTW, I'm a hobbyist and usually I shoot images of my family / children and landscapes. The images are usually taken after I'm back from work so its mostly in low light situations.

What do you guys suggest?

PS: Budget is not really an issue because I can pick up the 24-70 II right now or I could get the 24 f/1.4 now and the 35 f/1.4 in a few months.

 

[lastcoyote]

well i've just got the 24-70 II and although not had chance to put it through it's paces yet it seems to be as good as they say. however looking at your gear in your signature line, if i was in your situation i'd probably go the prime route seeing as how you already have a standard zoom in the form of the 24-105.

i'd go with the 24 1.4L II to get better sharpnes across the frame than you'd currently get with the 24-105 for landscape work and either later get the 35L or look at the new sigma 35 1.4 or wait to see if canon release a 35L II.

my next lens purchase will be one of these 35 primes.

 

[Grumbaki]

Actually, except if you shoot very often at 24, I'd sell the 24-105 to get both 24-70 and the sigma 35. Was my move when i recently got the 5d3 kit.

 

[lastcoyote]

Actually, except if you shoot very often at 24, I'd sell the 24-105 to get both 24-70 and the sigma 35. Was my move when i recently got the 5d3 kit.

yeah i thought of this option too. certainly another way to go....unless you really love your 24-105 that is.

 

[bholliman]

I would go with the 24-70 II and add one of the primes later if you still feel a need for a faster lens.

I currently have a 24-105 and its fine for landscapes and general outdoor photography, but plan to buy a 24-70 2.8 at some point for a standard zoom I can use indoors with natural lighting. I use 35/50/85/135 primes for that now, but there are many times when a zoom would be handier. We have a 12-month old son and my primes worked great indoors with him until he became mobile a month or two ago. Now, I miss a lot of shots while changing lenses or moving (when he sees me pointing a camera at him, he crawls toward me a full speed). When I get a 24-70, I'll probably sell my 24-105.

 

[pwp]

I would go with the 24-70 II and add one of the primes later if you still feel a need for a faster lens.

+1 Good advice. The 24-70II is so good it has prompted plenty of photographers including myself to sell L primes in the 24-70mm range. My 24 f/1.4II has gone as has the Sigma 50 f/1.4. If I had a 35 it would be gone too. The 24-70 f/2.8II is a simply awesome lens and makes primes in this range all but obsolete.

-PW

 

[lastcoyote]

I would go with the 24-70 II and add one of the primes later if you still feel a need for a faster lens.

+1 Good advice. The 24-70II is so good it has prompted plenty of photographers including myself to sell L primes in the 24-70mm range. My 24 f/1.4II has gone as has the Sigma 50 f/1.4. If I had a 35 it would be gone too. The 24-70 f/2.8II is a simply awesome lens and makes primes in this range all but obsolete.

-PW

the 24-70II is great. however i'm not sure i'd agree fully with what you say about replacing primes.
i myself love to be creative with shallow dof so fast primes are still very desirable and useful for me.
photography is my hobby not work so maybe thats the difference..

 

[Dylan777]

I would go with the 24-70 II and add one of the primes later if you still feel a need for a faster lens.

+1 Good advice. The 24-70II is so good it has prompted plenty of photographers including myself to sell L primes in the 24-70mm range. My 24 f/1.4II has gone as has the Sigma 50 f/1.4. If I had a 35 it would be gone too. The 24-70 f/2.8II is a simply awesome lens and makes primes in this range all but obsolete.

-PW

Another +1 on 24-70....Even Neuro stop using his 35L after buying 24-70

 

[Random Orbits]

Get the 24-70II first, and then trade in the 24-105L to finance the prime of your choice.

I don't use the primes as much after getting the 24-70II, but I still use the primes for shallow DOF or for low light ambient situations.

 

[gary]

My new 24-70 mk2 arrived yesterday and having used it even for a short while I have no regrets, its just that good. I tried the 50L and 85L extensively and am still pleased with the decision I made, its just more versatile. There are certain low light situations where I may have thought differently, but the 5D mkiii and its low light capabilities go a long way to compensate for that.

 

[Loswr]

Another +1 on 24-70....Even Neuro stop using his 35L after buying 24-70

Well...it's only been a couple of weeks that I've had the 24-70 II, so the jury's still out. The point about creative effects with thin DoF is a valid one. Also, for nighttime walkaround, the 35L may be useful as with the wide angle, if the subject(s) are a few feet away the DoF isn't as much of an issue, and the extra 2 stops would come in handy.

 

[Dylan777]

Another +1 on 24-70....Even Neuro stop using his 35L after buying 24-70

Well...it's only been a couple of weeks that I've had the 24-70 II, so the jury's still out. The point about creative effects with thin DoF is a valid one. Also, for nighttime walkaround, the 35L may be useful as with the wide angle, if the subject(s) are a few feet away the DoF isn't as much of an issue, and the extra 2 stops would come in handy.

Agreed...that's why I'm still hanging on my 50L, but it doesn't get use much though. I'm now thinking selling it since I got Sony RX1 at f2.

 

[sdsr]

Depending on how low the light is you usually find yourself shooting with, I'm inclined to suggest that IS matters (unless you're using a tripod), and may more than make up for any otherwise perceptible differences between the lenses involved. So, if you want a 24-70 2.8 zoom I would suggest the newish Tamron instead; with the amount saved over the Canon you could buy the new Sigma 35 1.4 or get a head start on another fast prime ....

 

[bdunbar79]

Depending on how low the light is you usually find yourself shooting with, I'm inclined to suggest that IS matters (unless you're using a tripod), and may more than make up for any otherwise perceptible differences between the lenses involved. So, if you want a 24-70 2.8 zoom I would suggest the newish Tamron instead; with the amount saved over the Canon you could buy the new Sigma 35 1.4 or get a head start on another fast prime ....

Yeah. Pro you get the 24-70L II lens. If you're not a pro and don't really need to spend a ton of money, I probably wouldn't get it either, especially if you already had primes in that range.

In the 24-70L II's defense, I sold my 35L and 50L after purchasing it because yes, it is THAT good. It is actually the sharpest lens below 135 that I've used.

 

[Grumbaki]

Depending on how low the light is you usually find yourself shooting with, I'm inclined to suggest that IS matters (unless you're using a tripod), and may more than make up for any otherwise perceptible differences between the lenses involved. So, if you want a 24-70 2.8 zoom I would suggest the newish Tamron instead; with the amount saved over the Canon you could buy the new Sigma 35 1.4 or get a head start on another fast prime ....

From his sig he's shooting with 5d3 and 6d so real low light can be very well handled with a 1.2 /1.4 prime.

I generally find IS way overrated under 100mm, specially for "handling low light". Low light landscape = tripod. Low light action = fast prime.

 

[J.R.]

Thanks for the responses.

I had been leaning towards the 24-70 II and was about to pull the trigger but have been held up for considering the primes for the extra 2 stops of light and the creative possibilities with the shallow DOF. I haven't been helped with continuing reports of many people reporting that they were no longer using the primes after getting the 24-70.

I've decided to get the 24-70 II now and sell the 24-105. I'll see how it goes and will add a fast(er) prime if I think I need it going forward. Who knows, Canon might just end up releasing a new 35L II and that would fit in quite nicely

Thanks for the suggestions of the Sigma and Tamron lenses but I live in India and the Sigma is not yet available here and there apparently is zero after sales service. While the Tamron 24-70 is available, IMHO their after sales service is a complete joke. I had bought a Tamron lens last year but it had massive focusing issues. Tamron remained in complete denial and claimed it was a body issue and the lens was perfect even though I gave them sample shots from three different bodies, so ultimately I ended up selling it for a loss. With the third party lenses, I'm worried that if I end up with problems, neither Tamron nor Sigma are good at finding solutions and the resale value of their lenses isn't great either. For this reason, I don't want to get into the third party route.

 

[brad-man]

Another possibility is, if you should happen to miss the long end of your 105, you could pick up the 135. That combo would add some versatility.

 

[J.R.]

Another possibility is, if you should happen to miss the long end of your 105, you could pick up the 135. That combo would add some versatility.

Thanks ... those were my thoughts exactly and I doubt I'll miss the telephoto end of the 105 already having the 135L. My next lens after the 24-70 II will probably be the 70-200 f/2.8 II so I don't think I'll miss the focal length from 70-105 anyway.

Cheers ... J.R.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Sell the 24-105 and get the 24-70 II and the sigma 35!!!!!!!

 

[e-d0uble]

I have the 24-105 f/4, 24-70 f/2.8II, and the Sigma 35f/1.4. I've not ever tried the 24 f/1.4.

The Sigma 35 f/1.4 is a stellar performer, I'm absolutely thrilled with it since day one, and it was worth every cent. 35mm isn't exactly my favorite length either. The 24-70 f/2.8 II I now have (first one I bought was wonky) is very good, but I'm still not convinced it's worth what Canon is asking for it. I've still not had enough time with it to determine whether or not it's worth it for me to sell the 24-105 and keep it.