# 24-70mm II or primes?



## daniela (Mar 17, 2016)

Hi!

Now my professional Situation has changed and I am owner of muuuch more leisure. Reducing the working hours is really fine.
I have updated my equipment for wildlife photography. Updating my lens situation in the range from 24-70mm ist still a "to do". Primarily to photograph landscape and my children. Focus is on Image Quality.

So, I need your experience: Option 1 is to buy the 24-70II from Canon (no IS). 
Option 2: I own the 24mm 2.8 IS Canon lens (I am happy with it) and the 70-200mm IS zoom 2.8 from Canon. If I buy the Tamron 1.8 35mm lens (seems to be very sharp as I read in tests) and the Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art I would own 24-35-50-70mm primes that (in tests) have an better IQ, have IS and have an better bokeh. 
What would you do?

Daniela


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 17, 2016)

It really depends on your photographic circumstances. A few people here on CR have said that professionally they use zooms for the flexibility and at leisure they use primes. I can really relate to this point of view too. 

It sounds like you are using them for leisure, and if you'd get more pleasure using a number of fast primes then go down that route.


----------



## tron (Mar 17, 2016)

daniela said:


> Hi!
> 
> Now my professional Situation has changed and I am owner of muuuch more leisure. Reducing the working hours is really fine.
> I have updated my equipment for wildlife photography. Updating my lens situation in the range from 24-70mm ist still a "to do". Primarily to photograph landscape and my children. Focus is on Image Quality.
> ...


24-70II is an excellent lens. But it is a matter of preference: Not having to change lenses so often versus photographing handheld in less light. It is your choice.


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 17, 2016)

As the others mentioned, it's a matter of preference: More open aperture or more convenience of a zoom.

I just wanted to add that if you consider your "Option 2" buying a 35 mm prime and as you mentioned that you are very pleased with your 24/2.8 IS, then I'd take a closer look at the Canon 35/2.0 IS. 
Compared to the Tamron you're losing a bit of aperture but you gain first party AF and a smaller (C:78x63mm T: 80x80mm) and lighter (C:335g T:480g) lens than the Tamron. It also has a lot of good recommendations and reviews. Also the actual price difference (in Germany: C: 480,- €. T: 700,- €) is making the Canon quite attractive.

I am considering that purchase myself and I came to the conclusion that I'd go for the Canon.

Also please note that this statement 


daniela said:


> ... If I buy the Tamron 1.8 35mm lens (seems to be very sharp as I read in tests) and the Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art I would own 24-35-50-70mm primes that (in tests) have an better IQ, *have IS* and have an better bokeh.


is not 100% correct, because the Sigma has no IS. Here you would have to chose the Tamron 45/1.8 VC.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 17, 2016)

If you enjoy comparing images shot with different lenses by viewing images at 100% on your monitor, you might notice an IQ difference between the zoom and the primes. 

For kids, the flexibility of a zoom is a huge benefit. For landscapes/architecture, I use primes but that's for the tilt/shift capability not IQ per se.


----------



## photennek (Mar 17, 2016)

I have the 24-70 II, 70-200 II IS, and more recently got the 35/f2 IS. I mainly grab shots from my family and especially kids, ages 3 and 7, as they are playing and running around etc and I find the 24-70 invaluable in being able to react to fast moving situations. Personally I find it's image quality to exceed even the 70-200, which is super too.

Then again, since I got the 35/f2, I find that using it makes me grow as a photographer more because of the foot zooming and "different process" in composing the shot and preparing in advance to potential photographic moments. Thus I sometimes use it instead of the zoom, and I enjoy it very much also. It's image quality is also very good, of course, even if it is not the flagship model. Comparing to 24-70, I find it at least equally good when using similar apertures. I enjoy it's IS and ability to focus close, creating very much background blur - the 24-70 doesn't come close in this sense.

So I see the benefits in both, and it really is up to you, there is no right or wrong. I like the flexibility of the zoom and the discipline and the additional benefits of the 35/f2... Personally I like that now I have the option to choose, based on the daily feeling...


----------



## scottkinfw (Mar 17, 2016)

My 2 ccents:

I have 24- 70 2.8 II. I absolutely love the lens. Always great IQ and flexible. Don't need is. I consider it to be the most useful lens with the best IQ.

I also have the 70 - F4/L IS and the 70-200 2.8 IS II. 

The 24-70 bests the 70 -200 in IQ (at least my copies). I also find that the 70-200 2.8 IS II is big and heavy, so it mainly stays at the office while the F 4/L version is lighter and smaller and takes great pics, so it is way more likely to go on trips with me- I don't appreciate any sacrifice in IQ at all vs. the 2.8. With great low light performance of the 5D III (and better with the 5D 4/X) I don't really miss the extra f stops.

Of course, be sure that afma is optimized.

So, that's my gear.

Congrats on less work and more fun, let us know what you choose.

sek


----------



## photojoern.de (Mar 17, 2016)

I own the 24-70 f2.8 II for two years now. Great image quality, comparable to prime fixed focal length lenses, comparable and if not even slightly better than the Canon 70-200 L f4 / f2.8 latest versions. It´s my most used lens, by far. Landscape and Street photography. I don´t see the need for another lens in this focal area until they make the same with an IS. But there´s no rumor regarding this issue. So, buy it and you won´t regret it.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Mar 17, 2016)

It really depends on what is important to you and what you are trying to achieve.
I still believe that the older mk I was a slightly more versatile lens. It had a much better semi macro capabilities and due to the reverse nature of the zoom (as it got wider in focal length it lot longer in physical length) it's focal length got longer at the long end as the focus drew closer. It was amazing at differential focus type of shots at 70mm..which isn't very well documented and something that the newer mk II doesn't do as well.

The new mk II is a lot sharper and a little wider at the wide end and at the long end of the zoom range too. The new hood is next to hopeless compared to the old one...but it is better and handling flare and better contrast. 
It's light and easy to use and very versatile. But like all versatile lenses...it's the master of none.

Primes, generally need a body for each prime to match the same versatility and you need more of them. This is expensive and heavy. You also need a carry / bag system that can cope with multiple cams. The best primes are the L fast primes and they are very expensive and quite heavy for what they are...but they are nearly indestructible
and have great resale value. My preference is a 24mm f1.4 IIL, a 35mm f1.4 L and an 85mm f1.2IIL. These are several stops brighter than the zoom but I lack a 50mm in there...it's just not me. I'd rather use a 35mm and move closer...I like the images better. But it's a hassle using these three lenses on an assignment compared to the zoom...but the results wide open really make the subject pop out of the background compared to the f2.8 zoom. The larger aperture makes the backgrounds a lot easier to decouple in my opinion. 
But is you need versatility...go the zoom...or for landscape work...definitely get the zoom. For walkabouts...certainly get the zoom! But for relatively still portrait subjects which you have control over...then the primes are in a different league.


----------



## docsmith (Mar 17, 2016)

daniela said:


> I have updated my equipment for wildlife photography. Updating my lens situation in the range from 24-70mm ist still a "to do". Primarily to photograph landscape and my children. Focus is on Image Quality.
> 
> So, I need your experience: Option 1 is to buy the 24-70II from Canon (no IS).
> Option 2: I own the 24mm 2.8 IS Canon lens (I am happy with it) and the 70-200mm IS zoom 2.8 from Canon. If I buy the Tamron 1.8 35mm lens (seems to be very sharp as I read in tests) and the Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art I would own 24-35-50-70mm primes that (in tests) have an better IQ, have IS and have an better bokeh.
> What would you do?


First. I would think that 24-35-50-70 mm primes would be overkill, IMO. Most people I see have primes at 24, 50 and 135 mm or 35, 85, 135 mm. I would focus on quality over quantity if you go this prime route. 

As to what I think you should do, my best guess is that the 24-70 II would be the best compromise between landscape and children. And "compromise" seems like a silly word, because really, it is an amazing lens for both.

I have the 24-70 II and a couple of primes (50A, TSE 24 II, etc). For a long while I primarily used the 24-70 II. But I've been working my primes in to the point where I am probably 30% prime and 70% zoom. But the deal is simple and obvious, any great lens is an amazing tool that lets you do amazing things. Amazing, but always limited. The zooms are more flexible and I get great pictures zooming in and out, adapting quickly and easily to different situations. But the primes, wow, it doesn't even have to be atf/1.4. But the corner to corner sharpness and minimized vignetting (or noise introduced when fixing in post) can really make some images pop, even at more narrow apertures such as f/5.6. I actually shoot my primes f/2.8-f/5.6 more than any other aperture. Of course, I do open them up to f/1.4-f/2.8 when desired, but there is something special about primes. 

So: 
24-70 II = flexibility to take amazing pictures at different focal lengths and adapt to changing situations with minimal effort.
Primes = Potential for special shots but you lose the flexibility to quickly adapt focal length

Either way, with quality glass you will have the potential to get great images. But either way, you will be limited in some way, shape or form. 

But, again, because of the kids, I would think you would want the zoom. You would probably miss more "moments" by loosing the flexibility of the zoom vs the prime route.


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 17, 2016)

Get the 24-70 II first. My copy of the 24-70 II and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II are consistent with the results at TDP. My 70-200 is better at 70mm, but the 24-70 is still very good there and gets better with the shorter focal lengths, and it is primelike compared to the 24L II, 35L, 50L. The newer stuff (50A, 35A, 35L II) beat it, but then they should.

There is nothing like first party AF. I've used the 24-70 II for indoor basketball and volleyball, and it performs very well. I recently picked up the 20Art on discount, and it's IQ is great but it doesn't focus like a Canon. I have a 5DIII, and it hits accurately at the center point after AFMA, but it front focuses with the left and right outer points (so it's not a decentering issue). It's also not as fast and consistent as Canon primes. There are also many cases (here at CanonRumors and elsewhere) that report AF inconsistencies/inaccuracy with the 35A and 50A. Reliable and accurate AF is great to have when taking photos of kids on the move. 

Agree with Maximilian on looking into the Canon 35 f/2 IS instead of the Tamron 35 f/1.8 VC. I'd gladly give up that 1/3 of a stop for Canon AF and for a smaller price.

I would also suggest that you consider if you plan on getting a UWA lens in the future. If you do, that could affect your midrange choice. Before the 24-70 II came out, I used a 16-35, 50, 70-xxx combo. Fast 50 also helped with inside shots where I could trade DOF/ISO/flash usage. At the end, it all comes down to priorities and budgets. The 24-70 is one of the most heavily used lenses for many photographers (including me) and for good reason. It delivers in IQ, has great AF and is very versatile. There will be times where you would prefer using a prime, but if you go prime, there will be a lot more instances where you wish you had the zoom.


----------



## JonAustin (Mar 17, 2016)

daniela said:


> I own the 24mm 2.8 IS Canon lens (I am happy with it) and the 70-200mm IS zoom 2.8 from Canon. If I buy the Tamron 1.8 35mm lens (seems to be very sharp as I read in tests) and the Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art I would own 24-35-50-70mm primes that (in tests) have an better IQ, have IS and have an better bokeh.



You didn't state whether your 70+200/2.8 IS is the I or II version, and while both are brilliant zooms, I wouldn't qualify either as a "70mm prime" ... too big and heavy, and not especially fast.

I agree with other posters that the 24-70/2.8L II might be the better choice for your application. However, if you do decide to go the primes route, I would recommend either the 85/1.8 or 100/2 and -- if you really feel the need for something in the middle after using one of these with your 24/2.8IS, either a 35 or 45-50. And I concur with Maximilian on recommending that you consider the Canon 35/2 IS, if you decide you want a prime at that FL.


----------



## Zeidora (Mar 17, 2016)

For IQ, primes beat zooms of equal vintage/quality level (e.g. L-zoom vs. L-prime). Needless to say, depends what you care about (distortion), how much you are prepared to fiddle on computer (various chromatic aberrations), and target output/size. Once you print >A3, you will see the difference.

IS should be irrelevant for landscapes, because landscapes are mainly shot on tripod. If you really want IQ, think hard about Zeiss. For landscapes, I would also consider TS lens instead of IS. I don't find 24-35-50 an overkill at all, have 25-35-55 myself. I don't have TS lenses (yet), because I shoot LF for serious landscapes with much more refined adjustment options than SLR-TS can offer.


----------



## NancyP (Mar 17, 2016)

Don't knock the usefulness of the very recent cheapo STM primes from Canon, particularly when assembling a multilens landscape kit that you need to carry for a long distance. Remember, for landscape generally you have a tripod and a lens stopped down to f/8 or thereabouts. I really like the Shorty Forty (EF 40mm f/2.8 STM) - bought it used for $125.00 - it has supplanted the Sigma Art 35mm f/1.4 for long-haul hiking, unless I plan to do some night landscape. Typical hiking kit for landscape and macro: 21mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.8, 125mm f/2.5 macro, 6D. If I happened to be working in a dusty harsh environment, that would be the perfect use for a 24-70 or 24-105, to avoid lens changes.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 17, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> The larger aperture makes the backgrounds a lot easier to decouple in my opinion.
> 
> ...But for relatively still portrait subjects which you have control over...then the primes are in a different league.



Thanks for sharing an image! Without meaning to offend, I will say that your example highlights a couple of potentially negative things about that 'different league' of the prime lens. 

In your example, your DoF is thin enough that only one of the two subjects is in crisp focus - in addition to decoupling subject from background, you seem to have decoupled your two subjects from one another, or to put it another way you've included one half of the couple as background. Now it may be that was intentional, but still, if I was one member of that couple in the image I would be less than pleased that one of us was blurry.

The other thing that's evident in your example is that fast primes shot at wide apertures generally suffer from noticeable longitudinal CA. Personally, I find the green fringing around the male subject's shirt collar and around the gold accent on his jacket collar to be distracting. 

Stopping down would have eliminated both of those considerations, and I suspect f/2.8 would still have provided good background separation. Having said that, a faster aperture cetainly offers creative opportunities not available with zoom lenses if used judiciously.


----------



## takesome1 (Mar 17, 2016)

I was a prime over zoom user when I owned the 24-70mm original. The IQ was just not where I wanted it to be.
The IQ argument for the most part went away when the 24-70 II was released. I own the 24mm f.1.4 II and 35mm f/1.4 II. The IQ of these two lens isn't significantly different from the 24-70 II when shot at equal apertures. You have to be an extreme pixel peeper to notice the subtle differences, and I am one of those that notice.

But, the 24 and 35mm can do things that the 24-70 II cannot and that is shoot at wider apertures. They open up a wider range of creative ability. 

If you do not use an aperture wider than F/2.8 and you do not care about tilt shift I see no reason to go prime over the 24-70 II. A few years back I would have told you the opposite when there was only the 24-70 original.


----------



## Pookie (Mar 17, 2016)

daniela said:


> Hi!
> 
> Now my professional Situation has changed and I am owner of muuuch more leisure. Reducing the working hours is really fine.
> I have updated my equipment for wildlife photography. Updating my lens situation in the range from 24-70mm ist still a "to do". Primarily to photograph landscape and my children. Focus is on Image Quality.
> ...



If money is not an issue... why do you have to choose one over the other. Why not a set of primes and zooms? You'll appreciate a wider ap when darker and the zooms when time & situation calls for it.


----------



## takesome1 (Mar 17, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > The larger aperture makes the backgrounds a lot easier to decouple in my opinion.
> ...



I wonder which lens created the green fringing. I do not own the 85mm L but I haven't noticed this in the 24mm or 35mm, at least without major pixel peeping.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 17, 2016)

After using primes for years due to my dislike for the 24-70L MK II (I owned 5 of them), when I tried the MK II, the primes were never used again. Changing primes was a pain, I often could not move to compose a image, and the flexibility of the zoom combined with IQ equal to or better than the primes plus the high ISO capability of the 5D MK III just made me reach for the zoom every time.

One exception was the 16-35mm L, I could never warm up to it, so I kept one old 17mm Prime, the Tokina 17mm f/3.5. I seldom use it, but it was cheap, so I just hang on to it.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Mar 17, 2016)

I've an excellent set of zoom lens for my 6D, I've bought into primes and lensbaby for fun, just to add a different dimension... My photos go on Flickr at 1600 pixels along the long side... That's all...

But what makes you happy, but don't fall into the delusion that glass will make you happy, you need the experiences in life where you get to use your glass... That's what makes the photo, subjects not quality of equipment


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 17, 2016)

When I purchased my 24-70 f/2.8L II I quickly sold my 24-105L, 24L, 35L, and 50L because the IQ of the zoom was noticeably better.


----------



## Viggo (Mar 17, 2016)

Had lots and lots of fun with the 24-70 II. But since I sold it and traded in the 35 L II and the 85 L II, I have not missed it for a second. I'm a sucker for fast shutters and shallow dof.


----------



## gsealy (Mar 18, 2016)

I have the 24-70II and it is an awesome lens for a zoom. It is f2.8 all the way and I usually set it to f4. I like it when I have a dynamic situation calling for AF. Perhaps I am attending a gathering with people moving about, and so on. I know that I will get quality shots. But I have also invested in primes in that FL region. I have been going more with the Zeiss products, recently purchasing the Milvus 85mm f1.4. These are manual focus only and the Zeiss lens are hard to beat. These are static or nearly static situations, and it is a different shooting experience for me. It is a little more rewarding and fun.


----------



## slclick (Mar 18, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > The larger aperture makes the backgrounds a lot easier to decouple in my opinion.
> ...



2 planes of people in a portrait? I'd go to f/4 if not 5.6


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 18, 2016)

I've moved in the direction you've suggested. I used to shoot a 24-70 and then pick it up with the 70-200 II. And then the Sigma 50 Art hooked me into primes. I also share your type of photography. Combination of outdoor wildlife and indoor (kids) wildlife. Some learnings:

- A few of the new wide angle zooms are so good, that I don't think you get any benefit from having a prime in that space. It's not just the Canon 11-24 L. The 24-35 Sigma and the 15-30 Tamron are about as good in their focal lengths the primes. If you play around with The-Digital-Picture's example image comparison tool, you'll find, for instance, that the Sigma zoom is a little better than Canon's 24mm L II prime, even shooting the Canon at f/2. That said I'd go (and did) with the Tamron for the VC, which is quite good. You could also consider the 16-35 f/4 IS. When I tested one, it wasn't as sharp as the other options, but many people say the opposite, so I may have had a bum copy. The f/4 wasn't going to do it for me, though. 

- Once you have one of those zooms, it doesn't make sense to have a separate 35mm prime, unless you really need the low light capacity. If you were to go with a 35 prime for low light, the new Cannon 35 II is amazing. I own it, but I'm selling it because I can't justify the extra money versus the Tamron 35, which I'm about to buy. I do not find my Canon 35 L II to be any better at focus speed than my Simga 50mm Art, despite many people repeating on forums of various sorts that Canons are faster. 

- You must have the Sigma 50mm Art, as you surmised. 

- You might consider going for a Tamron 85 1.8 VC rather than assume the 70-200 will take over. It's much more portable and has more than a stop advantage on it. The MTFs make it look like it's as sharp or sharper as well.

- Then you have your 70-200 for low light telephoto. If you're serious about having fun with wildlife, you'll want the 100-400 II either as an addition or replacement.


----------



## Efka76 (Mar 18, 2016)

I have Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC which can be considered as equivalent for Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Sigma 50 1.4 Art and Canon 70-200 2.8L II IS USM. The 70-200 lens is really good, however, I use it very rarely because it is heavy and not very comfortable to carry. Also, in many cases I shoot portraits and 200 mm is too long for me (also, do not like that background is too blurred when shooting close portraits using 200 mm). 24-70 is the most used lens, which is really perfect in almost all conditions. So, I use it most of the time. Zoom lenses are very easy to use, comfortable to carry. However, when I want really crisp images, which have the most beautiful bokeh and light conditions are not perfect - Sigma 50 1.4 Art is the best option. It is heavy, however, produce really very high quality images. Conclusion is simple: you have to assess what is you shooting style, what are usual shooting conditions, are you ready to take with you 3 primes instead one quality zoom and carry the whole day, whether you do not see burden of constant change of primes on your camera and other aspects. My advice for you would be to buy Canon 24-70 2.8L II and 1 prime lense depending what objects you shoot the most.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Mar 18, 2016)

I owned the 24-70 mk1 and tried the 24-70 mk2 and returned it. I decided that primes offered more in terms of iq. It boils down to what you shoot though. For landscapes i would stay with primes. If you shoot weddings or events where it is more challenging to adjust your framing then the zoom may be a better option.

Incidentally, i returned the 24-70 mk2 due to non linear focus issues. If i adjusted the afma to focus perfectly at infinity, the focus was off at 20 ft and vice versa.


----------



## J.R. (Mar 18, 2016)

East Wind Photography said:


> For landscapes i would stay with primes.



Why would you say that? 

Landscapes would normally be shot stopped down quite a bit, wouldn't that make the case of the zoom stronger? 

Not trying to be smart here, just want to understand your point of view on this.


----------



## Viggo (Mar 18, 2016)

J.R. said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > For landscapes i would stay with primes.
> ...



Less distortion?


----------



## J.R. (Mar 18, 2016)

Viggo said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > East Wind Photography said:
> ...



Could be, but in how many landscapes would you be worried excessively about distortion? To my understanding, unless you have some geometrical shapes and a number of straight lines in your landscapes you wouldn't even notice the amount of distortion one gets from the 24-70 II. 

That being said, my typical landscapes are taken in a rough mountain terrain which doesn't show distortion in my images - I mean, it must be there but I don't notice it. Cityscapes could be a problem but then I've got the 17 TSE for that.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 18, 2016)

J.R. said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > For landscapes i would stay with primes.
> ...



Agreed. In general, primes offer no meaningful IQ advantage over the 24-70 II at f/8 (and arguably not at f/2.8, either). They offer a wider aperture, which is usually of no benefit for landscapes. They're lighter, but if you have to carry 2-3 of them to get the framing you'll need that advantage evaporates, too. 

The 24-70/2.8 II delivers excellent IQ, and allows framing flexibility, from a single shot to a pano in portrait orientation.

_Kapellbrücke at Night_



EOS 1D X, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM @ 50mm, 20 s, f/11, ISO 200

_Rhine Basel_



EOS 1D X, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM @ 59mm, 10 s, f/9, ISO 400; 13 shots in portrait orientation


IMO, the only primes that provide a significant advantage are the TS-E lenses, which enable shots not possible with other lenses, e.g. use of tilt for close foreground to background sharpness at reasonable apertures which avoid diffraction softening.

_Rathaus Basel_



EOS 1D X, TS-E 17mm f/4L, 30 s, f/11, ISO 100


----------



## Viggo (Mar 18, 2016)

J.R. said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > J.R. said:
> ...



Bendy horizons are distracting.


----------



## ThePhotoBrewery (Mar 18, 2016)

Hello Daniela, 

I recently sold a couple of third party prime and zoom lenses (the zoom had image stabilization) and switched to the Canon 24-70 2.8 L II. The missing stabilization has not been a problem for me at all and so far I am very happy with this lens. 

I am not an expert regarding technical or scientific image quality but I found that the lens performs as well as a prime lens and is now my go to lens for almost everything I do. However, the lens is very prone to lens flare (which is an effect I like so not an issue for me) but I can thoroughly recommend it. 

Best of luck with your search!


----------



## East Wind Photography (Mar 18, 2016)

J.R. said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > For landscapes i would stay with primes.
> ...



In my opinion the 24-70 does not have consistent IQ at all focal lengths. Aside from the AF issue I was having, and LS should be manual focused anyway, I found it particularly "soft" at the 70 end. 24 was better. A great prime will always consistently perform (if its a good prime) and many do correct for distortion but these days that can be corrected in camera or in post.

I just had way too many issues with the 24-70 for the money paid...and now the reports of coatings issues on some copies. I think specifically for landscape work, your money is better spent on something else.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 18, 2016)

When you look at a lens of the overall quality that the 24-70 II has, the zoom vs prime debate has nothing really to do with IQ; it's just down to the personality of the shooter. When I'm not under pressure to deliver I just like having a small, well balanced fixed focal length lens on the camera at any one time, with a very bright viewfinder: it's just a personal thing. 

Incidentally Colin Prior, who is probably the best known and most successful (genuinely professional) landscape photographer of recent times in the UK uses the 24-70 II, 70-200 II and TS-E 24 on FF digital. 

Just a point on the distortion differences: it is very easily corrected in post, as is nearly everything these days, but when stitching an image that has a flat horizon such as the sea, a low distorting prime with a shallow nodal point does make it easier to get the joins right and the horizon flat. Just analysing why I do what I do I think that this has some bearing on me liking primes; this and the fact that they are smaller and lighter on the camera. Which is why I'm not interested in lenses like the Sigma 50 Art. 

Having said all that I reckon that over 50% of the images on my website are shot with a zoom.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 18, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> ...with a very bright viewfinder



I trust you're aware that unless you've swapped out the stock focus screen for a -S high precision screen, there's no difference in viewfinder brightness between an f/2.8 zoom and an f/1.4 prime...


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 18, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > ...with a very bright viewfinder
> ...



Good point ! But yes, I use the 's' screens all the time, even when using f/4 zooms. Again, it's personal preference, but I like to see the real dof at focus even if I'm going to be stopped down well beyond it.


----------



## J.R. (Mar 18, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> when stitching an image that has a flat horizon such as the sea, a low distorting prime with a shallow nodal point does make it easier to get the joins right and the horizon flat. Just analysing why I do what I do I think that this has some bearing on me liking primes; this and the fact that they are smaller and lighter on the camera.



I have the 40mm pancake for that


----------



## J.R. (Mar 18, 2016)

East Wind Photography said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > East Wind Photography said:
> ...



Thanks EWP ... Given your troubles with your 24-70 II, I understand the point of view.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 18, 2016)

J.R. said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > J.R. said:
> ...



Not sure I do. I bought a Rokinon 14/2.8 that was horribly soft in one corner, I exchanged it and got an excellent copy. Granted, such things should happen less often with a Canon L lens than a SamBowRok lens, but still this seems like throwing the baby out with the bath water.


----------



## J.R. (Mar 18, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > East Wind Photography said:
> ...



In all fairness, I did mention "your 24-70 II" in my comment ... I gather it is a personal choice for him.


----------



## J.R. (Mar 18, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > East Wind Photography said:
> ...



In all fairness, I did mention "your 24-70 II" in my comment ... I gather it is a personal choice for him, and that answered the question I had raised


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 18, 2016)

J.R. said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > J.R. said:
> ...



Ahhh, but that personal choice was then phrased as a general recommendation to others.


----------



## J.R. (Mar 18, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



You can say that again 

Anyhow, very nice images posted to this thread John.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Mar 24, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > ...with a very bright viewfinder
> ...



Or depth of field too...which is why my 5DII's have the fine focus screen. The difference through the view finder is quite apparent.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Mar 24, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > The larger aperture makes the backgrounds a lot easier to decouple in my opinion.
> ...



Firstly, it isn't good form to critique another's photo on an open forum, I avoid doing so even when severely tempted. I have done so on a few occasions and it rarely ends well  I am a professional and maybe my choice of image to present here wasn't ideal. I wasn't expecting my work to be scrutinized. By way of explanation, this image is one photo from a supplied set of images from their day. This particular photo's narrative is about her and her new man, it's part of a three image set. Another (not shown) centering on him and the other is them both. It's just one photo from a larger collection. 
The CA in this shot is so minimal...it's not a problem to me or the couple. I have had some purple fringing on spectacular highlights on some images, but this is easily corrected. But CA is really not that much of a distraction or a problem. 
Maybe this photo would be more to your taste, from a family portrait shoot last year:




I'm sure you can see how decoupled the background is and how in focus the two subjects are. 

The same is true with wild life...primes offer the same decoupling and flat plane of focus, a similar technique for sure:




Canon 5DIII, 400mm f2.8 LIS and a 1.4x TC


----------



## pwp (Mar 25, 2016)

daniela said:


> Option 1 is to buy the 24-70II from Canon.
> What would you do?
> Daniela


Daniela, go with option 1. 

I could hardly tell you how many times I've posted on CR that the 24-70 MkII is such an outstandingly strong performer, I've sold off the primes that I had in the 24-50 focal length range. The 24-70 f/2.8 MkII bears no comparison to the old MkI 24-70 f/2.8. There are ok copies of that lens in existence but an overwhelming percentage of them were pretty hopeless. The weak MkI was the reason I bought three very high quality primes. That reason evaporated the day I bought the 24-70 f/2.8 MkII. I'm not alone in this experience. Other posts in this thread validate this. 

-pw


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 25, 2016)

My 24-70 f/2.8L II is perfect. I wouldn't get a prime unless I needed a faster lens. Mine is soooo sharp! It is an expensive lens, but well worth the money. I guess it might cost less than getting primes to cover this range. Not sure.

I hope you really like whatever you decide fits your needs best.


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 25, 2016)

> My 24-70 f/2.8L II is perfect. I wouldn't get a prime unless I needed a faster lens. Mine is soooo sharp! It is an expensive lens, but well worth the money. I guess it might cost less than getting primes to cover this range. Not sure.
> 
> I hope you really like whatever you decide fits your needs best.



+1


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 25, 2016)

pwp said:


> daniela said:
> 
> 
> > Option 1 is to buy the 24-70II from Canon.
> ...


When the 24-70 MkII came out, many of the reviewers were making comments about how it was sharper than the primes it replaced....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 25, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Firstly, it isn't good form to critique another's photo on an open forum, I avoid doing so even when severely tempted. I have done so on a few occasions and it rarely ends well  I am a professional and maybe my choice of image to present here wasn't ideal.



Apologies, as I tried to state the point wasn't specifically about the image, but rather the fact that it illustrates that the wide aperture and thus shallow DoF of a fast prime is not always an advantage. You mention a shot with both subjects in focus - I wonder if that was taken at faster than f/2.8?




GMCPhotographics said:


> The CA in this shot is so minimal...it's not a problem to me or the couple. I have had some purple fringing on spectacular highlights on some images, but this is easily corrected. But CA is really not that much of a distraction or a problem.



I indicated that I (as in me, personally) found the CA objectionable. Everyone has different standards. Fact remains that LoCA is a 'feature' of fast primes, I see it in my 35L, 85L II, and 135L - and when I had the 85/1.8, that was the tragic flaw in what's otherwise I think the best IQ for dollar value in Canon's lineup.




GMCPhotographics said:


> Maybe this photo would be more to your taste, from a family portrait shoot last year:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nice portrait, and it works wide open because their faces are in the same plane instead of at different distances. But certainly I can acheive crisp subject focus and background decoupling with an f/2.8 zoom. 






Likewise, that flat plane of focus with foreground and background blur are not restricted to primes. 

Overall, my point to the OP is that primes are not 'magic', and the 24-70/2.8L II is equal to or better than most primes – even L lenses – in it's range from an IQ standpoint. Faster lenses give you the flexibility to choose a shallower DoF if desired, zooms give the flexibility to rapidly and easily change framing. Personally, I want both options which is why I have both zooms and primes...but the zooms see far more use, and the 24-70/2.8L II is my most-used lens.


----------



## nc0b (Mar 25, 2016)

I guess discussing the subject of extremely shallow depth of field, and in some cases significant CA, can get dicey. About a year ago a series of sample photos were posted, and the subject was a darling young girl with very creative poses. The lens used was a 50mm f/1.2 shot wide open. Both eyes were tack sharp, but nothing else. The tip of her nose was blurry, her ears were totally out of focus, and the CA of the polka dots on her blouse were strikingly awful, at least to me. Even her rosy cheeks had no skin texture. I asked two questions: Artistically why would one choose such a paper thin depth of field, and why would I spend $1500 on a lens with so much chromatic aberration? In other cases a photo may have the head rotated at a modest angle, and only one eye is sharp. A few comments later followed discussing why a DOF of 1/4 inch was good (or not), yet there was not one comment about obvious CA being distracting. So I will go out on a limb and post an outdoor portrait shot at f/5 using a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II at 135mm, ISO 400 on a lowly 40D. From my subjective point of view, the DOF is what I want, with some modest blur of the ears and hair that work for me. I cannot find the slightest CA, which at least is important to me. I am still scratching my head as to why we buy expensive equipment and then choose to have only one tiny part of the picture in focus. There are two subjects here: artistic choices and how important are lens aberrations to the overall presentation?


----------



## Viggo (Mar 25, 2016)

I've tried many times to shoot the same things at 2.8 ("zoom aperture") and wide open with my primes over the years. And the conclusion for me is that the shot looses a lot of flavor and pop at 2.8 and smaller when the 1.2 and 1.4 shots look the way I like. And one eye sharp and the other not and so? I don't shoot at mfd very often so I have not that problem at all.

Here's a fun comparison , lots of dof vs small dof and my favorite piece of gear ever, a flash vs no flash.


----------



## Alex_M (Mar 25, 2016)

Viggo,

What was the focus length, aperture and distance to subject (photo on the left)?

Was that at 24 mm and approximately 1 m to the girl?



Viggo said:


> I've tried many times to shoot the same things at 2.8 ("zoom aperture") and wide open with my primes over the years. And the conclusion for me is that the shot looses a lot of flavor and pop at 2.8 and smaller when the 1.2 and 1.4 shots look the way I like. And one eye sharp and the other not and so? I don't shoot at mfd very often so I have not that problem at all.
> 
> Here's a fun comparison , lots of dof vs small dof and my favorite piece of gear ever, a flash vs no flash.


----------



## Viggo (Mar 25, 2016)

35mm @ f14 I think. Distance about 1-1,5 meter I guess.


----------



## d (Mar 25, 2016)

Nice comparison, Viggo! Amazing what a pop of light can do.

Cheers,
d.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Mar 25, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > Firstly, it isn't good form to critique another's photo on an open forum, I avoid doing so even when severely tempted. I have done so on a few occasions and it rarely ends well  I am a professional and maybe my choice of image to present here wasn't ideal.
> ...



Those are two very nice shots. You are quite right, shallow DOF are not the primary (sorry for the pun) of fast primes. But it is easier to control for a given focal length and working distance. The photo with the couple in the woods was taken with an 85mm f1.2 wide open. During the same shoot I used a 70-200mm f2.8 wide open and at 200mm to achieve the same melted background. So yes an f2.8 zoom can achieve the same decoupling, but at a much longer focal length. A 24-70mm f2.8 will not be able to achieve the same thin DOF as an 85mm f1.2 prime, while assuming the same distance to the subject, which was the point I was trying to make and probably failing to. 
There are a few reasons I prefer an 85mm f1.2 over a 70-700 2.8. Firstly as I have already mentioned, it is easier to control the background, although it is far harder to work with a very thin DOF in the first place. Secondly, I really like the focal length for portraiture. It's working distance is still quite close for a head and shoulders shot, where as a 200mm tends to move me quite a distance from the subject and becomes less personable. Also the 85mm focal length has less telephoto compression which I find more flattering to a person's face.
I use my 24-70mm a lot and on bright sunny days it's just too bright to use fast primes wide open. Sometimes the zoom is way more convenient and my first go to lens. Which brings me back to my original point: primes offer more brightness and a little more control over DOF while zooms offer more versatility and working speed. It really depends on your shooting needs and preference. When I shoot a wedding, I'm not constrained to only primes or only zooms. I tend to mix for a blend of creativity and versatility. My typical starting point is a 16-35IIL, a 35L and 85IIL, each on it's own full frame camera. I can pretty much cover most of the day with those three lenses. But I might swap out a 100LIS macro, 70-200 f2.8, 135L or 24-70L as needed for any given situation.


----------



## awair (Mar 25, 2016)

I've nowhere near the level of experience (or gear) of many of the others who have contributed here; but how about the 24-70/4L?

In considering flexibility and convenience, this lens is also significantly lighter, which makes for a more comfortable day's shooting.

I normally shoot with the 135/2L, and needed a more "general-purpose" lens. I looked at the 24-105/4L and the 24-70/2.8L, which were both of a similar size/weight. I quickly settled on the newer 24-70/4L, which 'ticks the boxes' in my case.

It's also considerably cheaper!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 25, 2016)

Viggo said:


> I've tried many times to shoot the same things at 2.8 ("zoom aperture") and wide open with my primes over the years. And the conclusion for me is that the shot looses a lot of flavor and pop at 2.8 and smaller when the 1.2 and 1.4 shots look the way I like.
> 
> Here's a fun comparison , lots of dof vs small dof





Viggo said:


> 35mm @ f14 I think. Distance about 1-1,5 meter I guess.



35mm, 4 feet to subject, f/1.4 vs f/2.8 DoF is 4" vs 8". Shooting a reasonably close subject at f/2.8 doesn't yield lots of DoF, so while your comparison is a fun one, it doesn't illustrate the 'pop' of f/1.4 vs f/2.8 (the lighting comparison is great, though). With a single, not too close subject I'll often shoot wider than f/2.8 when using a prime, but f/2.8 can deliver plenty of pop. 

When I got my f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses, I went through a 'because I can' phase. But I quickly learned to choose an aperture that gives sufficient DoF for the subject, and with the subjects that the OP mentioned – landscapes and children (plural) – that almost always means f/2.8 or narrower.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 25, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Those are two very nice shots. You are quite right, shallow DOF are not the primary (sorry for the pun) of fast primes. But it is easier to control for a given focal length and working distance. The photo with the couple in the woods was taken with an 85mm f1.2 wide open. During the same shoot I used a 70-200mm f2.8 wide open and at 200mm to achieve the same melted background. So yes an f2.8 zoom can achieve the same decoupling, but at a much longer focal length. A 24-70mm f2.8 will not be able to achieve the same thin DOF as an 85mm f1.2 prime, while assuming the same distance to the subject, which was the point I was trying to make and probably failing to.
> There are a few reasons I prefer an 85mm f1.2 over a 70-700 2.8. Firstly as I have already mentioned, it is easier to control the background, although it is far harder to work with a very thin DOF in the first place. Secondly, I really like the focal length for portraiture. It's working distance is still quite close for a head and shoulders shot, where as a 200mm tends to move me quite a distance from the subject and becomes less personable. Also the 85mm focal length has less telephoto compression which I find more flattering to a person's face.



85mm f/1.2 at 10 feet, DoF is ~3.5". Take a step forward to match framing at 70mm f/2.8, DoF is ~8.5". I certainly agree that the wider aperture offers more control over background, but in many cases the DoF is too shallow unless you have just one subject directly facing the camera (or more than one aligned on the same plane, as in your example).




GMCPhotographics said:


> I use my 24-70mm a lot and on bright sunny days it's just too bright to use fast primes wide open. Sometimes the zoom is way more convenient and my first go to lens. Which brings me back to my original point: primes offer more brightness and a little more control over DOF while zooms offer more versatility and working speed. It really depends on your shooting needs and preference. When I shoot a wedding, I'm not constrained to only primes or only zooms. I tend to mix for a blend of creativity and versatility. My typical starting point is a 16-35IIL, a 35L and 85IIL, each on it's own full frame camera. I can pretty much cover most of the day with those three lenses. But I might swap out a 100LIS macro, 70-200 f2.8, 135L or 24-70L as needed for any given situation.



On bright sunny days when I'm taking pics of just one person, I use a 3-stop ND on the 85L. I agree with your original point, and that's why I have both fast primes and relatively fast zooms. Also, shooting with three different lenses on three different bodies is a different sort of flexibiility, and one that can obviate the need for a zoom (but also one that most casual shooters don't have).

In the context of the OP's post (landscapes and children), it seems quite clear the 24-70/2.8L II would be a better choice than a bag full of primes.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 25, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...



Looks like there has been a serious break-down in relationships in the second picture !


----------



## Viggo (Mar 25, 2016)

No matter what I shoot with a close subject the dof is less with the faster lens, and it looks better, simple as that. It might not be a lot in inches, but no doubt the subject stands out more with less dof. 8)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 25, 2016)

Viggo said:


> No matter what I shoot with a close subject the dof is less with the faster lens, and it looks better, simple as that. It might not be a lot in inches, but no doubt the subject stands out more with less dof.



I suppose it depends on how you define 'looks better'. When shooting outdoor portraits of my two daughters, using f/1.2 means the background is more blurred, sure...but also generally means one of the two girls' faces is not in sharp focus. To me, an out-of-focus face does *not* look better, so I'll trade some background blur by shooting at f/2.8 or f/4 so my their faces can both be in sharp focus.


----------



## Viggo (Mar 25, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > No matter what I shoot with a close subject the dof is less with the faster lens, and it looks better, simple as that. It might not be a lot in inches, but no doubt the subject stands out more with less dof.
> ...



Absolutely, we all have a different point of view, no issue there 8) to include both kids in one shot never happens, lol. And with the 85 wide open I still have a bit of distance so that their whole head is in focus.


----------



## Refurb7 (Mar 26, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> My 24-70 f/2.8L II is perfect. I wouldn't get a prime unless I needed a faster lens. Mine is soooo sharp! It is an expensive lens, but well worth the money. I guess it might cost less than getting primes to cover this range. Not sure.
> 
> I hope you really like whatever you decide fits your needs best.



I agree about the 24-70/2.8II. Really, really sharp. It is about as perfect as a lens should be at this price level. I love the bokeh too. And I love that Canon made it smaller and lighter than its predecessor, and mechanically more reliable. Just a win in all respects.

I still use primes in this focal length range too, but not for improved image quality as the 24-70 is already excellent for image quality. Instead, I'll choose primes if I want a smaller lens, a wider aperture, or simply the creative discipline of using primes.


----------

