Canon 24-70 2.8L II or Prime?

So I'm about to make the biggest purchase in my photographic life:
Canon 5D MkIII - My dream body
16-35mm 2.8L II - Milkyway, landscape, timelapses and travelling selfies with wife lol
~24-70mm 2.8L II - Sharp portraits and primary travel lens and f/2.8 because we're often shooting in low light
Canon battery grip - Extra power for timelapses
Spare battery

Talked the eBay store (E-Infinity) down to $6850AUD for the lot, but just not 100% settled on the 24-70mm.

My wife wants a lens that's nice and sharp for portraits, but we're also looking to use this as the primary lens while travelling abroad.
I'm wondering how sharp the lens actually is compared to a prime and if a prime would be more annoying than not for our requirements.

Would this be a good investment? We're really wanting some much sharper lenses than we have now and are okay with the cost of the L series.

Heya,

The 24-70 II is prime-sharp. So as long as you're ok with F2.8, it's the way to go if you want those focal ranges.

Personally I don't see the need for the 16-35 for what you described it for, the 24mm F2.8 of the 24-70 II is going to do all that too. You're paying extra for the option to go wider than 24mm, but on full frame, 24mm is already quite wide. When I do milkyway, too wide just dwarfs it, and I end up always a lot closer to 24mm field of view full frame. Just a thought.

Lastly, while the 5D3 is your dream camera, you could save $1500 by noting that $1500 alone is the AF system. Which you won't be using hardly at all, doing astro, landscape, time lapse, etc. Even with portraits, it's hardly going to be used. Seems to me the 6D would make more sense. But just thinking out loud.

I hope you already have a good time lapse setup that can hold a minimum of 5~6lbs of weight.

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #17643256
Heya,

The 24-70 II is prime-sharp. So as long as you're ok with F2.8, it's the way to go if you want those focal ranges.

Personally I don't see the need for the 16-35 for what you described it for, the 24mm F2.8 of the 24-70 II is going to do all that too. You're paying extra for the option to go wider than 24mm, but on full frame, 24mm is already quite wide. When I do milkyway, too wide just dwarfs it, and I end up always a lot closer to 24mm field of view full frame. Just a thought.

Lastly, while the 5D3 is your dream camera, you could save $1500 by noting that $1500 alone is the AF system. Which you won't be using hardly at all, doing astro, landscape, time lapse, etc. Even with portraits, it's hardly going to be used. Seems to me the 6D would make more sense. But just thinking out loud.

I hope you already have a good time lapse setup that can hold a minimum of 5~6lbs of weight.

Very best,

I agree with the lens part. I have a 16-28 Tokina and I don't use it when doing landscapes. Its just too wide for me. I have a 5d3 and my 24-70 is on it I'd say 95% of the time.

take baby steps to get what you want. You can really get both, the 24-70ii and 50stm. Get the 5Diii and 16-35ii first, you've got a 50mm as is, however, the focal length of 24-70 and 50 are good for loose portraits, and I'de even favor the nifty fifty in terms of pure portraits. A 2.8 zoom wont be able to do 1.8 no matter how hard you wish it can, and 70mm is not a lot of focal length to blur the background.

as for good investments...... chances are, you'll be changing up gear for a while till you find the right mix. The 70-200F2.8 is a hell of a portrait lens if you were to buy a zoom, otherwise, even a 24-105 F4 would make a better portrait lens than a 24-70 F2.8.

the flying moose wrote in post #17643276
I agree with the lens part. I have a 16-28 Tokina and I don't use it when doing landscapes. Its just too wide for me. I have a 5d3 and my 24-70 is on it I'd say 95% of the time.

that really depends on the scenery, 16-35 is great for landscapes, and TS will definitely want to go as wide as possible with large aperture for milky way shots.

the 24-70 mk2 is a nice focal range and will produce fantastic photos along with the 5d3.

bob

You bring up some very good points, I hadn't even looked at the 6D before now, very similar and both are tied on here:
http://snapsort.com …-Mark-III-vs-Canon-EOS-6D

I also get what you're saying regarding the 16-35mm too, but these lenses would sell quite close to their original price 2nd hand normally(minus ~$200-300?). I'm willing to still get that one to see how I like it as I've only ever had the Sigma 10-20 and want to see what I can do with the 2.8 and if I really like it I'll keep it, if not then sell it on.

You could buy several primes for the price of the 24-70 II. Some of them are sharper than the 24-70II at f/2.8 through f/5, or so. The 24-70 II is a huge, heavy, expensive lens. I don't see anything in your opening post that suggests a 24-70 II. A 24 2.8 (or 28 1.8), 50 1.4, and 85 1.8 together (all used) will be less than half the cost of a 24-70 II, and up to two stops faster. I'm not sure about the others, but the 50 1.4 is reviewed to be sharper than the 24-70 II at f/2.8 and f/4. If you are chasing sharpness, paying $2000 to shoot a zoom at f/5.6 (where it is sharper than the 50 1.4) compared to $300 for the 50 1.4 seems a bit silly.

I also see nothing in your opening post that suggests a 5D3. As mentioned, for your extra $1,000 you get killer AF that you have no claimed use for. The 6D is smaller, lighter, cheaper than the 5D3. It does well at what you intend to do.

A 6D and any two of the listed primes will cost you $2,000 less than a 5D3 and a 24-70 II. Along with the $2,000, you get a lot less weight to carry around, and better (slightly) high-ISO performance, and better low-light focusing, if you can use the center AF point.

Put the money you save into something you need. Perhaps a killer portrait lens? Or put it into a nice photo vacation for you and the boss.

How often do you shoot in low light? I'd probably suggest skipping the 16-35 and getting a fast prime (e.g. 35mm f/1.4L) for low light shots. I often find that f/2.8 isn't fast enough for low light indoors. 16mm on FF is pretty wide and the 24mm on the 24-70 should still be good for landscape.

another thing, for astro, I'de get either the samyang 14/2.8 + 24/1.4 or tamron 15-30/2.8, it looks better than the canon 16-35. It happens to cost less as well. Hell I'de take the aperture hit with the 16-35 F4 L before going for the older 2.8.

the 6D will do better for astro (less banding/noticeable low light 6400+), but the 5D3 is a better general/events camera.

I would add a 100mm f2 prime or 85mm f1.8 for the portraits. I agree that the wide 16-35 may not be necessary unless doing landscapes.

The 24-70 is a must have walk about lens for the 5D3. Not sure what you mean by portrait lens. The conventional "portrait" lens is 100-135mm on a FF sensor: they have the least distortion for head shots. 85mm has gotten popular too since the 85mmL is f1/1.2 and lets you get get wider. For convenience, the popular zoom ranges are 24-70 for "normal angle" indoor shots, and 70-200 for portraits. The 24-70 may be considered expensive, but it does compare favorably to corresponding primes. Potentially, primes give you slightly better optics, but their main advantage over L zooms is lighter weight and larger aperture size.

video review of 24-70 vs 50mm primes

If money is a consideration, I think you should save some money on the 16-35 and get the f4 instead. It's a newer lens and optically superior to the 2.8: the only advantage the 2.8 has is the aperture.

This review compares the two for astrophotography. I don't have experience myself, since I got the 16-35mm f4 for landscapes (and for sharpness and CA/ the f4 is a great performer). Overall performance for the two lenses with astro work seem to be a toss up:

Canon 16-35mm f4 vs f2.8 ii

Charlie wrote in post #17643350
another thing, for astro, I'de get either the samyang 14/2.8 + 24/1.4 or tamron 15-30/2.8, it looks better than the canon 16-35. It happens to cost less as well. Hell I'de take the aperture hit with the 16-35 F4 L before going for the older 2.8.

the 6D will do better for astro (less banding/noticeable low light 6400+), but the 5D3 is a better general/events camera.

esinghal wrote in post #17643370
I would add a 100mm f2 prime or 85mm f1.8 for the portraits. I agree that the wide 16-35 may not be necessary unless doing landscapes.

These two posts sum up exactly what I was thinking.

If it were me, I'd get the 6D with the two Samyang primes, the 85mm f1.8, and the 24-70mm f2.8. It'd cost less and it would do a better job for what you stated.

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17643303
You could buy several primes for the price of the 24-70 II. Some of them are sharper than the 24-70II at f/2.8 through f/5, or so. The 24-70 II is a huge, heavy, expensive lens. I don't see anything in your opening post that suggests a 24-70 II. A 24 2.8 (or 28 1.8), 50 1.4, and 85 1.8 together (all used) will be less than half the cost of a 24-70 II, and up to two stops faster. I'm not sure about the others, but the 50 1.4 is reviewed to be sharper than the 24-70 II at f/2.8 and f/4. If you are chasing sharpness, paying $2000 to shoot a zoom at f/5.6 (where it is sharper than the 50 1.4) compared to $300 for the 50 1.4 seems a bit silly.

I also see nothing in your opening post that suggests a 5D3. As mentioned, for your extra $1,000 you get killer AF that you have no claimed use for. The 6D is smaller, lighter, cheaper than the 5D3. It does well at what you intend to do.

A 6D and any two of the listed primes will cost you $2,000 less than a 5D3 and a 24-70 II. Along with the $2,000, you get a lot less weight to carry around, and better (slightly) high-ISO performance, and better low-light focusing, if you can use the center AF point.

Put the money you save into something you need. Perhaps a killer portrait lens? Or put it into a nice photo vacation for you and the boss.

i have the 24-70 2,8 ii and the canon 50 1.4... and if the 50 is indeed sharper than the zoom at the apertrures you mentioned, i've never noticed it .. the zoom has given me consistently and reliably, very sharp images at all apertrues from 2.8 all the way up, so you most definetly do NOT have to shoot at 5.6 for sharpness, 2.8 provides Very sharp images, based on my use of the 2 lenses i would say with out a doubt the zoom is sharper ,, ... while the 50 has given me some sharp images , i find it to be very inconsistent and NOT very reliable as far as sharpness and af is slow sometimes , depending on lighting .. its a $350 lens vs $2200 (when first released) so i dont expect it to perform equally

i'm not sure its the best option for the OP, or if other primes are better or worse i just know based on my experience the zoom out performs the 50 1.4 prime

But hell yeah,, its a heavy lens,, as a walk around lens, its weight is not ideal
and yes its expensive ,, for the about same money as that 1 lens,you could get a 24-70 f4 IS and a couple of primes

I'd get the 16-35 F4 IS before the 16-35 2.8II if you want a wide zoom. The 24-70 II is the best mid range zoom out there and its so convenient but it cant open any larger than 2.8 for portraiture. But at 70mm 2.8 wont get you the best portraiture for that kind of $ spent imo. I vote for fast primes such as a used sigma 50 Art & a 85 1.8 and 24-105L for about the price of the 24-70Lii. That way you can bring the 24-105 to travel a long with either 50A or 85 1.8. They will give you different looks on each and seriously who doesn't like to have options?? As far as the body, i've been using the 5d3 for the past 3 years since introduced and loving it. I cant speak for the 6D.