24-70 II Vs 50L

Well, in the end I ended up with both. Will see how that pans out for a while but so far loving both lenses

Would like to know your views on your new 24-70II xpfloyd as I am considering it as an all-rounder including landscapes.

Jasonfire124 wrote in post #17556457
Would like to know your views on your new 24-70II xpfloyd as I am considering it as an all-rounder including landscapes.

Its early days but so far I'm impressed. People say its like having a bag of primes and I'm starting to appreciate that now. Obviously need to live with it a lot longer to.know for sure but it seems like an amazing all rounder

If you are stuck between choosing two very different lenses...it's because you probably need both.

xpfloyd wrote in post #17556533
Its early days but so far I'm impressed. People say its like having a bag of primes and I'm starting to appreciate that now. Obviously need to live with it a lot longer to.know for sure but it seems like an amazing all rounder

That describes it perfectly; it just gets the job done. I've run a couple of copies against various lenses (Canon 50mm f/1.4, Sigma 35mm Art) on a test chart and through the same apertures it's hard to tell them apart in terms of sharpness (so the difference isn't going to be field relevant). When you consider that those primes are a couple of stops down vs the zoom, that's pretty impressive.

The AF is excellent, the build and handling feels good. It may not elicit love like a super fast prime or some esoteric/rare/vintage glass, but for me it's certainly one of the best zooms available today.

GMCPhotographics wrote in post #17556621
If you are stuck between choosing two very different lenses...it's because you probably need both.

That's pretty much where I've ended up

xpfloyd wrote in post #17557041
That's pretty much where I've ended up

I'm late to this thread, but I like your kit... I have a very similar setup and I believe many enthusiasts and pros alike have come before us and many other's will follow. Canon's 50, 85, and 135 L primes are pretty amazing, and the 24-105 and 24-70 zooms are also incredible (each in their own way). I love shooting interesting objects and people with primes, but absolutely need a zoom for my travel photography. I just picked up a 24-70II to replace my aging 24-105 and I'm keen to see what it can do at f/2.8. My 24-105 was pretty much stuck on f/8-f/11 so the new zoom opens up a lot of interesting new options.

I shot with both last night. Love them both. Could never part with either.

Depends if you need the low light; and how much weight you are comfortable holding. f/2.8 and f/1.2 is a *big* difference when you need it, but nice to have. Myself; I put 50mm on whenever I plan on shooting people and it's *mostly* the right focal length on FF (I chose it over 35mm after playing with usage stats on my 24-105 for a while).

w0m wrote in post #17561106
Depends if you need the low light; and how much weight you are comfortable holding. f/2.8 and f/1.2 is a *big* difference when you need it, but nice to have. Myself; I put 50mm on whenever I plan on shooting people and it's *mostly* the right focal length on FF (I chose it over 35mm after playing with usage stats on my 24-105 for a while).

good point, weight!
I used the 24-70 II from 4pm to 7pm, switched to the 50L at 7pm and was like "woa this lens is light!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

As the proud owner of four kids (14,8,6,2) I can tell you that there will never be any perfect lens. Soo many situations requires different lenses for different results. as I look back on my photos from a few years ago I much more appreciate the very sharp, in focus shots over the slightly OOF shots. I love my dreamy F1.4 shots but looking back at stuff like the 70-200 F4 IS I realize that the shots look just fine just less bokeh but are in sharp and that lens always nailed the shot.

I've always preached that a good solid lens kit to cover all bases would be a wide zoom, tele zoom, wide prime and tele prime. The basic comes to mind would be the 24-70 & 70-200 and then a 35/85.

If money is no object and space is not an issue and you don't mind lenses going unused for lengths of time then by all means own lots of lenses. Now... when it comes to the 50... It's much more usable for kids than the 85 is mainly due to the MFD. BUT... the 85 was by far the goto portrait lens. I recently sold mine and took some hits to get the 70-200 back which is really a sweat gem in it's own way.

I'm without a general purpose zoom... and I've had too many situations lately where a general purpose zoom would of been well worth the benefits. I do alot of birthday parties with friends and my own kids and the primes always gives the wow shots. They are very useful for times like birthday cakes or presents and candids but for parties on the go the 2.8 zooms are worth it. I'll soon be adding the 24-70 back to my kit. I see no other way around it.

I also recently shot with two cameras... fell in love. I'm in trouble. My plan now is dual 5D3s w/ a prime and a zoom. was just so much nicer walking around w/o having to swap lenses.

I've also had some amazing 24mm 2.8 shots also... sure they would of been great with the 1.4 but I also had the ability to snap to 70mm too.

Talley wrote in post #17562014
As the proud owner of four kids (14,8,6,2) I can tell you that there will never be any perfect lens... They are very useful for times like birthday cakes or presents and candids but for parties on the go the 2.8 zooms are worth it. I'll soon be adding the 24-70 back to my kit. I see no other way around it.

Yeah. Kids are useful props sometimes and it's great to build a portfolio of birthday shots. However, sometimes you just have to let go and give one up in order to fund the lens that you really need. If I were you, get rid of the 14 year old. There's just too much risk and trouble ahead in the immediate future and you might be able to get more use out of a general purpose lens instead. That way, you'll have more time to prepare for the other 3 kids. That 14 year old is just about at that age where he or she doesn't want parents around at a birthday anyway, never mind taking photos too. On the other hand, I could also see the 2 year old fetching a good price on the grey market as there's less depreciation... especially if you still have the box.

Talley wrote in post #17562014
I'm without a general purpose zoom... and I've had too many situations lately where a general purpose zoom would of been well worth the benefits.

did you end up getting one?
why do you have two 85's?

K Soze wrote in post #17506302
I was also leary of the 50L because of lens tests and what I heard on the internet. I picked one up at a convention, put it on my camera, took one shot and knew I needed it. DAM YOU CANON CPS!!!! I bought one about a month later. I also have the 24 to 70 2.8 MKii. That lens is very good and over all technicaly a better lens for a lot of things but, I like the 5oL for my kid shots much better. I also like the 50L for 2/3 and 1/2 body glamor shots. But all of this is an artistic preference. Me personally, if I only had three lenses they would be the 16 to 35 2.8 50L 70 to 200 2.8 IS....... that goodness I am not limited to three lenses

Boy I hear you K Soze.......three lenses......

it's like painting

the 24-70II is a roller

the 50L is a fine brush

there times that you need one or the other.

they are both great.

the 50L, it's not that it isn't sharp. it's a portrait lens that creates CRAZY artistic bokeh.
if they change the build design, it wouldn't render the same. but it may be sharper.