24-70mkii or 50L and 24Lmkii

kin2son wrote in post #15788409
Um care to explain?

Sure it's sharp, but it's still just a f2.8...:p

I for one have no intention to get a general zoom (I used to own a 24-105) apart from convenience.

only a person who's never used the 24-70L II would dare to make the comparison to the 24-105L . the worst never comes close to the best.....

Well, I can sort of speak from experience here, as I just had all 3 lenses together for about a month's time. Thought I'd fall in love with the zoom and it'd take the place of my 24 and 50, but it ended up sitting in the bag most of the time. The primes are just too good to be left sitting, and like Kin2son mentioned, the 24-70 focal range at f/2.8 is rather boring. So, yesterday I sold the zoom It was sharp as hell and performed amazingly, but I couldn't justify having that much $$$ tied up into a lens I wasn't using every single time I went out to shoot.

It comes down to your needs: zoom versatility or low-light + DOF control. Seems you already made your choice to keep the 50 and perhaps sell the 24. You could just save up a bit more after that sale and add the 24-70 to your lineup. It'd be a nice fit in your collection! The 50L is a good one to keep around though

If you're into lens collection, the 24-70 II will be boring

I say that because now, I only have 2 lenses, and both are zooms, covers me from 24-200 (ok, 70-200 is only f4) but still. Used to lust over the 35L but since owning the 24-70, not much anymore. I still may buy one in the distant future but planning on just renting the fast prime I need, when I need it.

Gotta be honest, at one point I was thinking of returning it so I can get a cheaper zoom so I can fund my other hobby (cycling) but every time I look at the images it produces, can't make myself to do it.

So, like everyone says, if you're at f2.8 almost all the time anyways, the convenience of having to change FL with just the turn of a ring is worth the entrance fee.

ed rader wrote in post #15788417
only a person who's never used the 24-70L II would dare to make the comparison to the 24-105L . the worst never comes close to the best.....

The 24-105 is a good lens, I don't see how you can say its the worst. I used to have the 24-70 v1 and I thought it was also very good so I am sure the V2 is better but come on.

Tommydigi: I have to agree, the 24-105 is a good lens, no doubt. I had one. But the 24-70 II is a different animal altogether, of course, for almost 3x the price (ok twice if comparing retail-to-retail).

MatthewK wrote in post #15788430
Well, I can sort of speak from experience here, as I just had all 3 lenses together for about a month's time. Thought I'd fall in love with the zoom and it'd take the place of my 24 and 50, but it ended up sitting in the bag most of the time. The primes are just too good to be left sitting, and like Kin2son mentioned, the 24-70 focal range at f/2.8 is rather boring. So, yesterday I sold the zoom It was sharp as hell and performed amazingly, but I couldn't justify having that much $$$ tied up into a lens I wasn't using every single time I went out to shoot.

It comes down to your needs: zoom versatility or low-light + DOF control. Seems you already made your choice to keep the 50 and perhaps sell the 24. You could just save up a bit more after that sale and add the 24-70 to your lineup. It'd be a nice fit in your collection! The 50L is a good one to keep around though

i think there is a smallish group of guys (many of whom are pros) who benefit from from extremely narrow DOF and a larger group in denial who realize later that creamy bokey isn't their forte. many abandon ship about this time but the ones who stick around often become more sensible in their gear choices.

the OP sounds like he would benefit from having one superb lens that covers the range of 2-3 especially when you take into consideration his subject matter, time constraints and the fact that he shoots his primes at f2.8.

at f2.8 i believe this zoom will rival or better even the best primes.

Since he just wants 2.8 maybe all he needs is the pancake. :-}

Tommydigi wrote in post #15788447
The 24-105 is a good lens, I don't see how you can say its the worst. I used to have the 24-70 v1 and I thought it was also very good so I am sure the V2 is better but come on.

the 24-105L is a FF kit lens. it does alot of things pretty well but lets face it in the canon L lens line up it is a mediocre lens.

i would never shoot mine wide open. i considered f4.5 to be wide open and i avoided 105mm whenever i remembered to do so which was not often enough.

so it's a good lens but not in the same league as the 24-70L II.

I would not even say its mediocre, just because its a kit lens does not make it bad. I would say it's good but not great. Mine is very sharp wide open and in some situations ( studio, with flash, travel ) its pretty ideal.

With lenses you pay a premium for a little better ( 17-40 to 16-35, 85 1.8 to 85 1.2 and on and on ) I am sure the 24-70 is no exception.

If the op is shooting at 2.8 I agree the 24-70 is not a bad idea. The real decision is paying that premium price.

I wonder if you had a bad copy of the 24-105 Ed... Although the 24-70 II is a much better lens, I found the 24-105 I used for years very capable, wide open, end to end... I never thought bad about the IQ and always found it pretty sharp. Stop it down to f/5 or so and it was very sharp.

I never had any softness issues at 105mm... It actually looked very good at the long end of the zoom.

I agree it is no 24-70 II, but it is still a very fine lens. I really enjoyed it. It is a great walkaround, all purpose lens.

Tommydigi wrote in post #15788532
I would not even say its mediocre, just because its a kit lens does not make it bad. I would say it's good but not great. Mine is very sharp wide open and in some situations ( studio, with flash, travel ) its pretty ideal.

With lenses you pay a premium for a little better ( 17-40 to 16-35, 85 1.8 to 85 1.2 and on and on ) I am sure the 24-70 is no exception.

If the op is shooting at 2.8 I agree the 24-70 is not a bad idea. The real decision is paying that premium price.

if it takes the place of two or three lenses that cost more and you like it better i would call the 24-70L II a bargain!

Invertalon wrote in post #15788550
I wonder if you had a bad copy of the 24-105 Ed... Although the 24-70 II is a much better lens, I found the 24-105 I used for years very capable, wide open, end to end... I never thought bad about the IQ and always found it pretty sharp. Stop it down to f/5 or so and it was very sharp.

I never had any softness issues at 105mm... It actually looked very good at the long end of the zoom.

I agree it is no 24-70 II, but it is still a very fine lens. I really enjoyed it. It is a great walkaround, all purpose lens.

i've probably owned 5 or 6 copies of the 24-105L. i got one bundled with my original 5d and just got one with my 5d III. both of those were never even screwed onto my cameras before being sold.

i was an early adopter of the 24-105L back in my 20d days and i have since used the zoom on FF, and 1.3 crop.

i almost never use primes so an f2.8 mid-range zoom is almost a must for me. i switched back and forth between the 24-105L and the brick over the years, never being completely happy with either lens.

i had a very good copy of the brick right before the 24-70L II was released and i so loathed the size of thet lens and hood that i usually left it behind in favor of the 50 1.4.

all my other zooms have been with me for years and now i finally have the mid-range that i've waited for and it isn't going anywhere .

Agreed! The 24-70 II is an amazing lens all around. I am blown away by the resolution of that monster... Now if Canon can do that with an UWA zoom now... *hint*

Invertalon wrote in post #15788677
Agreed! The 24-70 II is an amazing lens all around. I am blown away by the resolution of that monster... Now if Canon can do that with an UWA zoom now... *hint*

the 16-35L II was my most used short lens before getting the 24-70L II but i have to say that the 24-70LII is pretty much welded to my camera now. the 24-70L II + 5d III is a sweet combination. the combo really has brought the excitement back for me!

anyhow back to the 16-35L II -- it is the only lens i own that i will shoot wide open only if i have no other choice. i consider f3.2 wide open on that lens. but it still is very good and UWs tend to look sharper anyway.

ed rader wrote in post #15788473
at f2.8 i believe this zoom will rival or better even the best primes.

Absolutely does! I tripod tested the 24-70ii against my 24l ii, both at f/2.8, and the zoom was indistinguishable from the prime! It's insane just how well this zoom performs! Wide open corner-to-corner it hangs with with a stopped down prime! If you look in the Lens Example thread, I posted up the comparison shots