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

[WhoIreland]

Having had 24-70L,28-70L, I would say the 24-70L II is a good jump in quality
(not as dramatic as i noticed when moving from 70-200L 2.8IS to 70-200L 2.8IS II)

the primes I had were 50/1.4, 35L, 85L II

i sold 50/1.4 and 85L II (85 just had too many lost shots - possibly caused by the idiot behind the camera rather than the lens,but eitherway caused a lot of frustrations)

I've not used 24L, but will not part with my 35L- find it's a superb focal length on full frame with great bokeh on wide. 24 is a bit too specialist (for me)

I did recently add a 135L to the mix

so in short, i'd recommend the zoom,and add the 35L when possible.....the 50's available at the moment just don't cut it IMHO -esp when compared to what else is available

 

[infared]

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

I did the same thing.
Both of these lenses are astounding on my 5DIII. (I don't care if Canon makes a 35mm f/1.4L II. The Sigma will be $1000 less and the IQ will be better and the price leaves enough cash to pick up a 135mm f/2L or a Sigma 85mmf/1.4!).
Shooting in tight the 35mm f/1.4 has some creative advantages...I also find that when I put this lens on the camera that it is so much fun to use and the results so eye-popping that I do not want to take it off the camera and find myself composing shots to fit the focal length and speed of this lens. Fun, fun, fun!

 

[tron]

get a video camera or ... learn how to paint ;D

 

[J.R.]

get a video camera or ... learn how to paint ;D

... Have a video camera and I know how to paint ... what else?

 

[killswitch]

I have the original 24-70 , and I am quite happy with it. It has been a workhorse of a lens for me, and I was lucky enough to end up with a good copy. I am curious if any original 24-70 owner migrated to the mk2 and felt a substantial jump in terms of sharpness across the frame wide open, and throughout the range, and also if it has better contrast to boot. Is it worth the upgrade to the mk2 version if you use the 24-70 for family events, family portraits, general purpose? Curious about how others felt who migrated from mk1 to mk2.

 

[J.R.]

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

I did the same thing.
Both of these lenses are astounding on my 5DIII. (I don't care if Canon makes a 35mm f/1.4L II. The Sigma will be $1000 less and the IQ will be better and the price leaves enough cash to pick up a 135mm f/2L or a Sigma 85mmf/1.4!).
Shooting in tight the 35mm f/1.4 has some creative advantages...I also find that when I put this lens on the camera that it is so much fun to use and the results so eye-popping that I do not want to take it off the camera and find myself composing shots to fit the focal length and speed of this lens. Fun, fun, fun!

Thanks ... but as I mentioned above, Sigma Art lenses are not available in India (not yet anyway). While I would say that the Sigma lenses are as stellar as everyone makes them out to be, their service in India is virtually non-existent and I don't want to go down that route.

Guess I'll just have to wait for the rumored 35L II because reportedly the 24-70 II is better then the 35L prime at the moment

 

[Smurf1811]

I just sold my 24-70 II last week...i found it a good, sharp lens...but also kind of boring. With my prime Lenses i can get more pictures that just "pops" out.

For me...the primes are the way to go 8)

 

[kennykodak]

24-70 II sharpest thing i own.

 

[robmahanta]

Thanks ... but as I mentioned above, Sigma Art lenses are not available in India (not yet anyway). While I would say that the Sigma lenses are as stellar as everyone makes them out to be, their service in India is virtually non-existent and I don't want to go down that route.

Guess I'll just have to wait for the rumored 35L II because reportedly the 24-70 II is better then the 35L prime at the moment

JR,

Even I was in your position a few weeks back and finally decided to sell the 24-105L for the 24-70 II. The new 24-70 is very sharp and after AFMA with my 5DIII its sharper than my 100L. Go for it, you wont regret it. Only problem is the 82mm filter diameter.

BTW, I am from India as well and got the 24-70II for around 2400USD (incld tax and Canon warranty)

 

[docsmith]

I just sold my 24-70 II last week...i found it a good, sharp lens...but also kind of boring. With my prime Lenses i can get more pictures that just "pops" out.

For me...the primes are the way to go 8)

I don't have hands on experience, but am debating the same thing. I just upgraded to the 5DIII and currently have the 24-105 f/4. I am plenty impressed with the 24-105, but I am even more impressed with the comments and reviews I have seen of hte 24-70 II. So I have been debating, sometime in the next year, do I sell the 24-105 and buy the 24-70 II or do I start collecting primes. I am also making the same debate in the 70-200 mm range (70-200 f/2.8 II vs primes at 85, 135 and 200).

I am coming down on DOF. The DOF of f/2.8 at 10 ft is 11.1 ft @ 24 mm, 4.4 ft @ 35 mm, 2.1 ft @ 50 mm, 1 ft @ 70 mm, 0.7 ft @ 85 mm, and 0.27 ft at 135 mm. Compare to f/1.4 at 10 feet focus distance and you get a total depth of field of 4.7 ft at 24 mm, 2.1 ft at 35 mm, 1 ft at 50 mm, 0.5 ft at 70 mm, 0.35 ft at 85 mm, and 0.14 ft at 135 mm (granted, the 135 is f/2, which has a DOF of 0.2 ft).

So from 70-200 mm, I am currently thinking I will get the 70-200 f/2.8 over primes, eventually, as f/2.8 gives me most of the DOF I will need (I am a hobbiest, not a pro). But you start getting down in the 24-35 mm range, and I can see how the DOF would limit your "artistic" ability. If I had to buy my kit right now, I'd probably keep my 24-105 as a walk around lens and buy primes at 24 mm, and 35 mm.

I am coming to this decision a little reluctantly as I have seen so much love for the 135 f/2 and the 24-70 f/2.8 II. So I may still change my opinion, but I am currently thinking those may be luxuries for much further down the road...for me, that is.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

The prime is a lot brighter and creamier Out of focus rendering as a result. But it's harder to use, exact focus is critical and composition is harder work and slower. The zoom has far more versatility, it's wider and a lot longer in it's focal range. It's beautifully sharp, as sharp a prime. It's quicker to use due to the zooms versatility, it's got a quicker AF system too. A pair of primes and matching cameras is required to cover a simular focal range...but still lacks the versatility. I tend to use three cameras for my wedding work: a 35mm f1.4, 85mm f1.2 and a 16-35IIL for wider stuff. But, a single 24-70L is far easier to work with in brighter weddings.

 

[tron]

get a video camera or ... learn how to paint ;D

... Have a video camera and I know how to paint ... what else?

Sorry I typed it in the wrong thread!

I meant to type it to the "Canon EOS 1DX Junk camera??" thread.

My sincere apologies. :-[

 

[RLPhoto]

After shooting sub-f/2.8 for so long, I don't think I could live without my primes but I could live without my zooms. It's a strange predicament, as most shooters have it the other way around.

 

[tron]

I was reading this thread because I was also kind of thinking about 24-70 II. Now, since I made the above stupid error, unintentional as it was, allow me to somehow say something in topic.

I had a 24-70 2.8 version 1 which I used with my 40D. When that combo was stolen, I replaced it with a 5DMkII and 24-105. That lens is very versatile and has IS. I have not pixel-peeped it though apart from 2 cases.

The 1st time I was disappointed but I recall having forgotten the lens to manual focus so it does not count. That was some landscapes while I was returning home for vacation so no big deal though.

The 2nd time (which was important) was at a christening. I had used flash and f/9 so I had no complaints at all with sharpness.

Back to 24-70 question: I believe that 70mm is not enough. Right now I prefer to use my 35mm 1.4L, 85mm 1/8 and 135mm f/2L instead of a 24-105 (and a 24TS-E if in need for 24mm). I admit though that when I take my 5DMkIII with 3 lenses my small shoulder camera bag (a TT urban disguise) gets really heavy. So usually I revert to 2 prime lenses. This is not necessarily bad since it makes me think and use my feet and think. I also like the oof blur from prime lenses.

In your case since kids mean action I believe either 24-70 or a 35mm would serve you almost equally well. With either case though, you wouldn't escape the need to change lens (135mm ?) to take a portrait. This is a case that only 24-105 covers (at least partially).

So I am sorry I feel I did not help especially even when on topic. But this is also my dilemma (and the reason I was reading this thread).

If I were to summarize I would say:

family / children: better with prime lenses
landscapes: better with a 24-70

 

[Loswr]

family / children: better with prime lenses
landscapes: better with a 24-70

Interesting. I have the opposite viewpoint, mostly. My kids move fast - a zoom offers the flexibility I need to capture them from arm's length to across the yard. For landscapes, I have the camera on a tripod and time at my disposal. TS-E 24mm and mucking about with gran ND filters? No problem.

 

[tron]

family / children: better with prime lenses
landscapes: better with a 24-70

Interesting. I have the opposite viewpoint, mostly. My kids move fast - a zoom offers the flexibility I need to capture them from arm's length to across the yard. For landscapes, I have the camera on a tripod and time at my disposal. TS-E 24mm and mucking about with gran ND filters? No problem.

I was thinking as you but OP had said:

"images are usually taken after I'm back from work so its mostly in low light situations"

 

[Loswr]

family / children: better with prime lenses
landscapes: better with a 24-70

Interesting. I have the opposite viewpoint, mostly. My kids move fast - a zoom offers the flexibility I need to capture them from arm's length to across the yard. For landscapes, I have the camera on a tripod and time at my disposal. TS-E 24mm and mucking about with gran ND filters? No problem.

I was thinking as you but OP had said:

"images are usually taken after I'm back from work so its mostly in low light situations"

That's the main reason I bought the 35L. But now, with the high ISO performance of the 1D X, I find that an f/2.8 lens is working for indoor ambient shooting.

 

[J.R.]

Thanks guys ... I bit the bullet and ordered the 24-70 II this evening at the local Canon dealer. The lens should be here next week

 

[bholliman]

family / children: better with prime lenses
landscapes: better with a 24-70

Interesting. I have the opposite viewpoint, mostly. My kids move fast - a zoom offers the flexibility I need to capture them from arm's length to across the yard. For landscapes, I have the camera on a tripod and time at my disposal. TS-E 24mm and mucking about with gran ND filters? No problem.

I was thinking as you but OP had said:

"images are usually taken after I'm back from work so its mostly in low light situations"

That's the main reason I bought the 35L. But now, with the high ISO performance of the 1D X, I find that an f/2.8 lens is working for indoor ambient shooting.

I'm finding that I can't change primes fast enough (or move myself fast enough ) to get all the shots I want of our 12-month-old toddler indoors. Its tough to predict where and when he is going to move! So, I'm looking hard at acquiring a 24-70 2.8. I can use primes for other indoor shots of the older kids, but they are not working with the youngest right now.