I've shot with primes almost exclusively for the past several years. Two reasons for this: I often prefer the discipline imposed by a fixed focal length, and I appreciate the higher IQ and wider apertures that come with primes.
I now have a 16-month old daughter, and I'm feeling somewhat limited by primes for the first time. It's not a big deal, but there are definitely times when I'm out and about with her and I wish I had a longer or shorter lens than the one I've got. She's not as predictable as my previous subject matter .
I'm now considering a 24-70. I read some reviews of the Canon 24-70 II, including Roger's test at LensRentals, and I was pretty blown away. People are selling their L primes for this thing. Impressive. Obviously a zoom is not going to give the shallow depth-of-field or light-gathering capability of an L prime, but it seems this may be the first zoom that can match the performance of the L primes in the 24-70 focal range?
I think I might rent it from LensRentals to see how it performs, but I'm curious to hear your opinion. If you have the 24-70 II, has it replaced any primes for you? Is it as good as the reviews suggest?
The reason I ask is I'd have to sell my 35L and probably 85L in order to buy this. I'd be left with the 24-70 II, a 50/1.4 and I could perhaps have enough left over for either the Sigma 35/1.4 or the Sigma 85/1.4.
I sold my 24L and 35L and bought the 24-70 II. For me, the flexibility of the zoom outweighed the loss of the extra light. Like you, I enjoyed the creative aspect of shooting with primes, but I have found that I can still work deliberately with the zoom, and I spend less time swapping lenses.
I'm not a pixel peeper, but the sharpness of the photos produced by the 24-70 is excellent. As you noted, many people have done tests to prove that out. IQ at 2.8 is great (apart from vignetting)- just can't say whether it's enough light for you or if the bokeh is going to be what you're looking for. All said, I'm glad I made the switch, and I would encourage you to try the lens out to see if it will work for you.
I think if I keep a fast prime or two around (i.e. 50/100 or 35/85) I'd be satisfied there. I just rented the 24-70 II from LensRentals. Looking forward to trying it out.
I haven't bothered to compare the 24-70/2.8L II to my fast primes (24L, 35L, and 50L), because I use them for very different purposes. I suspect the zoom would be as good or better, as common apertures from about f/2.8 to f/8. OTOH, I was very interested to compare it with two of my best Alt lenses; the Contax Carl Zeiss Distagon 28/2.8 and Vario-Sonnar 35-70/3.4. These two relatively small and inexpensive alts are slightly sharper in the corners than the zoom at f/5.6 and f/8, where I most often use them, and so I won't be selling them. Of course, the fact that a zoom could even be in the same neighbourhood for IQ is amazing.
Prime lenses are essentially tools to be used when a zoom won't suffice.....as good as the 24-70 2.8 L v2 is it is a 2.8 zoom and cannot compete with primes that at 1.2-1.4 etc when such speed is called for.....no matter how good the zoom is if I am in a situation where it calls for a faster lens and 2.8 wont do the job I use my primes....I would love to have a 24-70 1.2 zoom but sadly I do not see that coming along any time soon!
The difference between 1.4 and 2.8 is *two full stops*. This is the difference between ISO1600 and ISOWTF.
At 2.8, to throw the background into cream soup, you generally take a longer focal length, etc. etc.
At 1.4, to throw the background out, you take the damn picture.
To me, there are 3 kinds of lenses:
Freedom of perspective: slow zooms (i.e. 15-85 f/3.5-4.5, or 24-105 f/4)
Freedom of depth and light: fast primes
Jack of all trades, masters of none: 2.8 zooms.
This isn't to say that I don't like 2.8 zooms. On contrary, I love them. But, they're very very good at working in the 'middle ground', while other lenses are good at the extremities.
I'm renting the 24-70 this week for a landscape trip I'm taking. I have the 85L for portraits and I'm pretty sure that I'd never trade that lens for a zoom, but I'll let you know if anything changes after this week.
The difference between 1.4 and 2.8 is *two full stops*. This is the difference between ISO1600 and ISOWTF.
At 2.8, to throw the background into cream soup, you generally take a longer focal length, etc. etc.
At 1.4, to throw the background out, you take the damn picture.
To me, there are 3 kinds of lenses:
Freedom of perspective: slow zooms (i.e. 15-85 f/3.5-4.5, or 24-105 f/4)
Freedom of depth and light: fast primes
Jack of all trades, masters of none: 2.8 zooms.
This isn't to say that I don't like 2.8 zooms. On contrary, I love them. But, they're very very good at working in the 'middle ground', while other lenses are good at the extremities....Show more →
Yep, I agree. I never had use for a "jack of all trades" or "freedom of perspective" lens until my daughter started walking. Before that I could work deliberately with a single focal length. I still can, of course, but I'm guessing a "jack of all trades" lens would be quite useful to me now.
p.1 #10 · Is the 24-70 II really a "prime killer"?
camerausername wrote:
I'm renting the 24-70 this week for a landscape trip I'm taking. I have the 85L for portraits and I'm pretty sure that I'd never trade that lens for a zoom, but I'll let you know if anything changes after this week.
The 85L is my favorite lens. That said, I just don't find myself using it as much as I think I should be to justify the amount of money I spent on it.
I find that I am shooting more environmental portraits these days, i.e. with more emphasis on background and context. 35mm and 50mm are my most used focal lengths. I enjoy the occasional tighter shot with the 85, but they're much less common than the wider shots.
If I do sell the 85L, I can always acquire it again when my daughter gets a little older and I have more use for that focal length. Also, I'd have enough left over to upgrade to the 50L from the current 50/1.4 I already own, or perhaps keep the 50/1.4 and get either a Sigma 35/1.4 or Sigma 85/1.4.
p.1 #11 · Is the 24-70 II really a "prime killer"?
no it can't completely eliminate primes, but, from a wedding- and events shooter point of view: it can do a lot. I have once since recently and my 24L (mostly shot this stopped down) has been sold. I do use the 35mm 1.4 less now, but wouldn't part with it for those really dark environments and because of the artistic approach. I also have an 85L and of course this still gets a lot of use.
What I like about this lens is how versatile it is; a real tool to get many jobs done with excellent IQ.
p.1 #12 · Is the 24-70 II really a "prime killer"?
badlydrawnboy wrote:
I've shot with primes almost exclusively for the past several years. Two reasons for this: I often prefer the discipline imposed by a fixed focal length, and I appreciate the higher IQ and wider apertures that come with primes.
I now have a 16-month old daughter, and I'm feeling somewhat limited by primes for the first time. It's not a big deal, but there are definitely times when I'm out and about with her and I wish I had a longer or shorter lens than the one I've got. She's not as predictable as my previous subject matter .
I'm now considering a 24-70. I read some reviews of the Canon 24-70 II, including Roger's test at LensRentals, and I was pretty blown away. People are selling their L primes for this thing. Impressive. Obviously a zoom is not going to give the shallow depth-of-field or light-gathering capability of an L prime, but it seems this may be the first zoom that can match the performance of the L primes in the 24-70 focal range?
I think I might rent it from LensRentals to see how it performs, but I'm curious to hear your opinion. If you have the 24-70 II, has it replaced any primes for you? Is it as good as the reviews suggest?
The reason I ask is I'd have to sell my 35L and probably 85L in order to buy this. I'd be left with the 24-70 II, a 50/1.4 and I could perhaps have enough left over for either the Sigma 35/1.4 or the Sigma 85/1.4....Show more →
I don't have the new 24-70, but it sounds like a very fine lens, albeit at a stratospheric price. As to whether it "kills" primes, the answer is going to different for various photographers.
Few of those who spring for the super large aperture L primes will probably agree, telling you that they need the f/1.2 or f/1.4 of maximum apertures for other reasons. Among those people, some really do need that - but quite a few, perhaps like you, realize that there is much less need for the larger-than-f/2.8 apertures than they thought, and that the usefulness of those apertures may be counter-balanced by the flexibility of the zoom.
And some just want to own the shiniest new lens. Let's be honest now... ;-)
Primes can be useful for other reasons besides the biggest aperture. For example, in certain types of shooting the very small size and low weight/bulk of smaller (often non-L) primes can be useful, and worth giving up the bulk/weight of the super large aperture primes and/or the flexibility of the zooms.
As to your fundamental notion that this zoom can "replace" primes, if so... why would you hang onto the 50mm prime (which is in the focal length range of the zoom) and sell the 85mm prime (which is not)? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me...
p.1 #13 · Is the 24-70 II really a "prime killer"?
I was in the same boat, until very recently, when I caved in and coughed up all the cash for the new 24-70. I even sold my work-horse 35L to partly finance it, confident that the zoom would cover 95% of my usage with the 35L. So far I have not been disappointed. Sharpness is certainly no longer a good argument to avoid the zoom, even wide open! And as I found I was using my primes at f2.2-f2.8 most often, as the limited DOF isn't very practical wide open, for my applications anyway, I realized I could live with a zoom spending 99% of the time at f2.8. Vignetting is visible at f2.8, and distortion noticeable, but well within what can be fixed with the click of a button in a good post processing application.
I even compared it to my other two 24mm lenses, the 24mm f1.4 mk2 and 24mm TS-E mk2, shooting the same scene, at different apertures, and found little/no difference in sharpness. The primes won marginally on better MFD, vignetting, and distortion. The TS-E surprised me a bit since it provided a narrower field of view than the other two lenes (at a focusing distance of around 1m), but now I am digressing.
p.1 #14 · Is the 24-70 II really a "prime killer"?
gdanmitchell wrote:
I don't have the new 24-70, but it sounds like a very fine lens, albeit at a stratospheric price. As to whether it "kills" primes, the answer is going to different for various photographers.
Few of those who spring for the super large aperture L primes will probably agree, telling you that they need the f/1.2 or f/1.4 of maximum apertures for other reasons. Among those people, some really do need that - but quite a few, perhaps like you, realize that there is much less need for the larger-than-f/2.8 apertures than they thought, and that the usefulness of those apertures may be counter-balanced by the flexibility of the zoom.
And some just want to own the shiniest new lens. Let's be honest now... ;-)
Primes can be useful for other reasons besides the biggest aperture. For example, in certain types of shooting the very small size and low weight/bulk of smaller (often non-L) primes can be useful, and worth giving up the bulk/weight of the super large aperture primes and/or the flexibility of the zooms.
As to your fundamental notion that this zoom can "replace" primes, if so... why would you hang onto the 50mm prime (which is in the focal length range of the zoom) and sell the 85mm prime (which is not)? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me...
As I mentioned in the original post, the 24-70 II isn't meant to be the only lens I own or replace all primes. Primes will still be useful to me when I want 1) shallower depth of field, 2) more light gathering capability and 3) a lighter rig. I've used fast primes exclusively for years, so I'm well aware of their advantages.
The 50/1.4 would continue to be used when I don't want to lug the zoom around, or when I want more subject isolation or lower ISO.
p.1 #15 · Is the 24-70 II really a "prime killer"?
badlydrawn
i rented the 24-70ii a few weeks back as I was in the market for a "standard zoom". I checked it out next to my old 24-70i and the new tamron. I would totally agree with the folks who say its a prime killer and there really is no comparison to it and the older version of itself or the new tamron. For the asking price though, I didn't think it was twice as good as the tamron, or even really worth the upgrade on the old lens unless weight and pixel level sharpness was really important. The tamron was a bit softer over all, the focus was a little slower, and the stupid zoom ring went the wrong way but for another $1000 the canon seemed excessive for what it was especially when the tamron gives you IS and the canon doesn't. That being said if I owned a 24L and a 50L (or 35L) and wanted the flexibility of a zoom and could be happy at f2.8 Id probably sell them in a heartbeat and pick up the canon. FWIW I decided to sell my old 24-70i as the tamron was decided sharper and offered IS.
p.1 #17 · Is the 24-70 II really a "prime killer"?
badlydrawnboy wrote:
I've shot with primes almost exclusively for the past several years. Two reasons for this: I often prefer the discipline imposed by a fixed focal length, and I appreciate the higher IQ and wider apertures that come with primes.
I now have a 16-month old daughter, and I'm feeling somewhat limited by primes for the first time. It's not a big deal, but there are definitely times when I'm out and about with her and I wish I had a longer or shorter lens than the one I've got. She's not as predictable as my previous subject matter .
I'm now considering a 24-70. I read some reviews of the Canon 24-70 II, including Roger's test at LensRentals, and I was pretty blown away. People are selling their L primes for this thing. Impressive. Obviously a zoom is not going to give the shallow depth-of-field or light-gathering capability of an L prime, but it seems this may be the first zoom that can match the performance of the L primes in the 24-70 focal range?
I think I might rent it from LensRentals to see how it performs, but I'm curious to hear your opinion. If you have the 24-70 II, has it replaced any primes for you? Is it as good as the reviews suggest?
The reason I ask is I'd have to sell my 35L and probably 85L in order to buy this. I'd be left with the 24-70 II, a 50/1.4 and I could perhaps have enough left over for either the Sigma 35/1.4 or the Sigma 85/1.4....Show more →
Don't have a 35L. It does seem pretty close to the 24 1.4 II (although with more vignetting and lot more distortion). It is actually not as sharp as the non-L 50mm 1.4, certainly not at the edges and it has a different field curvature than the 50mm 1.4. I doubt the edges at 70mm are as crisp as on the 85mm (70mm edges are perhaps the weakest part of this zoom, center frame it s VERY sharp at 70mm though, beating both my 70-300L and 70-200 f/4 IS at f/4 70mm even when the 24-70 II is wide open at f/2.8 and for portraits and weddings and such center frame 70mm might matter more than the edges and it really is quite crazy sharp and contrasty center frame 70mm right from f/2.8). Obviously it doesn't do the 1.2-f/2.5 thing. The way I shoot I only need those super apertures here and there though so I can live with giving up 24mm 1.4-2.5 (and on digital sensors you don't quite really get a real 1.2-1.8 anyway since they don't collect quite all the stray light). I have a 50mm 1.4 if I need the super fast apertures.
(for all the talk about f/1.2-1.4 portraits a pro photographer, published in some magazines many times, actually said her go to aperture to start with is f/5.6 ) (not that the super wide isn't cool at times though, it is and sometimes you just need to stop motion and can deal with the DOF, I do think it is very nice to have at least one lens that can do that, just saying that it's not quite the all that all that utter insanely critically important that every lens offers it thing that some make it out to be)
p.1 #18 · Is the 24-70 II really a "prime killer"?
I used a CPS loaner for about a week and was pretty blown away by the IQ. It definitely is better than the older EF 28/2.8 and 35/2 (or at least as good as the 35), so I suspect it is a good as the old 24/2.8. There was almost no distortion at either the wide or tele ends. Micro-contrast was excellent in the central area. It is weak in the corners with softness and vignetting, but pretty sharp from side to side, and the center was as good as any prime. I think the magic number is $1800, when the lens starts selling for that, it will be irresistible. I shot it against my original 24-70L, as a result, I send mine off to Canon today to try to tune it up a little -- maybe get a few more years out of it. But the II was quite a bit better, even when the original was close.
p.1 #19 · Is the 24-70 II really a "prime killer"?
Gunzorro wrote:
I used a CPS loaner for about a week and was pretty blown away by the IQ. It definitely is better than the older EF 28/2.8 and 35/2 (or at least as good as the 35), so I suspect it is a good as the old 24/2.8. There was almost no distortion at either the wide or tele ends. Micro-contrast was excellent in the central area. It is weak in the corners with softness and vignetting, but pretty sharp from side to side, and the center was as good as any prime. I think the magic number is $1800, when the lens starts selling for that, it will be irresistible. I shot it against my original 24-70L, as a result, I send mine off to Canon today to try to tune it up a little -- maybe get a few more years out of it. But the II was quite a bit better, even when the original was close. ...Show more →
Oh it blows away the old 24mm 2.8 no doubt (other than perhaps for distortion). Tamron 17-50 and 28-75 blew that one away ages ago. The 24-70 II is more like the 24 1.4 II than the 24 1.4 I or 24 2.8 or 28 2.8. The new 24 2.8 IS probably gives it a run for it's money though I'd bet.
.
) (not that the super wide isn't cool at times though, it is and sometimes you just need to stop motion and can deal with the DOF, I do think it is very nice to have at least one lens that can do that, just saying that it's not quite the all that all that utter insanely critically important that every lens offers it thing that some make it out to be)
