George Zip wrote in post #18529142
Interesting... I did not know that.
I am always amazed at how sharp that 85mm is at 4.0 to 5.6 when I do flash work at receptions.
I am amazed that so many people tout the 24-70II as the next best thing to sliced bread. "Prime like!" Really? My 28 1.8, 35 IS, 50 STM, and 85 1.8 all turn in better performance than the zoom at the same/similar focal length, at some aperture. Admittedly, the 28 1.8 sucks in the corners. If I am shooting that lens at that aperture, I am going for close-range, thin as I can get it DOF. Who gives a FFA about the corners? The zoom is exceptionally good at 24mm, and deteriorates as you zoom to 70mm. At longer focal lengths, it is really good in the center of the frame. That may matter at f/2.8. If I'm stopping down to f/8 anyway, why pay $2200 for an f/2.8 zoom that can't resolve corners as well as a $300 consumer prime? I would not pay that kind of money to get a short-range zoom that sucks in the periphery of the frame, and is just atrocious in the corners.
To my mind, the 24-70II is a bundle of mediocrity. You can get several other zooms with IS. You can get several other zooms with more focal length range. You can do better than f/2.8 in a wide variety of much cheaper primes. Most of them are sharper than the zoom at several aperture settings. Compared to other zooms, it may well be the boss wrt sharpness. There is more to utility than 'better than other zooms' sharpness.