Canon 24-70 mk II vs prime lenses

[Gavvvvvin]

I have a few spare lenses laying around that I am considering selling to purchase a Canon 24-70 mk II.

Just wondering how the image quality of the Canon 24-70 mk II would compare to that of the Canon 50 mm 1.4 and 28 mm 2.8 at the same focal lengths?

Better/worse/negligible?

Thanks for any input

[Brian500au]

From personal experience the 24-70 II lens is one of the best zoom lenses canon make.

Trying to compare a zoom with prime lenses is some what a mute point - from a quality point of view there a many reviews but in the end the 24-70 cannot open up to F1.4 and the 50mm cannot frame a subject like the 24-70 at 70mm.

For myself it is horses for courses - If I am going to do a portrait shot in a controlled environment (inside or outside) where I want the best bokeh then I am going to go for the 50mm but if I am unsure of the FL I will use, then I will alway pick up the zoom. I have never been disappointed with the results.

Canon's trio zooms (24-70, 70-200, 100-400) for us mere mortals are indistinguishable from a prime lens in all but the pickiest pixel peeper.

[Gavvvvvin]

I'm only interested in using it for landscapes so I don't really care about shooting wide open...

[JJM]

I love my 24-70 F2.8L MK II and wouldn't ever consider swapping it for a prime. It is so versatile and I use it for everything, landscapes, portraits, sport....

[Brian500au]

If you are not going to use the lens wide open and only use it for landscapes I would wonder why you want to buy one if you have a 50 and 28. Stopped down I doubt you could tell the difference between all three lenses at equivalent FL.

You don't mention other lenses you have and although I do use the 24-70 for landscapes my main use is when I need the flexibility of a zoom at 2.8.

[Gavvvvvin]

If you are not going to use the lens wide open and only use it for landscapes I would wonder why you want to buy one if you have a 50 and 28. Stopped down I doubt you could tell the difference between all three lenses at equivalent FL.

You don't mention other lenses you have and although I do use the 24-70 for landscapes my main use is when I need the flexibility of a zoom at 2.8.

Exactly, if they're both the same stopped down, why wouldn't I? Less gear, more versatile. The cost isn't an issue.

[Brian500au]

if cost is not an issue, you will not be disappointed with the 24-70 II. I use it as my general walk around lens, portrait lens and my landscape lens.

I do have primes that would cover all these FL, and there are times I would prefer to use a prime, but if I look at my database of the amount of times I have used this lens, it would be ten times the use of the primes.

Best of luck and look forward to seeing the results.

[William W]

. . . Just wondering how the image quality of the Canon 24-70 mk II would compare to that of the Canon 50 mm 1.4 and 28 mm 2.8 at the same focal lengths? . . .
I'm only interested in using it for landscapes so I don't really care about shooting wide open...

I concur, and from my experience using it, that the EF 24~70 F/2.8L MkII USM is one of Canon’s best optics.

But if you are only to be using it for Landscapes and stopping down is not an issue, then these other considerations might be relevant to you:

> (unlike the EF 24 to 70 F/2.8L USM) the MkII suffers the common issue of Zoom Lenses that the Lens Hood is the most effective ONLY at the Widest Focal Length.

> although the MkII zoom is exceptionally well baffled; by their optical design, any zoom lens will have more likelihood of Veiling Flare contrasted to a similar quality Prime Lens

> the MkII Zoom has an odd umber of Aperture Blades; this is a consideration if any Landscapes have Sun Flare as a compositional effect

*

Whilst there is no doubt that a zoom is convenient in respect of having a range of Focal Lengths available and only one lens to carry, but, Landscape Work is different to Portraiture (just as one example) in so far as minute changes in Focal Length usually do not have as a profound affect: hence a salient question to ask yourself is -

"For Landscape Work how many different Focal Lengths in that 24 to 70 range will I require?"

(on a 135 Format Camera) My answer would be, "I'd be happy to use a 24 and a 50."

Once you answer that question, then I suggest you consider your answer in respect of the facts that you specifically mention: only want to shoot Landscape Work; and that money is not a primary consideration.

Considering those two facts, my advice is you seriously consider the relative value of updating and/or extending your cache of Prime Lenses, rather than buying a 24~70/2.8MkII

My initial thoughts include, but are not limited to:

> selling the 28 and buying a 24

> buying something longer than 50

> buying something wider than 24mm – I recently purchased as Samyang 14mm F/2.8, that is really interesting for landscapes

> buying a TS-E Lens(es) - I have the TS-E 90 and although I initially bought it for Portraiture, I find it an interesting and also useful lens for some Landscape work. If I were really interested in and had the time for a more serious application to Landscape Work, I would be considering the TS-E 17 or the TS-E24 to partner my 90mm.

Here is a recent image made with the Samyang 14mm Lens:



North Cronulla Beach, Sydney 2017

WW
Image © AJ Group Pty Ltd Aust 1996~2017 WMW 1965~1996