Can't decide: 24-70 2.8L II or 85mm f/1.2L II

I just took the plunge and got a 5D MKIII, and I am thinking about picking up some new glass but can't decide between the two listed in the title.

As of now I am planning on keeping my 7D, so I would be keeping my EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, but who knows what the future will bring (I may sell it). If so I won't have a 2.8 "walk around" but will still have my Canon 24-105mm f/4.0 L IS (my copy is very sharp also).

I could use a nice prime, and the 85MM would fit the bill very nicely, but I also like the 100MM Macro L lens for portraits, it does an amazing job for what it is (but it's not as fast, of course, and won't give me the results of the 85).

Without getting into too much more, I'm curious to hear your feedback on which I should get next based on my current gear?

Heya,

I'd use the 24-105L for walk around.

Otherwise, sell the 24-105L and put the money towards a Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC and use that as your walk around. And with the saved money, afford an 85mm of your choice on top of this. Such as a Sigma 85 F1.4.

Very best,

Did you tell us what you shoot? Budget?

I'd say get the 85L. It's magic. The 24-105 is a great walkabout lens and I don't think the 24-70 ii is a game changer in comparison to the 24-105. It's nicer but I don't think it opens new doors the way an 85L does.

Hard to help you on this one Both are no where near alike. It all depends an what you will be using it for like gasrocks stated.

gasrocks wrote in post #16779406
Did you tell us what you shoot? Budget?

I'm a very active amateur photographer, so I shoot just about everything I can- portraits of friends/family and public shots, sports (I use my 70-200 for just about all of this however), walk around shooting (events, vacation, wherever I can take a camera and don't mind lugging a full size DSLR).

The thought of having a very nice prime lens is tempting, but I know the 24-70 will provide some very nice sharp shots also and will be more versatile for everyday use. I sort of feel that the 85 1.8 will give me something I don't have yet (1.2 as opposed to 2.8).

My budget is slightly limited, i.e. I could buy one lens but not both at the moment. If I decide to get both, I could most likely spend the $ in 6-8 months for the second lens… but being that this is just a hobby, I don't necessarily want to collect expensive glass just to have it unless it fits in my collection of lenses. Not sure if that makes sense?

Well you find of sound like me. I had the 85. Great lens but I sold it because I did not use it that much. Sold it and my 100 macro to finance the 100 Macro L IS. It is so sharp I have to carry bandaids in my camera bag.

If you are an all around general shooter I would look into the 24-70II. I'm very happy with mine. The other thing is the 24-70 is no giveaway lens. If you can afford it buy that and get a used 85 down the road. That is what I would do.

Here is a thread you may be interested it. I have images using my 24-70 on post numbers 48 and 137. If you continue past post number 137 I have some comparisons with my old 24-105. You should read the whole post and decide for yourself.

I have both, and both are phenomenal lenses that serve two entirely different purposes.

As others have said, the 24-70 II is a complete game-changer. Like you, I had the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS for my T3i, which I loved, and then got the 24-105mm f/4 when I upgraded to FF. The 24-70 II compared to the 24-105 is no contest; the 24-70 II is sharper in the corners at f/2.8 than the 24-105 is in the center at f/4. It is impressively sharp.

The 85L on the other hand, produces some magical images. For portrait work, it simply cannot be beat; the look it produces cannot be replicated. With that being said, the 85L is obviously much more limiting than the 24-70 II, as it's a specialty lens.

If I were you, I would sell the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and the 24-105mm f/4 and get the 24-70 II. Since you have the 70-200 f/2.8 IS and the 100L, both of which do an excellent job for portraits, I think the 85L is one that you can afford to wait on.

basselmudarris wrote in post #16779586
If I were you, I would sell the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and the 24-105mm f/4 and get the 24-70 II. Since you have the 70-200 f/2.8 IS and the 100L, both of which do an excellent job for portraits, I think the 85L is one that you can afford to wait on.

I would 110% concur with this advice!

As far as the 85 vs 100 macro. The 85 is magic and faster but I sacrificed speed for IS and there is only a difference of 15mm. According to the MTF charts 100 is sharper at 2.8 than the 85 stopped down to 2.8. If had unlimited money I would have kept the 85 as I like collecting as well.

328iGuy wrote in post #16779605
I would 110% concur with this advice!

+1 Sell the 17-55 and 24-105 and get the 24-70 II.

I sold my 24-105 to finance my 24-70.

I have never used the 85/1.2, but the 24-70 II is worth every penny. It is a truly magical lens. The sharpness, contrast, the vivid color, everything is just beyond any other lens I have used. It truly requires virtually no touching up in post, the images it produces are so good.

The 24-70II vs 24-105 reminds me of the filter no filter debate. Opinions from it was a marginal improvement and not worth the money to it is exceptional. One of best zooms in that range, borderline matching primes. I've also read that because the 24-70 owners spent so much they are going to back it no matter what. There was one reference here that user reviews at SLRgear gave it a 10 out of 10 for IQ and were justifying their expensive purchase.

I guess it all winds up in the hands of the owner. You either like it or you don't. Some purchased and sold. Despite it's cost which was not an easy decision especially that Canon left out IS it prevented me from purchasing a speciality WA lens for landscapes. 24MM is not ultra wide but wide enough for me and that was the range I was looking for. I rented the 24 TSE II and Zeiss 21. Both wonderful but too specialize for the price, for me anyway. If I had lots of money I'd have one of those as well or the Zeiss and the 17 TSE. the 24-70 may not be perfect at 24 but is more than tolerable for my needs and is a workhorse in other areas. I have not regretted that move.

digital paradise wrote in post #16779907
The 24-70II vs 24-105 reminds me of the filter no filter debate. Opinions from it was a marginal improvement and not worth the money to it is exceptional. One of best zooms in that range, borderline matching primes. I've also read that because the 24-70 owners spent so much they are going to back it no matter what. There was one reference here that user reviews at SLRgear gave it a 10 out of 10 for IQ and were justifying their expensive purchase.

I guess it all winds up in the hands of the owner. You either like it or you don't. Some purchased and sold. Despite it's cost which was not an easy decision especially that Canon left out IS it prevented me from purchasing a speciality WA lens for landscapes. 24MM is not ultra wide but wide enough for me and that was the range I was looking for. I rented the 24 TSE II and Zeiss 21. Both wonderful but too specialize for the price, for me anyway. If I had lots of money I'd have one of those as well or the Zeiss and the 17 TSE. the 24-70 may not be perfect at 24 but is more than tolerable for my needs and is a workhorse in other areas. I have not regretted that move.

the informed opinion is the 24-70l II is the best medium range zoom made by anyone. period. to the OP's question it sounds like you want to spend money because comparing those two lenses is a real stretch. I've neve had use for the 85L yet as long as I shoot canon I won't be without the 24-70L II. what they have in common is they are the best lenses in their class.