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

MalVeauX wrote in post #17115002
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,

Would love something like that!

http://www.dxomark.com …n___886_795_130​6_0_1056_0

Just buy the 2 sigmas and pick up a 5D2 for $1000 it will be a bit more than the 24-70 new but much faster and well sharper with less distortion.....

Well, I went out with the family today and used my 50L and I don't picture myself selling this lens.

What I think I'm going to do is sell the 24L II, and save up for the 24-70 II. I mainly use the 24 for shooting cars, and that I can use f/2.8 without a problem. When I shoot concerts I really need a 35, so a 35IS might be in the distant future as well.

The 24-70 II is fantastic if f/2.8 is enough for you. For me personally, as someone mentioned earlier, I'd prefer to go primes with two bodies if needed. If you do decide to go with the 24-70 II, I have one for sale.

davidfarina wrote in post #17115008
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

Try telling that to a client who was expecting you to capture something

mystik610 wrote in post #17115217
Try telling that to a client who was expecting you to capture something

Most event, journalist, or wedding shooters have 2-4 cameras hanging off them for that reason. In fact at the 2012 Hangtown I shot a guy had a 300 F2.8 on one body a 200 F2 and a 24-120 on his third camera. All hanging he said the 24-120 is there just in case but barely used. But was rolling with like $25K in gear so.....

This is a hobby for me. I have no need for two cameras, nor could I afford them. I guess if one of you rich guys wants to buy me a 6d or a 24-70 II, I'll be more than happy to take it from you.

Technically, I couldn't afford the gear I have now. I had to do a lot of hustling just to own the gear.

hang your cross wrote in post #17115440
This is a hobby for me. I have no need for two cameras, nor could I afford them. I guess if one of you rich guys wants to buy me a 6d or a 24-70 II, I'll be more than happy to take it from you.

Technically, I couldn't afford the gear I have now. I had to do a lot of hustling just to own the gear.

But you have the need for a $2500 zoom lens that does what your current lenses already do? It's a hobby but you are willing to pay $2500 to make up for the minuscule time it takes to change a lens? But a cheaper item, like another camera, that lets you use your two better lenses for what you're doing, with zero time change and no compromise, and spending less money doing it is not a valid option for you?

Again, look at what you're saying. You're considering a $2500 lens. For what? At the hobby level?

It doesn't compute, sir.

Very best,

$2500? Where did you get that price?

If I'm selling one or two lenses the offset in price would either be a few hundred to me or out of pocket. And yes, those moments of me fiddling with the lenses being lost suck.

hang your cross wrote in post #17115485
$2500? Where did you get that price?

If I'm selling one or two lenses the offset in price would either be a few hundred to me or out of pocket. And yes, those moments of me fiddling with the lenses being lost suck.

Ok ok ok... $2300 retail on Amazon. I'm off by $200. Even at $2000. It's still more than what another option costs that provides a different, yet still fast, way to accomplish what you've suggested you wanted to accomplish.

Again, you're still talking about something in the thousands and acting like it's just a hobby to you, but you're willing to throw that much money down on something based on some internet opinions...

Think about it.

Very best

I wouldn't buy it new...They can be had for $1600 used or refurbished from Canon.

Yes, I willing to drop down money like that because if I don't like it, I can sell it for what I paid. The photography hobby is one in which you really won't lose that much money if you need to sell your equipment; so really it's no sweat off my back. Like I said, I'd be selling a lens to help fund the newly acquired one.

There are many hobbies in which people throw a ton of money at and never see a return if they want to get out of said hobby. Photography is not one of them.

This is now going way off-topic. I really don't see why people are not answering the original question. I'm not asking about adding another body. Because in order for me to purchase another camera body, that's with money I don't have at the moment. Plus, I would not want to carry around two cameras on my neck.

I own 24L and 50L. Recently added 24-70 L II for the same reasons - the convenience of not having to change lenses. I also shoot only for fun, focusing mostly on my family, kids, travel. I took the 24-70 II with me on a family vacation as a one lens solution, I got some great photos, really can't complain about the quality. With that said, I'm going to depart with it for several reasons:

1) I missed having large aperture for low light videos. this is where the 24L really shines.

2) big reason why I love photography is the process of making photographs, not just the outcome (photos); I didn't enjoy using the 24-70; don't know why, perhaps because it was too convenient to use - missed the challenge of using just one focal length

I will continue using my prime lenses for times when I want to enjoy photography or deal with challenging situation. I may add smaller zoom camera (m4/3, NEX, etc.) for the times when I need something smaller, portable and convenient.

My recommendation: considering you can't afford to keep what you have and buy the 24-70, wait until Canon offers rebates (probably around thanksgiving), BH had it for 1799 after rebate few months ago, buy it with BillMeLater 0% 6 months financing, use it for 6 months along with your other lenses, then sell what you don't want to keep and pay off the bill. If you time it right and buy the lens with rebates, you should be able to sell it used later with only a small loss.

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.

My guess is this test, like so many, was conducted by shooting a smallish target fairly close up in a room. A lens like the 50mm L, without a floating element, does poorly at this. A zoom tends to do better, because close range correction often comes free with the design. So the test is "accurate" but measuring something unrelated to real world use of the lens.

The OP is right; the 50mm L is sharp at the right settings. My copy is very sharp indeed at moderate distances closed down a bit. It's when you focus too closely that its performance really falls apart.

A soft lens often doesn't matter for web and emailing but bad bokeh does. I judge the bokeh of the 24-70mm f/2.8 Mk II L as pretty bad by examples I've seen online. As an example, look at the row of Beethoven busts in the linked test above.

hang your cross wrote in post #17115512
Plus, I would not want to carry around two cameras on my neck.

Just a note, the 24-70 F2.8L II weighs more than a 6D does.

I understand what you're saying; you'd have to sell stuff to get the new lens. To get a new camera, you'd not be able to sell stuff. I still suggest you stick with your current lenses instead of selling them for a zoom. Unless you're all about convenience over having the features that you have now, you will miss having access to F1.4 and F1.2. If you don't, then a zoom is for you. If you would, then the zoom is not for you.

Very best,

davidfarina wrote in post #17115008
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

I struggle with this very comment myself. I seem to be a prime guy myself. Although I look at certain lenses like the new 16-35 F4 IS and feel a zoom is OK for a wide end.

The 16-35 F4 IS and the 24L II are definately on my next WANT now list.