Anything better than Canon 24-70 2.8 II

..... on a 5D IV for studio table top, to a bit larger, merchandise shooting? For the most part, nothing will be printed larger than catalog/magazine size. Is there anything out there significantly better, and would I be wasting my money for my needs?

In some cases a macro lens may have an advantage. Closer focusing on small items, a flatter plane (whatever it is called,) and a lower cost.

Money is not an issue (within reason), as long as I feel it's money well spent. Probably will not be doing very small items like rings or coins.

My first inclination is to suggest a macro lens. The 24-70mm 2.8II is great for an all around normal lens, but it's not macro. If you're really trying to shoot merchandise, then you should go for the 100mm 2.8 L IS: the non L is optically as good, but the macro IS has more versatility. Either 100mm macros will yield extremely sharp images.

So a macro for something like this?

Those are fairly large items, and to get enough depth of field I guess you are shooting at about ff11, at that aperture even the 24-105 mark I will give you sharp images. But if you want a versatile lens for in and out of the studio, the 24-70II won't let you down.

A TS-E45 would allow more flexibilty with the angles of the shots without recourse to small apertures to achieve the required DoF.

I'm of the opinion that there are a truckload of better tools for the job. You'll want to be shooting at a minimum focal length of 50mm to avoid wider angle distortions. You also have no use for f/2.8 in these shots. As mentioned above, f/11 is a good starting point. The lens in question can certainly do the job, but that wasn't the question.

To get a solid answer you'll have to define 'better' for us. Lens in question: $2,000. To my mind, the $89 50mm STM would do just as well. Cheaper qualifies as better where I come from. Most lenses are cheaper than the 24-70 II. Any one of them that can do 50-80mm, and f/11 would qualify as 'better' in my book.

texkam wrote in post #18523071
So a macro for something like this?

Hosted photo: posted by texkam in
./showthread.php?p=185​23071&i=i120018384
forum: Canon Lenses

I would stand back and frame it with a prime or a 70-200

But 24-70 would work

agree with other

one lens is never the answer for all photography needs

Not better, but something like the 50mm 1.4 or 85 1.8 are really sharp stopped down, the 85 especially. The 40mm 2.8 pancake is REALLY sharp imo.

But given the choice I would take the 24-70 2.8 II. I only mention the above because they are considerably cheaper and would work for that single application.

texkam wrote in post #18523071
So a macro for something like this?

Hosted photo: posted by texkam in
./showthread.php?p=185​23071&i=i120018384
forum: Canon Lenses

Those are not

texkam wrote in post #18523045
very small items like rings or coins.

which is where the macro lens would be ideal.

As far as table top product photography goes I'd call those medium to large items, certainly not very small.

The 24-70 would be fine for those items but why F2.8?, just get the F4 version.

"Significantly better" leaves open the impact of a ton of variables. One lens that comes to mind is the Sigma 24-105 f4 DG Art. It is dock compatible and is currently at $899 list price although some deals may exist. The Canon is $1699. In my mind, that price differential of $800 may weigh heavily toward making it better. Yes, it is a slower lens (f/4 vs. f/2.8) but for table top photography with a 5DIV that likely is a non-issue. See https://www.sigmaphoto​.com …e/24-105mm-f4-dg-os-hsm-a for the details.

George Zip wrote in post #18529090
Not better, but something like the 50mm 1.4 or 85 1.8 are really sharp stopped down, the 85 especially. The 40mm 2.8 pancake is REALLY sharp imo.

But given the choice I would take the 24-70 2.8 II. I only mention the above because they are considerably cheaper and would work for that single application.

Look at PZ.de's reviews.

The 50 1.4 is sharper than the 24-70II from f/2.8 through f/5.6. The 24-70II has to be stopped down to f/8 to be sharper than the 50 1.4. The 50 1.4 has, AFAIK, always carried the reputation of being one of Canon's sharpest lenses.

The 85 1.8 is sharper across the entire frame, at any aperture (yes, including f/1.8) than the 24-70II, at 70mm, is at any aperture. The 24-70II bests the 85 1.8 in the center of the frame only, and then only by miniscule amounts.

$300 vs. $2200? That is a no-brainer, if you ask me. But, I'm biased; I don't like big, heavy, expensive f/2.8 zooms.

Bassat wrote in post #18529133
Look at PZ.de's reviews.

The 50 1.4 is sharper than the 24-70II from f/2.8 through f/5.6. The 24-70II has to be stopped down to f/8 to be sharper than the 50 1.4. The 50 1.4 has, AFAIK, always carried the reputation of being one of Canon's sharpest lenses.

The 85 1.8 is sharper across the entire frame, at any aperture (yes, including f/1.8) than the 24-70II, at 70mm, is at any aperture. The 24-70II bests the 85 1.8 in the center of the frame only, and then only by miniscule amounts.

$300 vs. $2200? That is a no-brainer, if you ask me. But, I'm biased; I don't like big, heavy, expensive f/2.8 zooms.

Interesting... I did not know that.

I am always amazed at how sharp that 85mm is at 4.0 to 5.6 when I do flash work at receptions.

George Zip wrote in post #18529142
Interesting... I did not know that.

I am always amazed at how sharp that 85mm is at 4.0 to 5.6 when I do flash work at receptions.

I am amazed that so many people tout the 24-70II as the next best thing to sliced bread. "Prime like!" Really? My 28 1.8, 35 IS, 50 STM, and 85 1.8 all turn in better performance than the zoom at the same/similar focal length, at some aperture. Admittedly, the 28 1.8 sucks in the corners. If I am shooting that lens at that aperture, I am going for close-range, thin as I can get it DOF. Who gives a FFA about the corners? The zoom is exceptionally good at 24mm, and deteriorates as you zoom to 70mm. At longer focal lengths, it is really good in the center of the frame. That may matter at f/2.8. If I'm stopping down to f/8 anyway, why pay $2200 for an f/2.8 zoom that can't resolve corners as well as a $300 consumer prime? I would not pay that kind of money to get a short-range zoom that sucks in the periphery of the frame, and is just atrocious in the corners.

To my mind, the 24-70II is a bundle of mediocrity. You can get several other zooms with IS. You can get several other zooms with more focal length range. You can do better than f/2.8 in a wide variety of much cheaper primes. Most of them are sharper than the zoom at several aperture settings. Compared to other zooms, it may well be the boss wrt sharpness. There is more to utility than 'better than other zooms' sharpness.