Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses
Thread started 20 Dec 2017 (Wednesday) 23:48
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Anything better than Canon 24-70 2.8 II

 
texkam
"Just let me be a stupid photographer."
texkam's Avatar
1,146 posts
Joined Mar 2012
By The Lake in Big D
Dec 20, 2017 23:48 |  #1

..... on a 5D IV for studio table top, to a bit larger, merchandise shooting? For the most part, nothing will be printed larger than catalog/magazine size. Is there anything out there significantly better, and would I be wasting my money for my needs?




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Nogo
I could have been worse....
Joined Dec 2013
All Along the Natchez Trace (Clinton, MS)
Dec 20, 2017 23:54 |  #2

In some cases a macro lens may have an advantage. Closer focusing on small items, a flatter plane (whatever it is called,) and a lower cost.


Philip
Does the TF actually know about the soda cans and PVC pipe from 30 years ago?

LOG IN TO REPLY
texkam
THREAD ­ STARTER
"Just let me be a stupid photographer."
texkam's Avatar
1,146 posts
Joined Mar 2012
By The Lake in Big D
Dec 21, 2017 00:05 |  #3

Money is not an issue (within reason), as long as I feel it's money well spent. Probably will not be doing very small items like rings or coins.




LOG IN TO REPLY
davesrose
Title Fairy still hasn't visited me!
3,028 posts
Joined Apr 2007
Atlanta, GA
Dec 21, 2017 00:40 |  #4

My first inclination is to suggest a macro lens. The 24-70mm 2.8II is great for an all around normal lens, but it's not macro. If you're really trying to shoot merchandise, then you should go for the 100mm 2.8 L IS: the non L is optically as good, but the macro IS has more versatility. Either 100mm macros will yield extremely sharp images.


Canon 5D mk III , 7D mk II
EF 135mm 2.0L, EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS II, EF 24-70 2.8L II, EF 50mm 1.4, EF 100mm 2.8L Macro, EF 16-35mm 4L IS, Sigma 150-600mm C, 580EX, 600EX-RT, MeFoto Globetrotter tripod, grips, Black Rapid RS-7, CAMS plate and strap system, Lowepro Flipside 500 AW, and a few other things...
smugmug (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
texkam
THREAD ­ STARTER
"Just let me be a stupid photographer."
texkam's Avatar
1,146 posts
Joined Mar 2012
By The Lake in Big D
Dec 21, 2017 02:25 |  #5

So a macro for something like this?

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



LOG IN TO REPLY
Moncho
Member
Moncho's Avatar
Joined Dec 2015
Dec 21, 2017 03:26 |  #6

Those are fairly large items, and to get enough depth of field I guess you are shooting at about ff11, at that aperture even the 24-105 mark I will give you sharp images. But if you want a versatile lens for in and out of the studio, the 24-70II won't let you down.


Carpe Diem
(Seize the carp!)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Canon ­ Bob
Goldmember
2,039 posts
Joined May 2007
Poitou-Charentes, France
Dec 21, 2017 04:33 |  #7

A TS-E45 would allow more flexibilty with the angles of the shots without recourse to small apertures to achieve the required DoF.


1Dx2 (2), 5DSR, 1D4, 5D2(590nm), 5D2(720nm) EF600 EF400 EF300-II EF300 EF200 EF200-II EF180L EF135L EF100 EF85-II EF50L TS-E17/4 TS-E24L-II TS-E45 TS-E90 MP-E65 EF70-200-II EF24-70/2.8-II EF24-70/4 EF16-35/4 EF8-15/4 EF11-24/4 Zeiss 15/2.8 21/2.8 25/2 28/2 35/1.4 35/2 50/2 85/1.4 100/2 135/2 T/C's L-SC & a WIFE!

LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
6,948 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Dec 21, 2017 07:32 |  #8

I'm of the opinion that there are a truckload of better tools for the job. You'll want to be shooting at a minimum focal length of 50mm to avoid wider angle distortions. You also have no use for f/2.8 in these shots. As mentioned above, f/11 is a good starting point. The lens in question can certainly do the job, but that wasn't the question.

To get a solid answer you'll have to define 'better' for us. Lens in question: $2,000. To my mind, the $89 50mm STM would do just as well. Cheaper qualifies as better where I come from. Most lenses are cheaper than the 24-70 II. Any one of them that can do 50-80mm, and f/11 would qualify as 'better' in my book.


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
grabbing their Johnson
umphotography's Avatar
Joined Oct 2007
Gig Harbor, Washington
Dec 21, 2017 13:32 |  #9

texkam wrote in post #18523071 (external link)
So a macro for something like this?
thumbnailHosted photo: posted by texkam in
./showthread.php?p=185​23071&i=i120018384
forum: Canon EF and EF-S Lenses


I would stand back and frame it with a prime or a 70-200

But 24-70 would work

agree with other

one lens is never the answer for all photography needs


Mike
www.umphotography.comexternal link
GEAR LIST
Facebookexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
George ­ Zip
Goldmember
George Zip's Avatar
Joined Aug 2015
Dec 29, 2017 19:03 |  #10

Not better, but something like the 50mm 1.4 or 85 1.8 are really sharp stopped down, the 85 especially. The 40mm 2.8 pancake is REALLY sharp imo.

But given the choice I would take the 24-70 2.8 II. I only mention the above because they are considerably cheaper and would work for that single application.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Aus.Morgo
Senior Member
Aus.Morgo's Avatar
Joined Feb 2012
Newcastle, Australia
Post has been edited 20 days ago by Aus.Morgo.
Dec 29, 2017 19:12 |  #11

texkam wrote in post #18523071 (external link)
So a macro for something like this?
thumbnailHosted photo: posted by texkam in
./showthread.php?p=185​23071&i=i120018384
forum: Canon EF and EF-S Lenses

Those are not

texkam wrote in post #18523045 (external link)
very small items like rings or coins.

which is where the macro lens would be ideal.

As far as table top product photography goes I'd call those medium to large items, certainly not very small.

The 24-70 would be fine for those items but why F2.8?, just get the F4 version.


Gear List

LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ from ­ PA
Cream of the Crop
7,570 posts
Joined May 2003
Southeast Pennsylvania
Dec 29, 2017 19:18 |  #12

"Significantly better" leaves open the impact of a ton of variables. One lens that comes to mind is the Sigma 24-105 f4 DG Art. It is dock compatible and is currently at $899 list price although some deals may exist. The Canon is $1699. In my mind, that price differential of $800 may weigh heavily toward making it better. Yes, it is a slower lens (f/4 vs. f/2.8) but for table top photography with a 5DIV that likely is a non-issue. See https://www.sigmaphoto​.com ...e/24-105mm-f4-dg-os-hsm-a (external link) for the details.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
6,948 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Dec 29, 2017 20:33 |  #13

George Zip wrote in post #18529090 (external link)
Not better, but something like the 50mm 1.4 or 85 1.8 are really sharp stopped down, the 85 especially. The 40mm 2.8 pancake is REALLY sharp imo.

But given the choice I would take the 24-70 2.8 II. I only mention the above because they are considerably cheaper and would work for that single application.

Look at PZ.de's reviews.

The 50 1.4 is sharper than the 24-70II from f/2.8 through f/5.6. The 24-70II has to be stopped down to f/8 to be sharper than the 50 1.4. The 50 1.4 has, AFAIK, always carried the reputation of being one of Canon's sharpest lenses.

The 85 1.8 is sharper across the entire frame, at any aperture (yes, including f/1.8) than the 24-70II, at 70mm, is at any aperture. The 24-70II bests the 85 1.8 in the center of the frame only, and then only by miniscule amounts.

$300 vs. $2200? That is a no-brainer, if you ask me. But, I'm biased; I don't like big, heavy, expensive f/2.8 zooms.


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
George ­ Zip
Goldmember
George Zip's Avatar
Joined Aug 2015
Dec 29, 2017 20:45 |  #14

Bassat wrote in post #18529133 (external link)
Look at PZ.de's reviews.

The 50 1.4 is sharper than the 24-70II from f/2.8 through f/5.6. The 24-70II has to be stopped down to f/8 to be sharper than the 50 1.4. The 50 1.4 has, AFAIK, always carried the reputation of being one of Canon's sharpest lenses.

The 85 1.8 is sharper across the entire frame, at any aperture (yes, including f/1.8) than the 24-70II, at 70mm, is at any aperture. The 24-70II bests the 85 1.8 in the center of the frame only, and then only by miniscule amounts.

$300 vs. $2200? That is a no-brainer, if you ask me. But, I'm biased; I don't like big, heavy, expensive f/2.8 zooms.

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.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
6,948 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Dec 29, 2017 21:05 |  #15

George Zip wrote in post #18529142 (external link)
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.


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

3,400 views & 29 likes for this thread
Anything better than Canon 24-70 2.8 II
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00082 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.04s
Latest registered member is TheSandValor
947 guests, 490 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017