# Canon 24-70L vs primes (24L, 35L etc)



## Cptn Rigo (May 5, 2012)

I everyone!!

I currently own a 7D, 24-70L, 50 1.4 and 135L, I really like mi 24-70L, its super sharp and love the IQ... 

The 135L is the new member of the family ;D, after used it I'm shocked with the IQ of the Prime L lens... my question is:

It is noticeable the IQ "jump" from a 24-70L zoom to a 24LII prime, keep my 50... and maybe an 85L???

Someone has been in this situation??

(Btw: You guys have a really nice community here  have been around a long time without been a member)


----------



## alipaulphotography (May 5, 2012)

Image quality wise - No. I doubt you will notice much difference.

You buy primes because you need the wider aperture for either shallow depth of field or shooting in low light.


----------



## elflord (May 5, 2012)

Cptn Rigo said:


> I everyone!!
> 
> I currently own a 7D, 24-70L, 50 1.4 and 135L, I really like mi 24-70L, its super sharp and love the IQ...
> 
> ...



I don't completely understand the question, but I'll try to address it anyway.

First, what subject matter do you shoot and what is it that has you thinking about primes ?

I made a move to an all prime set because I wanted faster lenses. I I had the 15-85mm and I found it quite good optically but I wanted faster lenses for shallow depth of field and low light. If you look at photozone's reviews (for example) you'll see that the 24-70 struggles at the wide end, so if you wanted a lens just to shoot at 24mm, the 24-70 might not be the best (or even the best zoom lens) 

Basically, I'd suggest go ahead with all primes if you find that style of shooting agreeable, you want faster glass, and don't have much use for the functionality of a zoom lens. 

Hang on to your zooms if you like to be able to rapidly switch between focal lengths and don't have much use for the extra stops. 

BTW I ended up with the 35L, 50 f/1.4, Sigma 85mm f/1.4 and the 135L (with a full frame body). I've found this works really nicely, though the 24L would make more sense for someone shooting a lot of landscapes.


----------



## alipaulphotography (May 5, 2012)

elflord said:


> Cptn Rigo said:
> 
> 
> > I everyone!!
> ...



You've got the same set up as me! Although the 50 1.4 just got upgraded to the 1.2. The set up does work nicely indeed!


----------



## rj79in (May 5, 2012)

Cptn Rigo said:


> I everyone!!
> 
> I currently own a 7D, 24-70L, 50 1.4 and 135L, I really like mi 24-70L, its super sharp and love the IQ...
> 
> ...



Do try out the TSE-24mm, a really outstanding lens with amazing IQ. The learning curve is steep though


----------



## bycostello (May 5, 2012)

depends on how much you wanna carry around...


----------



## l0pht (May 5, 2012)

It all depends on your shooting style. I refuse to shoot with zoom lenses, I think they make you lazy and love the feel and look of prime lenses, especially wide open. But it fits my style. Quality wise there really isn't much difference once you get into the F/4.0+ range but there isn't a single zoom that will look as nice as my 35 or 50 @ 1.4 or my 135 @ 2.0.

YMMV though


----------



## Matthew19 (May 5, 2012)

The 35L on your 7d would be a 55mm equiv. Very useful focal length. I just bought the 24mm 1.4ii and also on the 24-70, 16-35mm. The 24 can get really shallow DOF if the subject is close on my 5d. Its and interesting look, sharper than the zoom for sure. If your doing mostly landscapes at 24mm stopped down then it is less useful.


----------



## Kernuak (May 5, 2012)

l0pht said:


> Quality wise there really isn't much difference once you get into the F/4.0+ range but there isn't a single zoom that will look as nice as my 35 or 50 @ 1.4 or my 135 @ 2.0.
> 
> YMMV though



I would disagree. There is simply no contest between my 24-105 (which is usually considered on a par with or sharper then the 24-70) and my 24 f/1.4 MkII or 135 at any aperture that I tend to use (the gap is undoubtedly smaller around f/8 though). Even my 50mm f/1.4 is a little sharper, with less CA and flare, although I'm inclined to prefer the look of images from the 24-105, due to the difference in contrast. However, I wouldn't want to carry all the primes around all of the time instead of the 24-105, as they aren't as flexibile. Also, the 24-70 MkII is likely to match the primes in image quality, judging by recent releases (such as the 70--200 MkII).


----------



## Cptn Rigo (May 6, 2012)

l0pht said:


> It all depends on your shooting style. I refuse to shoot with zoom lenses, I think they make you lazy and love the feel and look of prime lenses, especially wide open. But it fits my style. Quality wise there really isn't much difference once you get into the F/4.0+ range but there isn't a single zoom that will look as nice as my 35 or 50 @ 1.4 or my 135 @ 2.0.
> 
> YMMV though



Im with you on that... I really love my 50 1.4 and 135 2.0 wide open, the bokeh, the light gathering capacity... I think that some shoots with the 24-70L could be better with faster primes... thats my doubt


----------



## Radiating (May 6, 2012)

Cptn Rigo said:


> I everyone!!
> 
> I currently own a 7D, 24-70L, 50 1.4 and 135L, I really like mi 24-70L, its super sharp and love the IQ...
> 
> ...



Telephoto primes have incredible image quality so you will get much better results with the 85mm 1.2 L or 135mm L.

Do not expect these sorts of results on normal and wide primes. You will get nearly identical image quality with the 24mm II L, 35mm L and 50mm L.

If you want quality I'd recommend getting Canon's upcoming 24-70mmm f/2.8 II L, that lens will have noticably better image quality than Canon's primes or Canon's 24-70mm f/2.8 L. 

Personally I only use telephoto primes. Canon is also gearing to release a 35mm 1.4 II L which might be worthwhile over their f/2.8 zooms but we'll have to see.


----------



## elflord (May 6, 2012)

Radiating said:


> Personally I only use telephoto primes. Canon is also gearing to release a 35mm 1.4 II L which might be worthwhile over their f/2.8 zooms but we'll have to see.



According to photozone's tests, the 24mm prime does quite a lot better than the 24-70 at 24 (quite a bit sharper, less distortion). Normal to wide zooms tend to struggle a bit at their wide end.


----------



## Dylan777 (May 7, 2012)

l0pht said:


> It all depends on your shooting style. I refuse to shoot with zoom lenses, I think they make you lazy and love the feel and look of prime lenses, especially wide open. But it fits my style. Quality wise there really isn't much difference once you get into the F/4.0+ range but there isn't a single zoom that will look as nice as my 35 or 50 @ 1.4 or my 135 @ 2.0.YMMV though



have u try 70-200 f2.8 IS II? I'll this lens over any prime


----------



## Radiating (May 7, 2012)

elflord said:


> Radiating said:
> 
> 
> > Personally I only use telephoto primes. Canon is also gearing to release a 35mm 1.4 II L which might be worthwhile over their f/2.8 zooms but we'll have to see.
> ...



They have nearly identical boarder performance (within 5%) and other websites show they have nearly identical mid frame performance. The 24mm L II is quite a bit sharper than the 24-70mm f/2.8 L in the very center but over the most of the image area they are about even it seems.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 8, 2012)

Cptn Rigo said:


> I currently own a 7D, 24-70L, 50 1.4 and 135L, I really like mi 24-70L, its super sharp and love the IQ...



I'm in the same predicament - I wanted to get a used 35L, but now that the (sealed!) Tamron 24-70is is out at about the same price, I really have doubts. I know it is somewhat strange bordering on stupid to ask "35/1.4 or 24-70/2.8is?", but fact is my budget only includes one of these for the time being, because I still have to get a ff body, more flashes, filters, ... I'll dual-use the lens on my crop body and later on ff.

There's no big center sharpness difference between 35L & 24-70 @f4, at f2.8 it's small. I'll shoot portraits & maybe events/weddings with the lens. Thus my question is: How often do you really use the f1.4 to f2.8 range on the 35L, or do you have it mainly for the stellar iq?


----------



## Random Orbits (May 8, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> There's no big center sharpness difference between 35L & 24-70 @f4, at f2.8 it's small. I'll shoot portraits & maybe events/weddings with the lens. Thus my question is: How often do you really use the f1.4 to f2.8 range on the 35L, or do you have it mainly for the stellar iq?



I use the f/1.4 to f/2.8 range most of the time I'm using the 35L, which is mostly used indoors. I switched from a cropy body to FF recently and sold my 17-55. I did not replace the 17-55 with a FF mid-range zoom, so now I'm using primes (35 and 50). Outside, I tend to use the 50 more often because there is more space and it gives a longer working distance.

I'm tempted to see how well the 24-70L II performs. With 35 and 50 primes, I gain low light capability that I won't have with the 24-70L II and the IQ should be similar, so I don't need a midrange zoom anymore.


----------



## NormanBates (May 8, 2012)

I use all primes, my only zoom is the kit lens that came with the T2i, and I use it as an 18mm f/3.5 prime

the 24-70 f/2.8L is a very nice lens, not far from primes in its range, but still...

even the 24mm f/2.8 (a tiny $360 lens) can beat the 24-70:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=101&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=246&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

you already know about the 50mm f/1.4:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=101&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=115&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4

and on the long end the 85mm f/1.8 will give it some fight too:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=101&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=106&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

the only downside (of course, apart from having to carry lots of lenses around, and taking time to change them) is that bokeh on these cheap primes is not great
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/528-canon2470f28ff?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/419-canon_85_18_5d?start=1



edit:

and of course, not all cheap primes are any good!! some of them are terribly soft, but those 3 I mentioned are among the best budget Canon lenses
more about them here: http://www.similaar.com/foto/equipment/us_lensc.html#prime


----------



## Marsu42 (May 8, 2012)

NormanBates said:


> the only downside (of course, apart from having to carry lots of lenses around, and taking time to change them) is that bokeh on these cheap primes is not great



... and to me, this is a big problem - I ditched my 50/1.8 for this reason, tried the 50/1.4 and its boekeh imho is still rather terrible. I don't want a prime just for fixing my sensor's problems at high iso or for lacking IS, but for more photographic possibilities - and bokeh is important in this case.


----------



## Cptn Rigo (May 9, 2012)

alipaulphotography said:


> elflord said:
> 
> 
> > Cptn Rigo said:
> ...



How about the 50 1.2 vs 50 1.4??? It is worthy?? $$$$


----------



## Cptn Rigo (May 9, 2012)

NormanBates said:


> I use all primes, my only zoom is the kit lens that came with the T2i, and I use it as an 18mm f/3.5 prime
> 
> the 24-70 f/2.8L is a very nice lens, not far from primes in its range, but still...
> 
> ...



thank you for the extensive answer


----------



## dirtcastle (May 9, 2012)

If you have time to change lenses... use primes.

If you don't have time to change lenses... use a zoom.


----------

