Your question is too broad, and your description of your potential use too lacking.
The reasons to choose the primes (you've only mentioned one, so how do we know what 40/50 you're also considering?) vs the zoom in this range with these particular lenses are manifold.
The answer goes both ways: Get the Primes. Get the Zoom. But it depends ENTIRELY on what you plan to shoot, how you prefer to work, and what things influence your choices (what you're after: sharpness in center/edge, contrast, flare resistance, weight, focus mechanism, size, aperture, distortion, vignetting, stabilization, and on and on and on).
Has anyone done any tests of these two lenses at 24mm. I am looking for a 24mm and a 40 or 50mm, so the 24-70 might fit the bill.
Thanks
Tests for what?
If you are trying to decide between a 24-70mm f/2.8 II L zoom and a 24mm f/1.4 L prime, the concern is not sharpness, since both are excellent in that regard. Do you need f/1.4 or the flexibility of a zoom?
His title specifically notes the "24 IS USM", or EF 24mm f/2.8 IS. In his post, he notes getting a 40 or 50 lens as well.
OP -- if you are asking will the new 24-70L II be equal in IQ to the 24 IS and either the 40 STM or 50 (1.4?), I'd say yes. But the cost will be quite a bit more for the zoom. The focal length coverage will also be far greater. Cost would be about $2000 for the 24-70 vs. around $1000 for the 24 IS + 50/1.4 (even less for the cheaper 40 STM).
Personally, if I could afford the 24-70L II, that's what I'd get.
Sorry for the lack of info. Also I will check the review, I must have missed this.
I will be backpacking the lenses using a tripod and shooting landscapes at f8-f11.
The 24-70Lii would cover the range i need but wondered if the 24mm side of this zoom would be sharper than the new 24mm is, and also if at the 40 or 50mm point it would be sharper than a 40mm pancake or 50 zeiss f2?
I dont need the flexibility of the zoom, but it cant be ignored when it is cold and having to change lenses with cold fingers. The weight of this lens would be about the same as the other three lenses combined so weight is not such an issue.
I have a voit 90mm which i am happy with. I also have a 24-105L which I am not really happy with. I have a zeiss 28 f2 but it is just not wide enough. While the 24 does not sound much wider in practise it shows a distinct difference in the view.
I do a lot of backpacking photography and I would no longer consider using primes for that, nor would most (any, actually) people I shoot with. The image quality of current zooms is excellent - not really even an issue - and there are tons of other reasons to prefer zooms: the downsides of switching lenses (as you mention), flexibility, the ability to frame your compositions more accurately.
Consider the new f/4 24-70 rather than the very big, bulky, and heavy f/2.8mm zoom. Or even look at the 24-105, which would likely be my choice for backpacking these days with a full frame body.
Dan
karlfoto wrote:
Hi forum
Sorry for the lack of info. Also I will check the review, I must have missed this.
I will be backpacking the lenses using a tripod and shooting landscapes at f8-f11.
The 24-70Lii would cover the range i need but wondered if the 24mm side of this zoom would be sharper than the new 24mm is, and also if at the 40 or 50mm point it would be sharper than a 40mm pancake or 50 zeiss f2?
I dont need the flexibility of the zoom, but it cant be ignored when it is cold and having to change lenses with cold fingers. The weight of this lens would be about the same as the other three lenses combined so weight is not such an issue.
I have a voit 90mm which i am happy with. I also have a 24-105L which I am not really happy with. I have a zeiss 28 f2 but it is just not wide enough. While the 24 does not sound much wider in practise it shows a distinct difference in the view.
Since you plan to shoot at f/8 and above I wouldn't worry about the sharpness differences between primes and zooms. Not to say differences don't exist at those apertures but they're small relative to the zoom benefits described by Dan.
I have that lens and it is a fine one. However, for backpacking it has the distinct disadvantage of large bulk/weight, and the one-stop larger maximum aperture is less likely to be that useful for many who shoot in these situations. I'm thinking I'll continue to use my 24-105 for that purpose, when I need to consider overall pack weight. The added focal length range is useful, too.
(I am doing a pack animal supported 9-day trip into the Sierra later this season and for that - since the animals get to carry the extra weight - I probably will take the 24-70 and a few other things I would not take when carrying my gear on my back.)
Dan -- Okay, I'm jealous! Sounds like a great pack trip through the back country of the Sierra! I hope you post some of your pictures here.
I agree with you on the 24-105 IS. After reading many of your comments about it, then recently picking up a sharp copy, I find it a great all-around travel/outdoor lens. I like it's range very much. But I do like the imaging a bit better on the new 24-70 II (although I still own the heavier old version), so given a choice being carried by a pack animal. . .
I really like the 24-105 also, but I found that I kept wanting to switch lenses to get away from the f/4.
I picked up a 24-70mkii from the B&S here, and I'm hoping it will limit my need (want!) to switch to a prime except in truly low-light conditions The size of the mkii is very similar to the 24-105, though heavier.
gdanmitchell wrote:
I do a lot of backpacking photography and I would no longer consider using primes for that, nor would most (any, actually) people I shoot with. The image quality of current zooms is excellent - not really even an issue - and there are tons of other reasons to prefer zooms: the downsides of switching lenses (as you mention), flexibility, the ability to frame your compositions more accurately.
Consider the new f/4 24-70 rather than the very big, bulky, and heavy f/2.8mm zoom. Or even look at the 24-105, which would likely be my choice for backpacking these days with a full frame body.
After using the 24-105 and the 24-70, I can assure you that it is noticeably heavier than the others. And backpackers generally, to use the old saying, look after ounces so that the pounds will look after themselves.
Beyond that, while it isn't impossible to imagine, most people doing backpacking photography won't likely need or see the real advantage of f/2.8. So if the 24-70mm coverage is sufficient, the f/4 lens that covers this range is the smallest and lightest of the bunch, and the IS will make up (more than, actually) the extra stop in situations in which hand holding the camera at low shutter speeds might be the issue.
Some photographers might (and often I do) see the advantage of covering 70mm to 105mm, too.
Stopping down like you plan I don't really see the advantage of the 24-70ii over the other cheaper f4 zooms with IS. In fact I'd say the 24-105 sounds about perfect for your needs. Granted it does suffer from a little distortion but that's easily fixed in post just remember to go a little wider than you planned to give some space for corrections if they are needed.
gdanmitchell wrote:
After using the 24-105 and the 24-70, I can assure you that it is noticeably heavier than the others. And backpackers generally, to use the old saying, look after ounces so that the pounds will look after themselves.
Beyond that, while it isn't impossible to imagine, most people doing backpacking photography won't likely need or see the real advantage of f/2.8. So if the 24-70mm coverage is sufficient, the f/4 lens that covers this range is the smallest and lightest of the bunch, and the IS will make up (more than, actually) the extra stop in situations in which hand holding the camera at low shutter speeds might be the issue.
Some photographers might (and often I do) see the advantage of covering 70mm to 105mm, too.
"Consider the new f/4 24-70 rather than the very big, bulky, and heavy f/2.8mm zoom."
I guess very big, bulky and heavy means different things to different people. I too have both lenses, and I don't really see the weight savings.
As for weight, I looked up the specs, and the weight between the f4 and 2.8 II is about 130 grams or about 2 snickers bars. But I understand what you're saying.
Reports on the size of the 24-70L II are greatly exaggerated. If weight is a concern get a mirrorless. While a 24-70L II is a wonderful lens, don't dismiss a good 24-105L for travel or hiking, that extra 35mm is one thing I miss on the 24-70L II, probably more than IS.
stan23 wrote:
As for weight, I looked up the specs, and the weight between the f4 and 2.8 II is about 130 grams or about 2 snickers bars. But I understand what you're saying.
When I backpack for photography purposes, I carry between 12 and 15 pounds of gear. Each of the major pieces is chosen for some combination of functionality, how it meshes with other gear in the kit, and the weight/bulk implications of being able to carry it. For example:
I use the 17-40mm f/4 rather than the 16-35mm f/2.8
I use the 24-105mm f/4 IS rather than the 24-70mm f/2.8
I use the 70-200mm f/4 IS rather than the f/2.8 version
I might carry a 1.4x TC rather than my 100-400mm lens
I might carry an extension tube rather than a dedicated macro lens
I use a smaller and lighter tripod with a smaller and lighter head
The same approach is carried through to other gear as well - food, cooking equipment, shelter, sleeping bag, pack, and so forth.
While the weight difference among individual options might amount to, say, a couple of snickers bars*, the weight difference of the entire pack might well amount to quite a few pounds by the time I'm done. And when I add that extra photography gear weight to the regular backpack gear weight and cross 12,000' passes (and as this body ages!), I can assure you that these things make a real difference.
YMMV. :-)
Dan
* And, frankly, if I'm carrying extra weight, I'd rather carry the Snickers bars than a lens whose larger maximum aperture won't improve my photography of these subjects. Mmmmm, Snickers! ;-)
the 24-70 f/4 seems a reasonable alternative lens here. cheaper, lighter than 24-70 II, and significantly less distortion @ 24mm than the 24-105. (yes, you can dial out the distortion but the effective FOV is more than 24mm at that point!) and fun macro and general purpose with the IS! good luck deciding!!
gdanmitchell wrote:
While the weight difference among individual options might amount to, say, a couple of snickers bars*, the weight difference of the entire pack might well amount to quite a few pounds by the time I'm done. And when I add that extra photography gear weight to the regular backpack gear weight and cross 12,000' passes (and as this body ages!), I can assure you that these things make a real difference.
YMMV. :-)
Dan
You seem like the perfect candidate for a MFT system. Have you ever considered it?
Sounds like a great pack trip through the back country of the Sierra! I hope you post some of your pictures here.