Will I be satisfied with a 24-70 II over a 24L II and 50L combo?

I'm not sure if it's GAS or me trying to find a compromise in what I shoot. I shoot a lot of low-light concerts, but also take a lot of pictures of family oriented situations. I also take photos of cars, but mainly use my 24 for that. The 50 is my go to all around lens.

Pros of the 24 + 50
Tack sharp throughout
Great for low-light situations
Love the shallow DOF and bokeh it produces
Unique feel to the photos

Cons of the 24 + 50
I have to switch back and forth between the two lenses very often when I shoot concerts, so I'm losing time switching.
I feel that I'm needing a 35 as well.

Now, I've had the 24-70 I before and it was alright, I just wasn't crazy about how soft I thought it was. So, with someone that is looking to make life easier on taking photos in my situation, would a II be a good trade-off for these two lenses? I would still have my 85 f/1.8 for portrait pictures as well as the 80-200.

You thought the 24-70L II was "soft" compared to your 50L??? My 24-70L II was very sharp - especially at 24mm, but still at 70mm.

Bokeh/wide-aperture-wise it's no contest, but the sharpness of the 24-70L II should be satisfying compared to the 24L and 50L.

I've seen a lot of amazing bokeh images from the 50L, but I've never seen one that made me regard it as a sharp lens. My Zeiss Otus 55mm on the other hand....

Never owned a 24-70 II and yes, my 50L is very sharp.

Add a second 6D. Having two cameras not only gives you a backup in case one fails but makes life a lot easier when shooting primes.

Photozone's numbers:
24L: http://www.photozone.d​e …4-canon24f14mk2ff?start=​1
50L: http://www.photozone.d​e …72-canon_50_12_5d?start=1
24-70L II: http://www.photozone.d​e …canon2470f28mk2​ff?start=1

Assessment: If their measurements are accurate then it would indicate, from a sharpness standpoint, that the 24-70 II has an overall slight edge over the 24L and a rather commanding edge over the 50L - even when comparing the 24-70 II at its softest focal length of 70mm. It's only a slight edge in the center, but wow: those 50L edges and corners are very soft (which is probably just fine for most 50L shooters).

I am certainly not advocating switching over to the 24-70 II, though. There is more to a lens than just sharpness. I was just confused when you referenced the 24-70 as being soft because if you didn't own a 24-70 II then that doesn't seem like a relevant concern to me.

I too love my 55mm as my go-to all around lens. In some way, I kind of regard it as a 24-70 in a prime lens - it's just so multi-purpose useful. In fact that's really why I ended up selling my 24-70 II. Nothing wrong with it (very sharp, minimal CA), but I just love the 50-ish focal length so much it was getting insufficient use to stay in my bag. I used to be very opinionated that "normal" focal lengths are boring because they are "normal". But, I've changed my mind completely.

You're asking a very hard question. "Both/and" would be the easy answer, but probably not feasible. Best wishes on your decision-making.

24-70 II is killer sharp but if you need 2 to 3 extra stops...............
I've got 24 I and 50L, along with the 24-70 II.

agv8or wrote in post #17113681
Add a second 6D. Having two cameras not only gives you a backup in case one fails but makes life a lot easier when shooting primes.

I can't afford a second body, and I wouldn't have $6k worth of equipment hanging from my neck to take pics of my kids or anything else I do.

David Arbogast wrote in post #17113687
Photozone's numbers:
24L: http://www.photozone.d​e …4-canon24f14mk2ff?start=​1
50L: http://www.photozone.d​e …72-canon_50_12_5d?start=1
24-70L II: http://www.photozone.d​e …canon2470f28mk2​ff?start=1

Assessment: If their measurements are accurate then it would indicate, from a sharpness standpoint, that the 24-70 II has an overall slight edge over the 24L and a rather commanding edge over the 50L - even when comparing the 24-70 II at its softest focal length of 70mm. It's only a slight edge in the center, but wow: those 50L edges and corners are very soft (which is probably just fine for most 50L shooters).

I am certainly not advocating switching over to the 24-70 II, though. There is more to a lens than just sharpness. I was just confused when you referenced the 24-70 as being soft because if you didn't own a 24-70 II then that doesn't seem like a relevant concern to me.

I too love my 55mm as my go-to all around lens. In some way, I kind of regard it as a 24-70 in a prime lens - it's just so multi-purpose useful. In fact that's really why I ended up selling my 24-70 II. Nothing wrong with it (very sharp, minimal CA), but I just love the 50-ish focal length so much it was getting insufficient use to stay in my bag. I used to be very opinionated that "normal" focal lengths are boring because they are "normal". But, I've changed my mind completely.

You're asking a very hard question. "Both/and" would be the easy answer, but probably not feasible. Best wishes on your decision-making.

Because I was worried about the 24-70 II being soft like the I which I owned. I would love to own all three lenses, but, I can't afford that. In order for me to get the 24-70 II, I would need to sell both of my L primes.

I just feel at this time, the 24-70 II would be more versatile with what I am shooting (live, semi-action shots) and that's why I like it. Otherwise, I really need a fast prime and changing is a bit of a pain.

windpig wrote in post #17113739
24-70 II is killer sharp but if you need 2 to 3 extra stops...............
I've got 24 I and 50L, along with the 24-70 II.

One day, I would be able to own all three.

agv8or wrote in post #17113681
Add a second 6D. Having two cameras not only gives you a backup in case one fails but makes life a lot easier when shooting primes.

Agree !

I only recently became a fan of primes. So far I have: 35 IS, 50 1.4, 100 2. I may add a 24 IS. If I had a 24L II and a 50L, I'd never use a 24-70 II, let alone pay for one.

You could always do the 50 F1.4 ART for $900 and wait for the 24 ART maybe its $1000 that will leave you $600 to play with.......

Maybe this will help -

http://www.lensrentals​.com …ge/canon-24-70mm-f2.8l-ii

If I say there are 4 billion stars in the Milky Way, everyone accepts that. If I say the paint is wet, everyone checks for themselves. I’m not sure which path people are going to take with this statement: This is the best standard-range zoom ever made. By any manufacturer. Ever. It’s not close.

I don't shoot concerts, but as a wedding photographer I understand the value of the time lost switching lenses to frame a shot. In that context, as much as I prefer fast primes, there are times when a zoom is an absolute life-saver...even if it means I have to contend with noise at higher ISO's, its a better compromise than the alternative: missing a shot altogether because I could't frame a shot, or missing a moment because I was fiddling with changing lenses.

In the realm of zooms, the 24-70II really is among the best...and unless you have a real need to shoot faster than 2.8, it will do everything the 50L and 24L will do, while being optically on par, or better. Obviously if you have a real need to shoot at apertures faster than f2.8, however, the primes will be a better choice.

I'd take a look at your shots, see how many are shot faster than f2.8, and of those shots, as yourself if you could have shot them at f2.8 or slower.

Photography equipment always involves compromises. Choose what suite you best!

if you cant afford a second body, then 24-70 it is.

hang your cross wrote in post #17113582
I'm not sure if it's GAS or me trying to find a compromise in what I shoot. I shoot a lot of low-light concerts, but also take a lot of pictures of family oriented situations. I also take photos of cars, but mainly use my 24 for that. The 50 is my go to all around lens.

Pros of the 24 + 50
Tack sharp throughout
Great for low-light situations
Love the shallow DOF and bokeh it produces
Unique feel to the photos

Cons of the 24 + 50
I have to switch back and forth between the two lenses very often when I shoot concerts, so I'm losing time switching.
I feel that I'm needing a 35 as well.

Now, I've had the 24-70 I before and it was alright, I just wasn't crazy about how soft I thought it was. So, with someone that is looking to make life easier on taking photos in my situation, would a II be a good trade-off for these two lenses? I would still have my 85 f/1.8 for portrait pictures as well as the 80-200.

Heya,

For the same cost, get another 6D and double fist.

6D + 24L
6D + 50L

And you don't lose two stops of light.

You seem like a prime person, why give up F1.4 and F1.2 as options, and get F2.8 for something that only adds convenience? You can stop those lenses down to F2.8 and they're super sharp. So the zoom only provides convenience really.

Very best,

Id never trade my 50L or a prime like the 24Lii for a zoom lens.

Id rather miss some shots because of swapping lenses instead of having all images but all look mediocre. Those wide aperture lenses have some unique looks and those 24-70mm things just look to normal IMO