What's next after the Canon 24-70 ii?

Just out of curiosity - if one already owns the Canon 24-70ii / sigma 35 Art, is there anything else that is:

- wider
- sharper
- larger aperture
- essentially better with very little drawback?

I was browsing through the Sony forums, and found this "Zhongyi" f0.95 manual lens that seem to have the Leica look without breaking the bank. Unfortunately, they don't sell a Canon mount for their f0.95 lens. What else is worth a second look?

Thanks!

???
This question reads like the 24-70II and Σ35A are the epitome of photography. I must be doing something wrong. I don't own, and have no desire for, either of them. There are literally hundreds of lenses worth a second look. Perhaps you could make the question a bit more specific.

I'm not sure I understand the question entirely either but if you are looking for manual lenses there is a glut of old M42 mount lenses available that can be adapted to EF very easily. I have a few adapters that provide extremely accurate AF confirmation. Some of the glass is extraordinary, some just fun to use. If you want to go really wide in a full manual EF mount the Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 14mm 2.8 is a bargain for the performance. I'd suggest taking a look at the galleries for some samples.

Not sure I answered your question but I hope that helps you out.

the.forumer wrote in post #17496052
Just out of curiosity - if one already owns the Canon 24-70ii / sigma 35 Art, is there anything else that is:

- wider
- sharper
- larger aperture
- essentially better with very little drawback?

I was browsing through the Sony forums, and found this "Zhongyi" f0.95 manual lens that seem to have the Leica look without breaking the bank. Unfortunately, they don't sell a Canon mount for their f0.95 lens. What else is worth a second look?

Thanks!

1 - Yes. Of course. Just depends how wide you want to go.
2 - Yes. But with autofocus? In a zoom? There's more to it than just sharper.'
3 - Of course, but again, as a zoom, or in general? It makes a difference. F2.8 is the slower side of a prime, while it's the faster side for a zoom.
4 - Better in what way? Measurements you cannot see? Properties that are subjective? You need to be specific.

Personally I have no use for a 24-70, F2.8 is slow for what I'd use it for and I don't care about autofocus. The 35 ART is a great lens, but I have no need for it as I prefer to have IS on my low light lenses when possible, so I prefer the 35 F2 IS instead.

Someone may want a 35 F1.4, 50 F1.0 or 50 F1.2, and an 85 F1.2 instead of a zoom and prime.

Maybe you want to stay in Canon and you haven't even looked at the glory of Zeiss?

It's all about what you think you need. Just having some of the best measuring lenses in a format with Canon's name on it doesn't mean anything. Do you want to make photographs, or do you want to just collect gear? No trying to be snide, it's a real question, because context matters.

Very best,

What you are looking for costs...$$$$$$££££££££

If sharper and wider is at the top of your list then you should be looking at Primes,

EF 135 L f/2.0
EF 85 L f/1.2 mk2
EF 200 f/2.0

I own the last 2, they are wonderful lenses. However if you want the best and can justify the expenditure then

Zeiss Otus 55mm APO Distagon ZE f/1.4
Zeiss Otus 85mm f/1.4

I already have the 135 f2, and find it to be less sharp/impressive than the S35 or the C24-70ii.

Yes, the Otus line is something that I lust after, but the price tag is a little too extreme. My budget is <2,500, and preferably 24mm or wider.

to make my query more specific, I'm looking for the 'artistic/dreamy' effect that the Leica lenses give towards portraits, but not at an arm-breaking price or with major drawbacks (e.g. 50L having extremely slow AF).

the.forumer wrote in post #17496603
I already have the 135 f2, and find it to be less sharp/impressive than the S35 or the C24-70ii.

Yes, the Otus line is something that I lust after, but the price tag is a little too extreme. My budget is <2,500, and preferably 24mm or wider.

to make my query more specific, I'm looking for the 'artistic/dreamy' effect that the Leica lenses give towards portraits, but not at an arm-breaking price or with major drawbacks (e.g. 50L having extremely slow AF).

Sorry to burst your bubble, but if you can't create stunning "dreamy" portraits with the 135L...no lens will help you. Possibly more practice as that is free would be the answer.

24mm or wider, bite the bullet and get the 11-24?

So you want Zeiss optics, blazing fast AF, ridiculous large aperture but don't want to pay much for it...... Let me know when you find it, I'd like one too.

Ignoring the vague nature of this question, and all of the legitimate points that have already been made, my answer is 24-70III F/2 IS.

the 135L isn't dreamy or sharp enough and you prefer wider than 24mm for portraits?

11-24 doesn't have the "large aperture" required by the OP.

There are very few choices that 24mm or wider; < $2,500.

24-70 III f/2? How much will it be?

mike_311 wrote in post #17496774
the 135L isn't dreamy or sharp enough and you prefer wider than 24mm for portraits?

i'm wondering the same...24mm or wider for portraits seems...interesting...

but you could look at the 24L or 24Art if you want something faster at the wide end of your zoom

and how heavy...