Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2012 · 24-70mm 2.8L II or 24mm 2.8 IS + 28mm 2.8 IS + 40mm 2.8?
  
 
Suresh T
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · 24-70mm 2.8L II or 24mm 2.8 IS + 28mm 2.8 IS + 40mm 2.8?


I'm lining up my last remaining lens purchases for a while (hopefully!), and have been eyeing the new 40mm 2.8 and 24mm 2.8 IS for a December purchase to round up my prime lenses (currently 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 100/2.8L, 135/2L).

With the new 24-70mm 2.8 L II, I'm now a bit undecided. According to photozone, this zoom is about as sharp at 24mm and 40mm as the corresponding primes, although of course it won't have the IS at 24mm.

Hurt wise, if I add the cost of the 28mm 2.8 IS, I can almost justify the price of the zoom :-):

3 Primes: 24mm f/2.8 IS + 28mm f/2.8 IS + 40mm f/2.8 = $850 + $800 + $200 = $1850
1 Zoom: 24-70mm 2.8L II = $2300

So that's "just" a $450 difference (using MSRP).

I already have the 24-105L, and wasn't even thinking about the new 24-70L II until I compared the sharpness per photozone.

Is the new 24-70L II really as sharp as the primes? Should I go with the zoom or the 3 primes?



Oct 06, 2012 at 08:56 PM
Derek Weston
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · 24-70mm 2.8L II or 24mm 2.8 IS + 28mm 2.8 IS + 40mm 2.8?


Not sure why you'd buy a 24 and 28 2.8 . . .

The zoom gives you quite a bit more than that trio.



Oct 06, 2012 at 09:01 PM
kewlcanon
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · 24-70mm 2.8L II or 24mm 2.8 IS + 28mm 2.8 IS + 40mm 2.8?


If I were you I'll just buy one 24 f/2.8 IS or if I want 24-70L II get rid the 85 f/1.8.


Oct 06, 2012 at 09:03 PM
Suresh T
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · 24-70mm 2.8L II or 24mm 2.8 IS + 28mm 2.8 IS + 40mm 2.8?


moonpeep wrote:
Not sure why you'd buy a 24 and 28 2.8 . . .

The zoom gives you quite a bit more than that trio.


I wasn't looking at the 28 2.8 before, but using it to justify buying the zoom instead. :-)

24 2.8 would be for landscapes with no people, on a tripod.

I can see the 28 2.8 being more useful than the 24 2.8 for landscapes *with* people, since 24 mm is usually is a bit too wide for shots with people in them.



Oct 06, 2012 at 09:09 PM
Suresh T
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · 24-70mm 2.8L II or 24mm 2.8 IS + 28mm 2.8 IS + 40mm 2.8?


kewlcanon wrote:
If I were you I'll just buy one 24 f/2.8 IS or if I want 24-70L II get rid the 85 f/1.8.


24 2.8 IS would be great for landscapes with no people, but then I'd have a gap from 28-40 mm or so, which is the range I use for landscape shots *with* people in them.

Interesting thought on getting rid of the 85/1.8, but it has a little something in it for portraits that the 100/2.8L doesn't seem to have (and the new 24-70 II may not). I suspect that little something has to do with not being *too* sharp, which makes portraits a bit more flattering. I think. :-)



Oct 06, 2012 at 09:17 PM
mmurph
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · 24-70mm 2.8L II or 24mm 2.8 IS + 28mm 2.8 IS + 40mm 2.8?


I use my 24-70 Version I for just about everything. Even when I had a studio and shot fashion, that was my go-to lens for 85% of my work.

I plan on buying the 24-70 II to go with my 70-200 II. Those are the only 2 lenses I am sure that I am keeping long term. I am toying with the idea of selling everything else.

Remember too that it isn't the "out of pocket" cost of a lens that is important, but rather the Purchase Price - Sale Price.

The 70-200 II sells for around $1,900 used. So if you can find the 24-70 at a small discount, say $2,200, the net cost over a few years might only be $300 or less.

I will probably also keep the 40 mm STM for auto focus in video, along with the 18-135 STM - both only for video on the T4i.

I might keep my 100 L, or my 90 TS-E for the tilt & shift effects. But I personally don't see a strong case for most other lenses for my use, beyond those 2 zooms.

Good luck!
Michael




Oct 06, 2012 at 09:53 PM
gfiksel
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · 24-70mm 2.8L II or 24mm 2.8 IS + 28mm 2.8 IS + 40mm 2.8?


Recently I added the 24mm f2.8 IS to the 40mm pancake an 100mm f2.8 IS and really enjoying the trio. I also tried the 28mm but it's too close to 24mm to justify it. Given there is only 16% difference I can always crop the 24mm frame a little to arrive to the same FOV.


Oct 06, 2012 at 10:14 PM
Suresh T
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · 24-70mm 2.8L II or 24mm 2.8 IS + 28mm 2.8 IS + 40mm 2.8?


mmurph wrote:
I use my 24-70 Version I for just about everything. Even when I had a studio and shot fashion, that was my go-to lens for 85% of my work.

I plan on buying the 24-70 II to go with my 70-200 II. Those are the only 2 lenses I am sure that I am keeping long term. I am toying with the idea of selling everything else.

Remember too that it isn't the "out of pocket" cost of a lens that is important, but rather the Purchase Price - Sale Price.

The 70-200 II sells for around $1,900 used. So if
...Show more

Yeah, I'm planning to wait for Canon's fall sale rebates (usually around Nov-Dec). I know they have one going on now, but not for the 24-70/2.8L II. :-(



Oct 06, 2012 at 10:18 PM
Suresh T
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · 24-70mm 2.8L II or 24mm 2.8 IS + 28mm 2.8 IS + 40mm 2.8?


gfiksel wrote:
Recently I added the 24mm f2.8 IS to the 40mm pancake an 100mm f2.8 IS and really enjoying the trio. I also tried the 28mm but it's too close to 24mm to justify it. Given there is only 16% difference I can always crop the 24mm frame a little to arrive to the same FOV.


Good point about cropping instead of adding the 28/2.8. So far most were recommending the zoom option, so glad to see a different opinion from a 24/2.8 owner. :-)



Oct 06, 2012 at 10:23 PM
splathrop
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · 24-70mm 2.8L II or 24mm 2.8 IS + 28mm 2.8 IS + 40mm 2.8?


Don't know if this matters to you, but compare the distortions. You will get less with the primes.

And the 24 IS will be usable in notably darker venues than the zoom. Especially if you are doing subject matter that doesn't have moving people close to the camera.

Another lens you might want to consider adding to your lineup, since you seem to want zoom-like choice of focal lengths in a prime collection, is the 70mm macro from Sigma. That would bridge a fairly large gap between your 50mm, and your 85mm, and add a macro. I just bought the Sigma, and find it impressive as a landscape lens.

If you could work it, I think your collection might also benefit from getting the 35L instead of the 40mm pancake. That way you get one fast lens for dark venues, and in an extremely versatile focal length. It's another improvement in the spacing of your collection, too. If you did that, you especially wouldn't need the 28mm.

Done the way I suggest, the cost of the additions is $2679 if bought new. Not too far from the zoom, but with more versatility (assuming you discount zoom versatility, as you seem to do).



Edited on Oct 07, 2012 at 12:08 AM · View previous versions



Oct 06, 2012 at 11:21 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



RobertLynn
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · 24-70mm 2.8L II or 24mm 2.8 IS + 28mm 2.8 IS + 40mm 2.8?


I think owning both the 24 and 28 is redundant. I wouldn't do it, as it seems a complete waste of money...then again I own multiple lenses that cover the 24mm range, adn I don't even shoot that range a lot so take that for what it's worth (24-105, 24-70, 16-35). If we change that number to 35, I've got 4 lenses that cover that focal length. So again, take that with a grain of salt.

If I had to pick the one from the two, I'd pick the 24 prime. Just a few steps forward and you're at 28. Or just crop to 28. I can't think of too many photos that would be completely ruined and wasted by that crop, and if they were, that just shows even more reaosn to use the zoom (the shot may have been lost in the lens change, but the twist of a zoom ring, much more likely to get the shot than stopping and changing lenses).

Horses for courses of course.

The 24-70ii looks fantastic. I own the MKii 70-200 and owned the mki. While I greatly enjoyed the mki, I'm could tell the difference in quality from just the back of the camera LCD. If the 24-70ii is as much of an improvement wow...just wow.

I could seriously see me selling quite a bit of equipment once I'm shooting just those 2 zooms.



Oct 06, 2012 at 11:28 PM
chez
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · 24-70mm 2.8L II or 24mm 2.8 IS + 28mm 2.8 IS + 40mm 2.8?


If you already own the 24-105L, you are set for landscapes. What is lacking?


Oct 06, 2012 at 11:41 PM
splathrop
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · 24-70mm 2.8L II or 24mm 2.8 IS + 28mm 2.8 IS + 40mm 2.8?


Good point from chez, but you don't have to take it the way he intends. Go with the corollary. Buy the primes I mentioned, sell the 24-105. Then you will be notably more set for landscapes. Better IQ and less distortion than from the 24-105, more situational versatility, more capabilities for low light, and similar net cost to you than what you proposed at first. And macro capability thrown in.


Oct 07, 2012 at 12:22 AM
chez
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #14 · 24-70mm 2.8L II or 24mm 2.8 IS + 28mm 2.8 IS + 40mm 2.8?


splathrop wrote:
Good point from chez, but you don't have to take it the way he intends. Go with the corollary. Buy the primes I mentioned, sell the 24-105. Then you will be notably more set for landscapes. Better IQ and less distortion than from the 24-105, more situational versatility, more capabilities for low light, and similar net cost to you than what you proposed at first. And macro capability thrown in.


I shoot a lot of landscapes and I do shoot quite often with primes...but they sure don't replace a nice zoom like the 24-105. I get into so many situations where you just cannot get any closer or back up any further and this is where primes limit you. The zoom allows you to frame the exact image you want whereas using a prime will compromise your composition. I never go out on a landscape shoot without my 24-105. It has saved my ass too many times. I'd never replace the 24-105 or in fact the 17-40 with primes. For landscapes, if you could only afford either a couple of primes or the 24-105 zoom, I would pick the zoom every time.



Oct 07, 2012 at 12:56 AM
Suresh T
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · 24-70mm 2.8L II or 24mm 2.8 IS + 28mm 2.8 IS + 40mm 2.8?


splathrop wrote:
Don't know if this matters to you, but compare the distortions. You will get less with the primes.

And the 24 IS will be usable in notably darker venues than the zoom. Especially if you are doing subject matter that doesn't have moving people close to the camera.

Another lens you might want to consider adding to your lineup, since you seem to want zoom-like choice of focal lengths in a prime collection, is the 70mm macro from Sigma. That would bridge a fairly large gap between your 50mm, and your 85mm, and add a macro. I just bought the Sigma, and
...Show more

The Sigma 70mm macro MTF looks very good, but my 70-300L is more than good enough for me at 70mm, so I've only been looking wider than 50mm to fill some gaps.

The 35L also looks amazing, but in that focal length, I'm mainly looking at landscapes, and don't need the wider apertures for low light, so the 40/2.8 should fill my needs at a fraction of the cost, is my current thinking.

I never considered distortion before. I took a look at photozone again. The 28mm 2.8 IS barrel distortion is 2.4% or 1% visually, and the zoom at 24mm is 2.8%. Visually I can see the difference, but then again we're comparing 28mm versus 24mm, so that would be expected. Is there a better way I should look at this?



Oct 07, 2012 at 02:14 AM
Suresh T
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · 24-70mm 2.8L II or 24mm 2.8 IS + 28mm 2.8 IS + 40mm 2.8?


RobertLynn wrote:
I think owning both the 24 and 28 is redundant. I wouldn't do it, as it seems a complete waste of money...then again I own multiple lenses that cover the 24mm range, adn I don't even shoot that range a lot so take that for what it's worth (24-105, 24-70, 16-35). If we change that number to 35, I've got 4 lenses that cover that focal length. So again, take that with a grain of salt.

If I had to pick the one from the two, I'd pick the 24 prime. Just a few steps forward and you're at 28. Or
...Show more

Yeah, if I had to pick one of the 24/28 primes, I'd go with the 24/2.8 IS too. You've convinced me not to get the 28/2.8 IS (if I'm getting the 24/2.8 IS), and just crop as needed instead.

Now it's harder to justify the cost of the zoom. :-)



Oct 07, 2012 at 02:20 AM
Suresh T
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · 24-70mm 2.8L II or 24mm 2.8 IS + 28mm 2.8 IS + 40mm 2.8?


chez wrote:
I shoot a lot of landscapes and I do shoot quite often with primes...but they sure don't replace a nice zoom like the 24-105. I get into so many situations where you just cannot get any closer or back up any further and this is where primes limit you. The zoom allows you to frame the exact image you want whereas using a prime will compromise your composition. I never go out on a landscape shoot without my 24-105. It has saved my ass too many times. I'd never replace the 24-105 or in fact the 17-40 with primes. For
...Show more

Yeah, the 24-105L is a great walkabout lens for me (and not just for landscapes), so I wouldn't get rid of it, even if I got the 24-70 II, since it has the 2-3 stops of IS.

What is lacking with the 24-105L? Good question.

This all started when I began comparing the 24-105L with the images from some of my primes like the 100/2.8L. I could see the difference in sharpness, even though I wasn't complaining too much before. :-)

So I started looking at primes wider than 50mm, which led me to the 24-28/2.8 IS and 40/2.8 primes. But then I saw the MTF of the 24-70 II, which brought me to the question in this post.

Without the 28/2.8 IS:

2 Primes: 24mm f/2.8 IS + 40mm f/2.8 = $850 + $200 = $1050
1 Zoom: 24-70mm 2.8L II = $2300

If price was no object, the 24-70 II will give me more flexibility, and according to photozone, very little to lose in sharpness versus the primes, but at twice the cost.

So now I'm leaning towards the 2 primes. :-)



Oct 07, 2012 at 02:45 AM
Yakim Peled
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #18 · 24-70mm 2.8L II or 24mm 2.8 IS + 28mm 2.8 IS + 40mm 2.8?


24/2.8 IS + 40/2.8 is a very nice low-weight set. Personally, I find the 24/2.8 IS price a bit hard to swallow but if the option is 24-70/2.8 II is the other option it's great value for money. Personally I'd add the 135/2 and sell the 24-105.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.



Oct 07, 2012 at 10:03 AM
Suresh T
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · 24-70mm 2.8L II or 24mm 2.8 IS + 28mm 2.8 IS + 40mm 2.8?


I looked at the other cheaper options in the 20-28 mm range, but the 24/2.8 IS seems to have the most bang-for-the-buck of the currently available models. I've read good things about the older 24/2.8, but that has been discontinued.

I do have the 135/2, and absolutely love it. In fact, that lens and the 100/2.8 L are what made me start looking for good quality primes in the wide angle range, hoping to get that "prime lens quality" there as well.



Oct 07, 2012 at 05:08 PM
splathrop
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · 24-70mm 2.8L II or 24mm 2.8 IS + 28mm 2.8 IS + 40mm 2.8?


For those who have suggested that the 24-105 zoom is a fine substitute for primes if you are shooting landscapes, I don't argue. For those who want to know why I suggested primes might be a better choice, I should have noted that my remarks are founded on demanding premises that apply to my own work, but maybe not to yours: prints up to 45-inches wide, and a personal style demanding sharpness everywhere, right into the extreme corners. Plus apertures wide enough to provide high shutter speeds to stop wave action in seascapes, during pre-dawn light, and often with the horizon up near the top of the frame in the high-distortion zone. I'm basically trying to perfect only a few images, probably fewer than 20 per year, against long odds. So if you don't anticipate trying anything like that, the advice of the zoom boosters may apply better to your situation than my advice does.


Oct 08, 2012 at 12:19 AM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password