Liking less my 24-70mm f2.8 II and 70-200mm f2.8 IS II

I love my zoom..i use all ends of it..but the 50 1.4 gets on every now and then under more controlled situations when I want to go below 2.8 for the dof. ..i don't think I could go just one way

I'm a little concerned about how the loss of range will affect me when I go ff

Then I will also have a choice to make ..135 prime or 70-200

hiketheplanet wrote in post #17131799
I think people buy zooms for convenience, and they can be practically a necessity for certain types of pro photogs like those who do events. I think zooms tend to be a compromise between aperture and a range of focal lengths. There are of course very excellent zooms like your two 2.8 zooms, but I'd always prefer the fast aperture of a prime. I think having a lens that goes open to 2, 1.4, or 1.2 even offers much more flexibility for someone like me who doesn't need to "make the shot" to put food on my table. As a hobbyist, I'd pretty much stick with primes. Just my 2 cents.

It's not necessarily the case with todays zooms that they are a 'compromise'... I choose the 24-70mm f2.8 II over primes most of the time. Why? I think it's the best lens available. It's as sharp as any prime, I can see this when using it on a Sony a7R, it delivers enough resolution for 100% crops to look pretty good on that 36MP sensor, the lens out resolves Canon bodies. It also offers a colour rendering and high contrast punch that few primes match.

Invertalon wrote in post #17131407
I have gone through the same "phases"... Selling off all my zooms and going to all primes, then back again. I then had a nice mix and currently just have 3 zooms and 1 prime (planning to add the 35L back soon).

I prefer zooms to primes, although I like a balanced mix

The 24-70mm f2.8 II and 70-200mm f2.8 IS II have changed the debate for me... primes no longer offer any image quality advantage over zooms. So now it's just a question of aperture vs flexible focal length.

Mornnb wrote in post #17138222
It's not necessarily the case with todays zooms that they are a 'compromise'... I choose the 24-70mm f2.8 II over primes most of the time. Why? I think it's the best lens available. It's as sharp as any prime, I can see this when using it on a Sony a7R, it delivers enough resolution for 100% crops to look pretty good on that 36MP sensor, the lens out resolves Canon bodies. It also offers a colour rendering and high contrast punch that few primes match.

The 24-70mm f2.8 II and 70-200mm f2.8 IS II have changed the debate for me... primes no longer offer any image quality advantage over zooms. So now it's just a question of aperture vs flexible focal length.

Not so IMHO. Big difference between zoom wide open at f2.8 vs f1.4 prime at f2.8 two stops down.

I find my 24-70mm II wide open is just as sharp as my Sigma 35 at 2.8. Plus the 24-70mm II renders nicer contrast and colours.
I use the Sigma for low light or as a light walk around lens. And I like being restricted to the 35mm as a walk around, I find I think in 35mm. But I prefer the quality and rendering of the zoom.

Bobby get yourself a 24Lmk2 and sell one of your redundant 35mm primes. I'd even suggest buying a UWA. I use my 16-35Lmk2 alot for events (good grief...so many darn kids bday's sheesh!!) and shoot f/2.8 at 24mm or 35mm. When lighting is demanding my primes are used.

Purchase some more primes for your fuji xt1 (I'm really considering on buying one to increase IQ from my EM-5) That'll be your small from factor camera to document casual family pics.

I do find I grab my 24L or 16-35L and leave my 24-70Lmk2 lonely at home :P However there are times I definitely mount that lens to the camera.

Since the 24-70Lmk2 is like a prime lens with variable focal lengths LOL!! I couldn't imagine selling such a versatile lens that produces killer IQ.

If your really hardcore about swapping gear....Sell all of your Canon gear and purchase the entire lineup of fuji lenses.

Ahhh you see its hard to swap gear sometimes because you know when you need it....you need it. If you sell your two zooms you'll probably regret it at some point.

I use prime alot but when I do shoot with zooms I'm always grateful I have that aswell in my gearbag.

i may have one thing i need to do next week during the week...but aside from that, if you're around next week, or the week after that and want to give my 120-300Sport a spin, let me know...although i'm not sure if it will satisfy you...in my mind i can't imagine it really being any better than the 70-200II...and if you're not happy with that, it may be a let down...

DreDaze wrote in post #17138554
i may have one thing i need to do next week during the week...but aside from that, if you're around next week, or the week after that and want to give my 120-300Sport a spin, let me know...although i'm not sure if it will satisfy you...in my mind i can't imagine it really being any better than the 70-200II...and if you're not happy with that, it may be a let down...

Big difference in DOF from 200mm 2.8 to 300mm 2.8. Not that 200 is not bad because it's not but when at a distance the 300mm really helps keep it thin.

You can rent lenses to get the itch off. I do not have that opportunity so I buy from Asian sellers at a good price and then sell on. Not much market here, though, patience needed and people call just for the hell of it, having no money.

I've had the 24-70 ten years. After the last overhaul it is OK again. Contrary to the belief it is not built like a tank, in fact the front element is easily dislodged. The II version is a sturdier construction. Primes are fine but what to do when there is a wall behind you back and you cannot frame the shot?
Or you see just the face you want to catch but you are carrying a 24-mm...jump in real close?
On the FF shot you have a lot to crop from but it is bothersome and the quality is not presentable.

I just got the 85mm L. It is a joy to shoot with but very unforgiving in ambient light. I just read that only the central focusing points of the 5D III are reliable enough for f/ 1.2. Learning curve.

garbidz wrote in post #17140276
You can rent lenses to get the itch off. I do not have that opportunity so I buy from Asian sellers at a good price and then sell on. Not much market here, though, patience needed and people call just for the hell of it, having no money.

I've had the 24-70 ten years. After the last overhaul it is OK again. Contrary to the belief it is not built like a tank, in fact the front element is easily dislodged. The II version is a sturdier construction. Primes are fine but what to do when there is a wall behind you back and you cannot frame the shot?
Or you see just the face you want to catch but you are carrying a 24-mm...jump in real close?
On the FF shot you have a lot to crop from but it is bothersome and the quality is not presentable.

I just got the 85mm L. It is a joy to shoot with but very unforgiving in ambient light. I just read that only the central focusing points of the 5D III are reliable enough for f/ 1.2. Learning curve.

No the learning curve is the photographer. Learning to shoot wide open with uber thin dof is a task all on it's own.

Mornnb wrote in post #17138222
It's not necessarily the case with todays zooms that they are a 'compromise'... I choose the 24-70mm f2.8 II over primes most of the time. Why? I think it's the best lens available. It's as sharp as any prime, I can see this when using it on a Sony a7R, it delivers enough resolution for 100% crops to look pretty good on that 36MP sensor, the lens out resolves Canon bodies. It also offers a colour rendering and high contrast punch that few primes match.

The 24-70mm f2.8 II and 70-200mm f2.8 IS II have changed the debate for me... primes no longer offer any image quality advantage over zooms. So now it's just a question of aperture vs flexible focal length.

"Image quality" is a broad term.

While the zooms are uber sharp, the 24-70 range is not particularly inspiring for day to day snapshots, and for those types of shots, bokeh, contrast, and color FAR EXCEED sharpness. Hell, I'm a 50 shooter, and to get me to the bokeh sweet spot, I'de have to open up to F0.95 to be completely happy. A 24-70 has a hard time even competing with a 50mm F1.8 as far as I'm concerned.

Snapshots dont get printed big, and viewed at 800x1200 at most, and at those sizes, there's hardly any difference in sharpness SOOC, add some processing, and it's imperceptible..... however, dat bokeh! Even in small prints in dat F1.2 is pretty damn apparent. The 70-200 telezoom look is apparent as well, it's a nice look.

as a working lens, the 24-70 is nice. It's a "get the shot" (beloved group photo lens) type lens, where primes.... you shoot them when you dont care to get every single shot . You use them for the isolation which makes the image pop, and it's the final image you care about, not the technical sharpness.

Talley wrote in post #17140352
No the learning curve is the photographer. Learning to shoot wide open with uber thin dof is a task all on it's own.

Of course you are right about the DOF. I am sure, though, that a lot of lenses travel back and forth for calibration because the guy behind the view finder does not know how the focusing system works. Or does not work, for that matter. There are books written about correct focus!

I am actually a prime guy too. Whenever i can i shoot primes.

I just came back from a trip in cyprus, where i brought my Fuji x100s, 6D + 16-35Lii, 24 TSEii and the 70-300L. Looking at my shots, I shot 45% with the 16-35, 25% with the 70-300, 25% with the fuji x100s and 5% with my 24TSE.

This shows me how important zoom lenses are to me, still, and even if i thought i would use primes 100 times more than primes this shows me that its still very usefull to have good ranges covered with zooms, especially while travelling (Well the fuji x100s is the exception but thats because of its weight and size...)

That said in your case i would sell the 24-70 and keep the 70-200. But i would at least think carefully about this move

I am traveling right now and only took my Fuji Xt1 with 35mm f1.4 due to light weight. Wish I had 23mm f1.4 instead as 50mm equivalent is too tight for general shots IMHO.

70-200mm f2.8 is handy for kid sports but on FF I am finding it short even for my 6 yr old's T-Ball and I was shooting from the field. Guess I am used to 300/500mm for sports with 1.3x crop. And that thought of picking up 200mm f2 IS keeps coming. Good that for now I don't see $1000 employee discount on that lens anymore.

Left field thinking...... buy a 70D (wait for 7dmk2) so that you can have AF video for your kids and take advantage of the 1.6 crop factor. If thats too short buy a 1.4 mk3 TC.

Now you'll retain your 70-200mk2 for the ultimate versatile zoom portrait lens. Your other "canon" options is the 70-300 and 100-400L. I think the TC with 70-200 (f/4) will have much nicer IQ than a native lens 100-400 (I was never fond of the 100-400 after owning on for couple years)

bobbyz wrote in post #17141895
I am traveling right now and only took my Fuji Xt1 with 35mm f1.4 due to light weight. Wish I had 23mm f1.4 instead as 50mm equivalent is too tight for general shots IMHO.

70-200mm f2.8 is handy for kid sports but on FF I am finding it short even for my 6 yr old's T-Ball and I was shooting from the field. Guess I am used to 300/500mm for sports with 1.3x crop. And that thought of picking up 200mm f2 IS keeps coming. Good that for now I don't see $1000 employee discount on that lens anymore.

120-300 works great with a 7D/70D for kids sports.