Any primes compare to 24-70 ii sharpness?

I am really looking to get a new prime lense after getting rid of my 35mm art sigma which was just to inconsistent, though everything i am finding/researching is quite average compared to the 24-70 ii 2.8. (I don't own this yet)

The other issue is that i am looking to capture portraits within the 1.2-1.8 range and today tested out the canon 35mm 1.4 l and 50mm 1.2 l, which i both found quite average. Initially the sigma ,even when not on point gave me better quality/image sharpness. (85mm takes me to far away from my subject and do occasionally shoot full body shots to)

Is this just an issue of not having these lenses calibrated to my camera (have heard very mixed reviews on the 1.2), or is there a lense out there within the range i'm looking for but also with the image quality/sharpness? I am moving into this as a profession, not a hobbyist, but if not may have to go with the 24-70 for now.

Thanks

If the zoom gives you the results you want then stick with it. If you absolutely have to have a prime, try Zeiss.

At 35mm these days the 35L II is king. It beats the Sigma on sharpness by a little bit and should (it's a Canon afterall) focus better, more accurately and more consistently on your Canon camera.

Once upon a time, just for fun, I went to photozone.de and compared all of my shorter primes (28 1.8, 35IS, 50 STM, 85 1.8) to the 24-70II. At some aperture all of them are better than the 24-70II at equal focal lengths. I would imagine the L-primes are even better.

I am sure the 24-70II is a very nice lens. The Tamron 24-70VC and the Canon 24-70 f/4 are better at the long end than the 24-70II. All lenses have different characteristics at different apertures. Zooms also have different characteristics at different focal lengths.

dylan84 wrote in post #18290434
I am really looking to get a new prime lense after getting rid of my 35mm art sigma which was just to inconsistent, though everything i am finding/researching is quite average compared to the 24-70 ii 2.8. (I don't own this yet)

The other issue is that i am looking to capture portraits within the 1.2-1.8 range and today tested out the canon 35mm 1.4 l and 50mm 1.2 l, which i both found quite average. Initially the sigma ,even when not on point gave me better quality/image sharpness. (85mm takes me to far away from my subject and do occasionally shoot full body shots to)

Is this just an issue of not having these lenses calibrated to my camera (have heard very mixed reviews on the 1.2), or is there a lense out there within the range i'm looking for but also with the image quality/sharpness? I am moving into this as a profession, not a hobbyist, but if not may have to go with the 24-70 for now.

Thanks

As a pro, in the long run you'll probably figure out that in general that the versatility of the zoom more than accounts for the slight IQ shortcomings. When you just need to get the shot, it's nice not having to juggle primes.

Sharpness isn't everything. People have been using less sharp lenses for decades and have been doing terrifically. Go with lenses that give you rock solid performance and dependability, since those are more important in a pro/business setting. In that case, the 50L may not be what you are looking for unless you can overcome the focus shift (which isn't all that difficult). The 35L is an awesome lens, you'll go far with it.

How are you comparing things? Wide open? The 24-70 wide open is supposed to be quite good so I imagine it would give many faster primes (those below f2 wide open) a run for their money at max aperture.

I haven't used the 24-70 ii but I would also imagine that most of those same primes, at f/2.8 and higher, would be sharper than the 24-70 at the same aperture and exhibit better overall behavior in other ways as well.

At f/1.2, f/1.4, or 1.8 with those primes DOF is often quite shallow so you'll also find it easier to miss focus, sometimes it will seem that way just because you or the subject shifted a little.

I agree with Matthew that sometimes ultimate sharpness isn't as important as the flexibility of a zoom

I approach this differently : for events/weddings... I use 24-70 + 70-200 and I'm feeling like a casual mainstream photographer.
Although I have better shots than most other photographers at events, I don't really get kicks out of this type of photography.
The 24-70 2.8L MKI is more than sufficient for this type of photography.

But for modelshoots it's a respite that my best lenses can get out of the box (50 Art - great 3D feel & supersharp, 85L - dreamy f1.2 shots, 135L - real 3D pop with superb bokeh).
This feels more like real photography, having time to make the shot, more relaxing, getting the Art primes out.

So I use both, but the zooms just to do the jobs, and the primes to have fun, a lot more wow-shots, this is really having fun with photography!
The 35 Art & 50 Art are tack sharp or sharper than the 24-70 II.

I started with the 35 Art but sold it for the 50 Art for the even more excellent dof/bokeh/sharpness/3D pop.
It's mostly 35mm vs 24-70mm, so the answer to your question is the 35 Art.

i'd think most primes when stopped down to f2.8 would give you the same sharpness...and if you're shooting faster than that, then you can't really compare them to the zoom...have you tried the 24-70II?

Hay CanyouCan

Unfortunately there sigmas are a bit hit and miss focus wise, or i would go down that route.

How do you find your canon 85mm 1.2, shooting for accuracy at that aperture or even 1.4? Why did you choose that over the sigma 1.4 one?

I haven't DreDaze yet as i am looking to see if i can get something good in the 1.2-1.8 range. Bokeh is quite important for what i shoot, and may need to head down the 85mm route to do so

The 35/1.4 v1 @35/1.4 is not as sharp as the 24-70 v2 @35/2.8.

This should not come as a surprise, considering that the prime is 14-year older technology and 2 stops faster.
In any case, my copy of the prime is quite sharp wide open, and the creative advantages of the 2 extra stops are way more important to me.

If you really need f/1.4 and extreme sharpness (most pros don't), then you'll have to swallow the price of the 35/1.4 v2.

Hay CheshireCat,

Yes it's looking like i may have to go with version 2. Thx

Only the casual (cheap) Sigma's had focus issues.
People still read this in forums and generalize for all Sigma's...

But the Art line are different beasts like the Canon L gamma, I had no problems with my 35 & 50 Art at all, perfect lenses.
I wouldn't put my money on an over expensive 35LII, I sold my 35 Art for the 50 Art (better for fashionshoots), but If I would need a 35mm again it would be the 35 Art.

The Canon 85 f1.2 is a specialitylens, straight shots are perfectly sharp, like all lenses the distance to the subject is important, portraits from the side or too close 1 eye/ear... is only sharp.
Maybe i'll sell it for the 85 Art, it would be supersharp & superheavy. The 85L wasn't designed for peak sharpness, but for dreamy portraits.
Some say the 85 Art is too sharp, but you can always soften, I like perfectly sharp lenses in general

dylan84 wrote in post #18291135
Hay CanyouCan

Unfortunately there sigmas are a bit hit and miss focus wise, or i would go down that route.

How do you find your canon 85mm 1.2, shooting for accuracy at that aperture or even 1.4? Why did you choose that over the sigma 1.4 one?

CanonYouCan wrote in post #18291032
I approach this differently : for events/weddings... I use 24-70 + 70-200 and I'm feeling like a casual mainstream photographer.
Although I have better shots than most other photographers at events, I don't really get kicks out of this type of photography.
The 24-70 2.8L MKI is more than sufficient for this type of photography.

But for modelshoots it's a respite that my best lenses can get out of the box (50 Art - great 3D feel & supersharp, 85L - dreamy f1.2 shots, 135L - real 3D pop with superb bokeh).
This feels more like real photography, having time to make the shot, more relaxing, getting the Art primes out.

So I use both, but the zooms just to do the jobs, and the primes to have fun, a lot more wow-shots, this is really having fun with photography!
The 35 Art & 50 Art are tack sharp or sharper than the 24-70 II.

I started with the 35 Art but sold it for the 50 Art for the even more excellent dof/bokeh/sharpness/3D pop.
It's mostly 35mm vs 24-70mm, so the answer to your question is the 35 Art.

I draw from your comments perhaps the single best argument in the primes vs. zooms discussion. A zoom lens provides the necessary compositional flexibility for a dynamic situation, while prime lenses afford the best artistic flexibility for static situations.

CanonYouCan wrote in post #18292310
Only the casual (cheap) Sigma's had focus issues.

Then it seems my 24/1.4 Art is a casual (cheap) Sigma.