Anything better than Canon 24-70 2.8 II

Bassat wrote in post #18529160
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.

I have grown to prefer primes, mainly because they are lighter and force you to stay in that focal length for specific things. EG: Portrait and People photography, I have been guilty of shooting at 24mm on a zoom because I get caught up in the moment.

But shooting events such as a wedding, I tend to use zooms mainly. Only because you are always in a different situation and for me connivence and getting there quickly trumps anything else.

I disagree a bit about the 24-70 2.8 II. I think it's a good lens, although what I will say against it it is fairly bland... you get sharp images and it focus's well but that's about it. While it's sharp and works as advertised there is nothing special about it IMO but it does a good job. Whereas in complete contrast the 50mm 1.2 has it flaws at 1.2, but has a character that I really love. Sharpness is not everything, but the 24-70 is a good tool I think.

I think you've summed up the 24-70 II very nicely. It is a tool. A very good one, and most likely the best of its kind. My only point is that it is not the best tool for EVERY job. I am happy that we can all get what we need. The variety of good stuff available today is astounding. Case in point is this very thread. The 24-70II can certainly do the job. But so can the lowly 50 1.8, or the 85 1.8.

Anything better? Not zoom wise, not in that range (that I know about, anyway). Close enough, yes, but a first party zoom? No.

I agree wholeheartedly that a prime offers more in terms of "look" resulting from the more versatile aperture. I think the 24-70/105 range is dull: for my personal shooting you normally won't see me below 100mm, but for my business shooting where getting a shot matters more than blurry backgrounds, the zooms rule the roost. I'm fine giving up an unnoticeable-to-the-client amount of sharpness. Could an f/4 variant work? Maybe, I don't know, but I'm going with what gets the shot under more circumstances.

MatthewK wrote in post #18529198
Anything better? Not zoom wise, not in that range (that I know about, anyway). Close enough, yes, but a first party zoom? No.

I agree wholeheartedly that a prime offers more in terms of "look" resulting from the more versatile aperture. I think the 24-70/105 range is dull: for my personal shooting you normally won't see me below 100mm, but for my business shooting where getting a shot matters more than blurry backgrounds, the zooms rule the roost. I'm fine giving up an unnoticeable-to-the-client amount of sharpness. Could an f/4 variant work? Maybe, I don't know, but I'm going with what gets the shot under more circumstances.

I agree. The sharpness debate is mute point I think. Mute in that if you have to zoom 1 to 1 to tell the difference then it does not really matter.

I have delivered slightly OOF shots purely because they were a great moment and they did not care and I don't think they could even tell.

But back the the original post.... Again I agree, nothing much better in zoomland I can think of. It's sharp corner to corner and has no real CA to contend with so it's hard to take a "bad" shot.

However shooting product photography there are a lot of options all as good as each other. I personally would look at something with IS just so you can handhold more often than having to use a tripod when at higher F Stops. However that's just me being lazy. Tripods irk me. Someone else mentioned the Macro, with IS, that would be an awesome all rounder for product work provided you had the room to step back enough for the 100mm focal length. Plus they are awesome for getting in close for the detail shots of a product if required. EG: a closeup of a button on a shirt and stuff like that.

Bassat wrote in post #18529160
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.

My 24-70/2.8 II is more reliable in nailing focus than any of my primes. From about the time of the launch of the 70-200/2.8 II on, Canon has made a significant step improvement in focus accuracy (you can read about this in Roger Cicala's blog at the LensRentals site). This improvement has been coming on all the newer zooms, which is why all of them seem to be almost amazing at hitting focus, especially in challenging light. Presumably new primes will be better as well, but a lot of the primes are old designs these days.

My 24L II, 50L, and 85LII are all nice, sharp lenses. I get less 'perfect' sharp shots with them than I do with my 24-70 II, 70-200/2.8 II, and 100-400 II in real world shooting because the zooms don't miss.

Along the same line - somebody in this thread mentioned the 50/1.4 as being sharp. It is when stopped down, but when used at apertures faster than f/2 it is anything but sharp. More to the point, it is a disaster as far as AF performance is concerned. I once swapped out a 50/1.4 that was balking at focus in low light and went to a 24-105L. This old, not-updated, and slow zoom lens was able to nail focus in light when the 50/1.4 was completely lost and hunting.

My point is - real world performance of lenses is often a lot more complicated than just thinking about static, perfectly focused performance.

JeffreyG wrote in post #18529326
My 24-70/2.8 II is more reliable in nailing focus than any of my primes. From about the time of the launch of the 70-200/2.8 II on, Canon has made a significant step improvement in focus accuracy (you can read about this in Roger Cicala's blog at the LensRentals site). This improvement has been coming on all the newer zooms, which is why all of them seem to be almost amazing at hitting focus, especially in challenging light. Presumably new primes will be better as well, but a lot of the primes are old designs these days.

My 24L II, 50L, and 85LII are all nice, sharp lenses. I get less 'perfect' sharp shots with them than I do with my 24-70 II, 70-200/2.8 II, and 100-400 II in real world shooting because the zooms don't miss.

Along the same line - somebody in this thread mentioned the 50/1.4 as being sharp. It is when stopped down, but when used at apertures faster than f/2 it is anything but sharp. More to the point, it is a disaster as far as AF performance is concerned. I once swapped out a 50/1.4 that was balking at focus in low light and went to a 24-105L. This old, not-updated, and slow zoom lens was able to nail focus in light when the 50/1.4 was completely lost and hunting.

My point is - real world performance of lenses is often a lot more complicated than just thinking about static, perfectly focused performance.

Maybe it matters which camera is being used. My 6D nails focus with all my old consumer f/1.8 primes, and the 135L and 200 2.8L II, and my L-zooms. Or maybe I just don't push my gear too hard. From where I sit, it is hard to get 'improvement' out of newer gear when the old stuff works just fine. I also used all my glass on a 1D4, and an 80D - never had problems on either.

I admit to having had 2 f/2.8 zooms, and liking neither because of the size/weight/cost. I still have the Tokina 11-20 2.8, which I find to be excellent, but it does require MFA on my 80D. It works fine on the 6D w/o MFA. Go figure.

Boy Howdy, do I agree with you about the 50 1.4's intermittent focus. It's low-light abilities were worse than average, too. Canon seems to struggle with AF on 50mm lenses. My 50 1.8 v1 worked just fine, until the AF died. I had 3 copies of the 50 II. I couldn't get consistent focus out of any of them at f/2.8, let alone f/1.8. I picked up a refurbished 50 STM a while back; it seems to work fine.

Just want to put it out there that I don't debate the goodness of the EF f/2.8 zooms. I just don't have any use for them. So, from where I sit, all 13 lenses in my closet are 'better than Canon 24-70 2.8 II.'

for in studio (I'm assuming that's how the op will photograph items ), I don't think there is anything better than the 24-70 mkii.. equally useful? maybe .. but not better..

I had the lens .. loved it .

Very sharp all around (maybe on the longest end (70mm) not its best side but very good)
pleasant bokeh.
fast AF .. accurate..
great lens all around , jack of all trades (obviously all trades that would require this focal range)
some of my Personal favorites/best have been with the 5d3 and 24-70

BUT.,.. it can be a bit boring

I have been using primes more and more within the past 2 years ,, because the high end 2.8 zooms are Pricey + Big + heavy..
but for something like what the OP is doing I don't think there is anything better

Bassat wrote in post #18529335
Maybe it matters which camera is being used. My 6D nails focus with all my old consumer f/1.8 primes, and the 135L and 200 2.8L II, and my L-zooms. Or maybe I just don't push my gear too hard.

Probably just situational, as I'm using a 5D Mark III. Or it could be what we consider acceptable focus. But if one is picking nits on which lens is sharpest, then we are certainly talking only about shots that are in absolute perfect focus.

I've been shooting Canon dSLRs since 2006, and focus performance has steadily improved. I used to get a fair number of near misses using bodies like the 5D and lenses like the 50/1.4, 85/1.8 and the older 70-200 IS. Sometimes I'd get a few big misses.

With a camera like the 5D3 and good lenses like the 50L or the 85L II, I can expect something like 80% - 90% of shots to be perfect. The remainder are usually close, but not quite perfect. In some ways, that's especially annoying because they look fine at screen resolution, but you can tell they are off by an inch or so when you zoom in to a 1:2 view in Lightroom.

So I have developed a habit of shooting 2-3 shots of anything critical. When I import, I check the shot at 1:2 view for perfect focus and if it is off, I discard it and grab one of the backup shots. The whole process works, but it's tedius to sort through the shots for critical focus

As I added Canon's most recent zooms (For me, the 70-200 II in 2010, and especially the 24-70 II and 100-400 II in 2015) I noticed that my sorting habit was becoming a waste of time. The first shot was almost always perfect, and I was always discarding the backup shots. That's the kind of performance I like.

Incidentally, this is also why I would love to play around with a PDAF sensor based focus system like the Sony A7rIII to see how accurate it is. The Sony-EOS lens compatibility makes that almost worth doing, but then there is everything else (flashes, triggers, etc.) and I just think.....nah.

The Canon 24-70 F2.8 is a great event lens, where you need F2.8. I don't see the logic of getting one for product photography. You don't need IS on a 100 mm macro, if you can use a tripod. AF accuracy or speed won't matter for product photos with a prime, since you can use manual focus.
I would look at Canon primes in the focal lengths that will be useful, including 35, 50, 85 or 100 mm. Money saved on the lenses will go towards lighting.

JeffreyG wrote in post #18529357
Probably just situational, as I'm using a 5D Mark III. Or it could be what we consider acceptable focus. But if one is picking nits on which lens is sharpest, then we are certainly talking only about shots that are in absolute perfect focus.

I've been shooting Canon dSLRs since 2006, and focus performance has steadily improved. I used to get a fair number of near misses using bodies like the 5D and lenses like the 50/1.4, 85/1.8 and the older 70-200 IS. Sometimes I'd get a few big misses.

With a camera like the 5D3 and good lenses like the 50L or the 85L II, I can expect something like 80% - 90% of shots to be perfect. The remainder are usually close, but not quite perfect. In some ways, that's especially annoying because they look fine at screen resolution, but you can tell they are off by an inch or so when you zoom in to a 1:2 view in Lightroom.

...

Ah-ha! I think I see our differences of opinion. To me, focus is either 'good enough', or it is not. I pick no nits. And while I agree with you about Canon DSLR's getting better at AF, I maintain that the lenses were 'good enough' all along.

It is surely our expectations that differ. You are using top-notch glass and expect 80-90% perfect shots. I shot maybe 5,000 frames with my 1D4 that I intended to be keepers. I never got a poor-AF shot that wasn't my fault. I got 100% 'good enough' shots. I don't get paid for anything I do with a camera, so good enough really is. Oh, and I don't own any f/1.2 lenses, either. Can't afford them.

Bassat wrote in post #18529370
Ah-ha! I think I see our differences of opinion. To me, focus is either 'good enough', or it is not. I pick no nits. And while I agree with you about Canon DSLR's getting better at AF, I maintain that the lenses were 'good enough' all along.

It's good to recongnize that for a lot of what you might shoot, you don't actually need the kind of performance that folks often worry about in conversations here. If display on normal HD monitors and the web is the goal, then it is true that a lot of what I call a 'miss' will be fine. But going along with that, if your intention is strictly display and web, there are a whole bunch of questions you never need ask yourself such as:

"Should I get a camera with more pixels?" - No. They all have enough.
"Which lens is sharper?" - Doesn't matter. All EOS lenses are sharp at web sizes.
"Should I get a camera with less noise?" - Nope, just smack it with NR, the lost detail will be smaller than you can resolve anyway.

I tend to be picky because I print a lot of what I shoot. But even then, I know I don't actually have to worry about some of the truly nitpicky detail that gets debated in online forums. I also think that people gaze at lens test chart shots from testing websites, forgetting that when they miss focus by 10mm they wind up with a bigger loss of sharpness than anything they think they see on the perfectly focused test chart.

Some things I print at 20x30 and even larger. And you know what? A middling EOS lens like the 24-105L can make a sharp looking 20x30 if the focus is perfect.

Even my basic family stuff has a good chance of getting printed as I make an annual 11x13 photo book for my kids to thumb through. I like to be able to hold a book of my pictures, and the kids love to flip through and remember fun trips and activities from years past. Who will make the cover is always a big question each year.

I've been shooting digital since about 2007. In all that time I've printed 2 or 3 11"x17". IIRC, they were done with 500D (T1i) and 18-135 IS. They looked fine to me. I do a few dozen 8"x10" yearly, and they look good at max native ISO on any camera. Most of my shared photos are indeed web-shared. All of this leads me to going back to APS-c. I originally bought the 80D to replace my 1D4 for action/sports. I sold my wide- and mid-range EF zooms in favor of the 18-135 USM. I'll sell the 6D next year. I just don't use it much anymore. In my case 'good enough' really is 'good enough'.

Perhaps I should stay out of discussions of top-flight glass like the 24-70II. But sometimes I feel that lots of folks think EVERYONE needs glass like that. Not true.

Oh, and I just paid $80 for a 28-105 for my film body. It is 'good enough', too.

Happy shooting!

texkam wrote in post #18523038
..... 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?

I don't understand why one would not be using tilt/shift lenses for such specialized work. . They help you control the depth of field and pretty much do whatever you want with it. . The T/S 90mm seems like an excellent choice for what you are wanting to shoot.
.

umphotography wrote in post #18523436
I would stand back and frame it with a prime or a 70-200

Yes, standing back and using a longer focal length is a great way to avoid the perspective distortion that one will get when shooting tabletop objects at close distances. . The further the camera is from the objects, the less perspective distortion one will have to deal with.
.

George Zip wrote in post #18529202
I agree. The sharpness debate is mute point I think. Mute in that if you have to zoom 1 to 1 to tell the difference then it does not really matter.

Not sure what you mean by "mute point". . Did you mean to say "moot point"?

.

JeffreyG wrote in post #18529420
I like to be able to hold a book of my pictures, and the kids love to flip through and remember fun trips and activities from years past.

Hey sorry for the OT question. Where do you get your books printed, if you don't mind sharing? Looks great.

On topic, I like the 100L for product shots. 24-70 II is my go to for poorly lit indoor events. Outdoor, 24-105 v1. Not perfect but darn good and cheap to replace if Mother Nature decides to claim it as her own.

Tom's TS-E suggestion is interesting & worth checking out.

Lee

Photo from aezoss's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (878400)

I use Blurb for my books, since 2007. I've been happy with them.