Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM - The Brick

jakjak wrote in post #8532258
GUYS ! come on Convince me to buy this super BRICK!

With my browser or say the forum setting this thread is coming with 64 pages, so you still didn't find anything on those 64 pages that convince you to buy it?

Start here:
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=173736

rofl this thread convinced me !

J_TULLAR wrote in post #8532317
rofl this thread convinced me !

And i started this thread to convince people!

At 2.8

BrantG wrote in post #8532922
At 2.8

WOW, you convinced me to be happy with my 24-70L

BrantG wrote in post #8532922
At 2.8

drools

Would you use this lens? (24-70L) or a 50mm f/1.4 for portraits? Assuming I'm not shooting anything requiring f/1.4 speed...

On a crop I'd try the 50, on FF I'd go with the 24-70 @ 70mm

I'd recommend a 70-200 for portraits, though the 24-70 certainly works too.

thatkatmat wrote in post #8534117
On a crop I'd try the 50, on FF I'd go with the 24-70 @ 70mm

So all things equal, the 24-70 at 55mm should be better than the prime? (other than the lost of faster speeds).

The main reason I ask, is I just bought a brand new 50mmf/1.4 (still in box), with the assumption I was getting a crop camera...but now I'm considering the FF, so I'm wondering if to save money in the short term if it would just be better to sell the 50mm and use that money towards a 24-70L. What I would lose in stops, I figure I wouldn't need all that much anyways, and eventually I'd get a prime again.

Markitos wrote in post #8534646
I'd recommend a 70-200 for portraits, though the 24-70 certainly works too.

I've actually posed this question in another forum, but I do plan on purchasing a 70-200 as well...although I'm looking at the 70-200 f/4L to make the whole financial aspect of it work for me while still covering all my bases in terms of lenses needed. (I'd eventually upgrade to a 70-200/f2.8IS)

Just wanted to make sure that in that 50mm range, that the L lens would be better than the non-L prime. I was always under the impression that prime lenses are better at fixed focal lengths, but wasn't sure if compared to an L zoom lens if that thought still held up...

belsokar wrote in post #8534679
I've actually posed this question in another forum, but I do plan on purchasing a 70-200 as well...although I'm looking at the 70-200 f/4L to make the whole financial aspect of it work for me while still covering all my bases in terms of lenses needed. (I'd eventually upgrade to a 70-200/f2.8IS)

Just wanted to make sure that in that 50mm range, that the L lens would be better than the non-L prime. I was always under the impression that prime lenses are better at fixed focal lengths, but wasn't sure if compared to an L zoom lens if that thought still held up...

Not all primes are better than L-zooms, but many are. A 50 F/1.4 at F/2.8 should be better than a 24-70 at 50 mm and F/2.8.

The only L-zoom range that is really close if not equal to good primes, at (relatively) larger f-stops, are the 70-200s, especially the F/4L IS.

Kind regards, Wim

The 24-70L is great at 50mm f2.8, but the 50mm f1.4 usm at 2.8 is pretty near damb perfect. So yes the prime wins there, but the 24-70 puts in a fine performance though.

GMCPhotographics wrote in post #8534828
The 24-70L is great at 50mm f2.8, but the 50mm f1.4 usm at 2.8 is pretty near damb perfect. So yes the prime wins there, but the 24-70 puts in a fine performance though.

I was afraid that would be the answer! I was thinking I'd sell my prime, to help deflect the initial costs of the 24-70 (because I need the zoom capabilities)...but now I might just bite the bullet and do both....