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



## J.R. (Apr 10, 2013)

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 (Apr 10, 2013)

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 (Apr 10, 2013)

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 (Apr 10, 2013)

Grumbaki said:


> 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 (Apr 10, 2013)

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 (Apr 10, 2013)

bholliman said:


> 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 (Apr 10, 2013)

pwp said:


> bholliman said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Apr 10, 2013)

pwp said:


> bholliman said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 10, 2013)

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 (Apr 10, 2013)

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.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 10, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> 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 (Apr 10, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Another +1 on 24-70....Even Neuro stop using his 35L after buying 24-70
> ...



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 (Apr 10, 2013)

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 (Apr 11, 2013)

sdsr said:


> 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 (Apr 11, 2013)

sdsr said:


> 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. (Apr 11, 2013)

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 (Apr 11, 2013)

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. (Apr 11, 2013)

brad-man said:


> 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 (Apr 11, 2013)

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


----------



## e-d0uble (Apr 11, 2013)

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.


----------



## WhoIreland (Apr 11, 2013)

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 (Apr 11, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> 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 (Apr 11, 2013)

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


----------



## J.R. (Apr 11, 2013)

tron said:


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



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


----------



## killswitch (Apr 11, 2013)

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. (Apr 11, 2013)

infared said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Sell the 24-105 and get the 24-70 II and the sigma 35!!!!!!!
> ...



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 (Apr 11, 2013)

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 (Apr 11, 2013)

24-70 II sharpest thing i own.


----------



## robmahanta (Apr 11, 2013)

J.R. said:


> 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 (Apr 11, 2013)

Smurf1811 said:


> 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 (Apr 11, 2013)

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 (Apr 11, 2013)

J.R. said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > get a video camera or ... learn how to paint ;D
> ...



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 (Apr 11, 2013)

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 (Apr 11, 2013)

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


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 11, 2013)

tron said:


> 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 (Apr 11, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > family / children: better with prime lenses
> ...


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"


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 11, 2013)

tron said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



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. (Apr 11, 2013)

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 (Apr 11, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



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.


----------

