# Canon 24-70 II Or Primes Particularly 50MM 1.2L



## grassbl8d (Nov 3, 2012)

hi,

i'm thinking of getting 24-70 l ii but i'm reeading pretty much mixed reviews on it.

Right now, I have 24, 35 and 85. I may sell the 24 just to get the 24-70 ii. Or I might just use the money to buy the 50....

any advise? Should I sell the 24 and get the 24-70 ii or should I just complete the set with 50 1.2. As of the moment, I don't have any standard zoom lens, I could live without one but if the 24-70 ii is that nice, then I'd rather get that...

would appreciate your advise.

also, is it easy to correct distortion of 24-70 ii?

Thanks!


----------



## lrfigueroa (Nov 3, 2012)

The 50 1.2 is a very useful lens specially in low light, but the 24-70 or the 24-105 would be also nice to have. It looks you might need a zoom unless you do no mind changing lenses. On the other side, prime lenses are a little bit more sharp.


----------



## Alangeli (Nov 3, 2012)

I also have read the reviews. Yesterday I got the Canon 24-70mm II and the Tamron 24-70mm VC at once to be tested against my Sigma 24-70mm HSM:

The Sigma is the worst, particularly at 70mm. The Tamron also is unuseable below F8 at 70mm, IMHO. I would estimate only two F-stops efficiency for the stabilizer of the Tamron at 70mm. May be more with shorter FL, but I haven't tested this. The TDP test results of the Tamron at 70mm is exactly what I discovered with my sample.

Unfortunately, the long focal end of the Canon is comparably short, I guess 62mm.

In summary, I am overwhelmed by the IQ of the Canon, based on the reviews I have not expected this. The difference between the Tamron and Canon is much more than the PZ test implies.


----------



## Crapking (Nov 3, 2012)

Here is a real-life, side by side comparison of 50 1.2 vs 24-70 II (@ 55 mm, close enough I hope)





_DXR1373 by PVC 2012, on Flickr

Camera	Canon EOS-1D X
Exposure	0.001 sec (1/1250)
Aperture	f/2.0
Focal Length	50 mm (50/1.2L)
ISO Speed	2500


And here is similar shot @ 55 MM with the 24-70 II, settings not exactly the same but real-life example

Camera	Canon EOS-1D X
Exposure	0.001 sec (1/2000)
Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length	55 mm
ISO Speed	6400




_DXR1443 by PVC 2012, on Flickr


----------



## IIIHobbs (Nov 3, 2012)

I have the 24L and 50L, no zoom can touch them IMO, plus the bokeh of each is wonderful.


----------



## And-Rew (Nov 3, 2012)

Crapking said:


> Here is a real-life, side by side comparison of 50 1.2 vs 24-70 II (@ 55 mm, close enough I hope)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Definitely prefer the shot from the 50mm f1.2 - apart from having better lighting, it also seems to be a 'cleaner' image.


----------



## grassbl8d (Nov 3, 2012)

oh wow

50 l looks better... still hard to decide though given the different reviews

thanks for the replies


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 3, 2012)

On the fence about this one myself. I do have the 24-105mm as a standard zoom, as well as 35L and 85L II primes. I'm leaning towards the camp that indoors f/2.8 is often not enough, so I'm inclined toward the 50L. We'll see...


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 3, 2012)

I'm in the same boat. I recently purchased the 24-105L and going to pair with with my 50L. It will be my GP kit.


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 3, 2012)

I sold my 50 f1.4 after my 24-70 II arrived. This lens now my favorite for indoor.

This lens is sharp, however, it does have little vignetting @ 24mm. I have tried two different copies from Crutchfield. Both lenses seem to have same sharpness and same vignetting. Here is my latest picture with 24-70 II. Distortion can be fixed in LR with 1 click.

I'll add 50L to my kit for creamy background shots. I'M KEEPING MY 24-70 II.


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 3, 2012)

IIIHobbs said:


> I have the 24L and 50L, no zoom can touch them IMO, plus the bokeh of each is wonderful.



You might have different POV if you try new 24-70


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 3, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> On the fence about this one myself. I do have the 24-105mm as a standard zoom, as well as 35L and 85L II primes. I'm leaning towards the camp that indoors f/2.8 is often not enough, so I'm inclined toward the 50L. We'll see...



Neuro...I think this lens is well worth for you to give it a try. I have a feeling you going to sell your 24-105 

I don't even do AFMA on new 24-70 II. Here is another shot at Parking lot Trunk & Treat, Pre-school.


----------



## robbymack (Nov 3, 2012)

How much are you planning on shooting between f1.2-2? If a lot then the answer is easy. If not much get the zoom.


----------



## Axilrod (Nov 3, 2012)

IIIHobbs said:


> I have the 24L and 50L, no zoom can touch them IMO, plus the bokeh of each is wonderful.



Have you used the 24-70 II? I compared it with the 24LII at 24mm and the 24-70II is definitely sharper (although the distortion is controlled much better on the 24L). The 24-70II is also sharper than the 50L. Of course sharpness isn't everything, the bokeh is much better on the primes, but the 24-70II is one sharp zoom.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 3, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> Neuro...I think this lens is well worth for you to give it a try. I have a feeling you going to sell your 24-105



I'm sure I'd like the 24-70 II, in fact, I had planned to get it next. But I've been doing a bit of shooting indoors in the evenings with the 35L and 85L II, and I'm usually around f/2 and high ISO (6400 and up), and for many of the shots the 35L is too wide and the 85L too long. The 24-70 II would be convenient, I'm just not sure it's fast enough. If I need to use the 600EX-RT, f/4 would work, too.

Eventually, I'll likely have both the 50L and the 24-70 II, it's just a matter of sequence. The 50L may be more useful in fall/winter indoors. 

The other 'problem' with the 24-70mm range is that I use 105mm a lot:


----------



## artsmalley (Nov 3, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Neuro...I think this lens is well worth for you to give it a try. I have a feeling you going to sell your 24-105
> ...



Love the histogram of usage lengths. I would like to make one of these for my shots. How did you obtain the data? Is there an easy way to obtain it so I don't have to do it manually? Thanks for any advice.


----------



## ScottFielding (Nov 3, 2012)

I couldn't be without my 50L and will be looking to acquire the 24mm 1.4 next as opposed to going for the 24-70 II.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 3, 2012)

artsmalley said:


> Love the histogram of usage lengths. I would like to make one of these for my shots. How did you obtain the data? Is there an easy way to obtain it so I don't have to do it manually? Thanks for any advice.



I use a Mac freeware app called PhotoStats, but I downloaded it a long time ago, not sure it's still available. There's an Aperture add-on called Aperture Inspector, and I'm sure there are Windows apps, too.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 3, 2012)

I just finished this review of the 50L. You may want to read its pros & cons.

http://ramonlperez.tumblr.com/post/34906285033/fast-prime-shoot-out-pt-2-50mm-1-2l-review


----------



## bdunbar79 (Nov 4, 2012)

lrfigueroa said:


> The 50 1.2 is a very useful lens specially in low light, but the 24-70 or the 24-105 would be also nice to have. It looks you might need a zoom unless you do no mind changing lenses. On the other side, prime lenses are a little bit more sharp.



No, they're not.


----------



## scotthillphoto (Nov 4, 2012)

I have used the 24-70 and own the 50L personally I shoot a TON of low light and really don't like killing the people with flash so I constantly shoot around 1.8-2.2 and get AWESOME results with my 5D3. Now the 24-70 is a better all around lens but if you are willing to do a little more work in your framing of an image the 50L is the way to go.


----------



## IIIHobbs (Nov 4, 2012)

I sold all my zooms after changing to FF and adding the 50L to my kit.

You didn't say what body you are using but if the lenses you listed are all L glass, the 24-70II will probably not impress you as much as you think it might, other than convenience.


----------



## grassbl8d (Nov 4, 2012)

im using a 1dx

i already have 24,35,85l and 70-200.

im thinkng of selling the 24 and get a 24-70 or get a 50l.
im quite torn on what to get, i thnk ill miss the 24, its giving out really good images,


----------



## Gino (Nov 4, 2012)

grassbl8d said:


> im using a 1dx
> 
> i already have 24,35,85l and 70-200.
> 
> ...



Why do you want to sell the 24LII, and replace it with the 50L/1.2.....is it because the 24L limits the type of photography you're doing, and the 50L will give you more flexibility with the type of photos you can take: landscape, portrait, street, sports?

The reason I ask is because I'm considering purchasing the 24LII, but I feel the use will be limited to just landscape photography, where as the 50L would cover a variety of photography uses, therefore I will use the the 50L a lot more than I would the 24LII.

thanks


----------



## Quasimodo (Nov 4, 2012)

I really don't understand the question  I want both, not to mention your camera...

I tried the 24-70 II on a 1DX and it was an awsome combo. the 50L is however a brilliant lens which gives you creative opportunities that the 24-70 will not give you. Hence I will get both, I just need some persuasive work towards my better half


----------



## grassbl8d (Nov 4, 2012)

i have to sell 24 if ill get 24-70 ii so i can have the money.... 
lol, the only thing that is stopping me from getting 1.2 is that according to many people, its not good on higher apertures.... im also looking at the sigma. on front page of CR there might be a new 50 coming soon, so i guess ill wait out a little.


----------



## IIIHobbs (Nov 5, 2012)

I understand the need to raise funds for the zoom, but at the loss of the 24LII?!? That I think is a mistake. Being that the cost of the new 24-70 is steep, you may want to try it before you buy it.


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 5, 2012)

IIIHobbs said:


> I understand the need to raise funds for the zoom, but at the loss of the 24LII?!? That I think is a mistake. Being that the cost of the new 24-70 is steep, you may want to try it before you buy it.



How do you know? have you ever try 24-70 II? I tried 24mm and currently own 24-70 II....IT'S NOT A MISTAKE.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Nov 5, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> IIIHobbs said:
> 
> 
> > I understand the need to raise funds for the zoom, but at the loss of the 24LII?!? That I think is a mistake. Being that the cost of the new 24-70 is steep, you may want to try it before you buy it.
> ...



A big misconception is that primes are sharper than zooms. While that may have once been the case, it's not anymore for all primes. The new 24-70L II lens performs just as well as the 24L, 35L, and 50L from f/2.8 and narrower. The advantage of the 3 primes I listed are of course IQ and also wider aperture. But if you never shoot wider than f/2.8, the 24-70L II can replace those lenses. I kept my 24L because I use it at f/2, as do I with my 50 f/1.4. I sold the 35.


----------



## Bosman (Nov 6, 2012)

Until this year when i got the 24L The 24-70 was a workhorse! I bought the 24LII because when going thru my images 24 and 70 were my most used focal lengths on the 24-70L F2.8 and the 1DM3 with a 24-70 was bangin out an average of 1300 images per wedding. Now If i was only FF i'd be using the 35mm most as the focal length on a 1dm3 is around 31mm. On occasion putting the 24 on the 5dm3 is necessary but not often. I also went with 24 rather than 35 because in the long run having wider is better than pressing against walls as far as you can to make things fit at 35mm focal lengths. When you need it its there. The 24L is so dreamy, I really like it. It is now taking 1/3 of all my wedding images.
For you selling it and spending $1000- $1300 just to get a good zoom seems like it doesn't add up. Plus, you will not be able to go below F2.8 with the 24-70. When its dark it can be a light saver, and a life saver lol.


----------



## bycostello (Nov 7, 2012)

how much u wanna carry around.... studios, primes... street 24-70


----------



## Michiel (Jan 7, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> On the fence about this one myself. I do have the 24-105mm as a standard zoom, as well as 35L and 85L II primes. I'm leaning towards the camp that indoors f/2.8 is often not enough, so I'm inclined toward the 50L. We'll see...



Hi, if you already have the 35mm and the 85mm i don't see any reason for buying the 24-70 other than to be able to walk out the door with just one lens. From a weight-perspective it does't make sense to add another 800 grams to your bag.

I have the same dilemma but now that i read this forum, i tend towards buying the 5DIII again instead of the 24-70 II. Which is not a huge step, moneywise.

Any ideas anybody ?

I already have the 16-35 L II, 50mm 1.2 and 70-200mm L II IS.


----------



## nda (Jan 7, 2013)

Well I have both, IMHO the 24-70II is the best standard zoom I've ever used and could easily replace the 24 & 35 primes>however I also have the 50L, I think you need a fast prime for bokeh and light gathering ability> I was thinking about one of the other fast primes (24 or 35) but just fell in love with the 50L so kept that and got the 24-70II very happy with both  LR will correct distortion!


----------



## syder (Jan 7, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> IIIHobbs said:
> 
> 
> > I understand the need to raise funds for the zoom, but at the loss of the 24LII?!? That I think is a mistake. Being that the cost of the new 24-70 is steep, you may want to try it before you buy it.
> ...



I use both the 24mm and 24-70 ii. They're different tools for different purposes. The 24mm lets in up to 4x as much light, and allows you to create wide shots with a shallow depth of field that simply cannot be achieved with the 24-70. If you don't use it for low light or shallow dof, say for example if you're mainly shooting landscapes at f8 then there's little reason to keep the 24mm. 

However, the 24mm is a great lens which does things you cannot do with a f2.8 zoom. Whether its worth keeping alongside a zoom lens which covers 24mm depends on your style of photography/cinematography.


----------

