24-70 2.8L or 50 1.4 USM?

Hi All professional,
I have 24-70 2.8L on my 20D, mainly use for shooting my little daughter.

And I'm just wondering - should Canon 50mm F1.4 USM produce better picture than my 24-70 2.8L?

In short, which lens is better? L with Zoom and Non-L with standard? How about 50mm F.18 II?

Thank you.

The 24-70 2.8L is an excellent lens. I don't have the 50 F1.4, but I have the 50 1.8. The color and contrast of the 24-70 2.8L is outstanding and is my favorite "People" shooting lens. Are you having some kind of issue with yours?

vincekoo said:

Hi All professional,
I have 24-70 2.8L on my 20D, mainly use for shooting my little
daughter.

And I'm just wondering - should Canon 50mm F1.4 USM produce better
picture than my 24-70 2.8L?

In short, which lens is better? L with Zoom and Non-L with
standard? How about 50mm F.18 II?

Thank you.

Click to expand...

--
Click the link below to see a gallery of my photo's.
http://www.pbase.com/markswheels

markswheels said:

vincekoo said:

Hi All professional,
I have 24-70 2.8L on my 20D, mainly use for shooting my little
daughter.

And I'm just wondering - should Canon 50mm F1.4 USM produce better
picture than my 24-70 2.8L?

In short, which lens is better? L with Zoom and Non-L with
standard? How about 50mm F.18 II?

Thank you.

Click to expand...

--
Click the link below to see a gallery of my photo's.
http://www.pbase.com/markswheels

Click to expand...

--
Click the link below to see a gallery of my photo's.
http://www.pbase.com/markswheels

http://www.pbase.com/markswheels/image/32883662

markswheels said:

markswheels said:

vincekoo said:

Hi All professional,
I have 24-70 2.8L on my 20D, mainly use for shooting my little
daughter.

And I'm just wondering - should Canon 50mm F1.4 USM produce better
picture than my 24-70 2.8L?

In short, which lens is better? L with Zoom and Non-L with
standard? How about 50mm F.18 II?

Thank you.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Click the link below to see a gallery of my photo's.
http://www.pbase.com/markswheels

Hi Mark,
Thank you for your sharing. Very nice pictures.

I have no problem with 24-70. But I just wonder if 50mm is even better than 24-70 if I am mainly using it for shooting my daughter.

Rgds,
Vincent

markswheels said:

markswheels said:

markswheels said:

vincekoo said:

Hi All professional,
I have 24-70 2.8L on my 20D, mainly use for shooting my little
daughter.

And I'm just wondering - should Canon 50mm F1.4 USM produce better
picture than my 24-70 2.8L?

In short, which lens is better? L with Zoom and Non-L with
standard? How about 50mm F.18 II?

Thank you.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Click the link below to see a gallery of my photo's.
http://www.pbase.com/markswheels

Click to expand...

The 50 should be better. A comparison between the two was recently posted and the difference in sharpness and contrast was fairly substantial. But because there are so many subpar 24-70s out there...who knows if it was representative or not. For low light, the 50 should walk away with the prize.

Regarding Mark's photo...I have difficulty evaluating anything that is processed, resized, sharpened, etc. Unless that is a 100% crop...?

-- Greg

Thank you.

Do you use flash and do you have a flash gun of just the built in flash, or do you prefer natural lighting? Are you shooting mainly indoor or outdoor. Do you already have a longer zoom lens? I think a little more info will probably get you more opinions.

vincekoo said:

I have no problem with 24-70. But I just wonder if 50mm is even
better than 24-70 if I am mainly using it for shooting my daughter.

Rgds,
Vincent

markswheels said:

markswheels said:

markswheels said:

vincekoo said:

Hi All professional,
I have 24-70 2.8L on my 20D, mainly use for shooting my little
daughter.

And I'm just wondering - should Canon 50mm F1.4 USM produce better
picture than my 24-70 2.8L?

In short, which lens is better? L with Zoom and Non-L with
standard? How about 50mm F.18 II?

Thank you.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Click the link below to see a gallery of my photo's.
http://www.pbase.com/markswheels

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Click the link below to see a gallery of my photo's.
http://www.pbase.com/markswheels

No problem Greg. A totally agree about resized and processed. Which 50mm are you referring to? The poster mentioned the F1.4 and F1.8. As you mentioned, I may have gotten luck and have an excellent copy of the 24-70L. I have produced wonderful 20X30 size prints taken with this lens. Do you have a link to the comparison? When you say the contrast was substantial, which lens are you referring to?

GPB said:

The 50 should be better. A comparison between the two was recently
posted and the difference in sharpness and contrast was fairly
substantial. But because there are so many subpar 24-70s out
there...who knows if it was representative or not. For low light,
the 50 should walk away with the prize.

Regarding Mark's photo...I have difficulty evaluating anything that
is processed, resized, sharpened, etc. Unless that is a 100%
crop...?

-- Greg

Click to expand...

--
Click the link below to see a gallery of my photo's.
http://www.pbase.com/markswheels

GPB said:

The 50 should be better. A comparison between the two was recently
posted and the difference in sharpness and contrast was fairly
substantial. But because there are so many subpar 24-70s out
there...who knows if it was representative or not. For low light,
the 50 should walk away with the prize.

Click to expand...

As you know, amateur lens comparisons can be quite misleading and unreliable. There are any number of professional lens tests that show the 24-70 to be comparable to any prime in its range. I owned a 50 1.4 for many years and got my 24-70 2.8L two years ago. My 24-70 was so good that I sold my 50 1.4 because I seldom ever used it. With the superb higher ISO's available to me with the Canon DSLR's, lens speed is becoming much less of an issue. For theatre and sport use, I find the L zoom a much better tool than a prime.

--
Gary Coombs, W9VJ
My Profile contains my Equipment List
http://GaryCoombs.com
http://GaryCoombs.com/10D/New
http://GaryCoombs.com/10D/Test

A good photograph is knowing where to stand. -Ansel Adams

Vince,

I saw this in other threads. I think this review will answer your question...

http://www.fredmiranda.com/24-70/

bibi

vincekoo said:

Hi All professional,
I have 24-70 2.8L on my 20D, mainly use for shooting my little
daughter.

And I'm just wondering - should Canon 50mm F1.4 USM produce better
picture than my 24-70 2.8L?

In short, which lens is better? L with Zoom and Non-L with
standard? How about 50mm F.18 II?

Thank you.

Click to expand...

Hi Gary,

Sample variation of course comes into play. And I don't have the link to the comparison, but did save the photo (of a test chart)...but it's not mine. As you recall, I had a particularly bad experience with the 24-70 and so I admit a little bias. But I'm not using my personal experience as an indicator. Many at Fred Miranda love the 24-70, while a few dislike it. The ones that dislike it are those who have the L primes...as well as the 50; they complain about it being soft until f/5.6. But the 50 isn't necessarily highly regarded either...no like the 35L, 85L and even 24L which I recently picked up. They may have received poor samples like mine...who knows.

Regarding speed of lenses...the thing is, even as sensors increase in sensitivity and S/N...DOF still comes into play. So unlike some, I wouldn't say it's a substitute. But in the end, it depends on priorities...as with life in general.

-- Greg

Gary Coombs said:

GPB said:

The 50 should be better. A comparison between the two was recently
posted and the difference in sharpness and contrast was fairly
substantial. But because there are so many subpar 24-70s out
there...who knows if it was representative or not. For low light,
the 50 should walk away with the prize.

Click to expand...

As you know, amateur lens comparisons can be quite misleading and
unreliable. There are any number of professional lens tests that
show the 24-70 to be comparable to any prime in its range. I
owned a 50 1.4 for many years and got my 24-70 2.8L two years ago.
My 24-70 was so good that I sold my 50 1.4 because I seldom ever
used it. With the superb higher ISO's available to me with the
Canon DSLR's, lens speed is becoming much less of an issue. For
theatre and sport use, I find the L zoom a much better tool than a
prime.

--
Gary Coombs, W9VJ
My Profile contains my Equipment List
http://GaryCoombs.com
http://GaryCoombs.com/10D/New
http://GaryCoombs.com/10D/Test

A good photograph is knowing where to stand. -Ansel Adams

Click to expand...

I hear what you're saying...you very well got a good copy of the 24-70. I was referring to the 1.4. Being two full stops faster than the 24-70, well, it's a huge advantage in some cases...depends on one's needs.

-- Greg

markswheels said:

GPB said:

The 50 should be better. A comparison between the two was recently
posted and the difference in sharpness and contrast was fairly
substantial. But because there are so many subpar 24-70s out
there...who knows if it was representative or not. For low light,
the 50 should walk away with the prize.

Regarding Mark's photo...I have difficulty evaluating anything that
is processed, resized, sharpened, etc. Unless that is a 100%
crop...?

-- Greg

Click to expand...

--
Click the link below to see a gallery of my photo's.
http://www.pbase.com/markswheels

Click to expand...

vincekoo said:

And I'm just wondering - should Canon 50mm F1.4 USM produce better
picture than my 24-70 2.8L?

In short, which lens is better? L with Zoom and Non-L with
standard? How about 50mm F.18 II?

Click to expand...

I may not give the answer everyone else will, so be warned.

Neither lens is "better". They are different tools for different tasks. For the record, I have both, and love them both.

The 50mm f/1.4 is a great lens. Best non-L lens out there I think. For natural light, small DOF photos, it's hard to beat this lens. I use it on my kids a LOT. The main reason I feel that I can, is because they are now 4 and 5, and are capable of sitting still. I sit them on the couch in fornt of the picture window and the 50mm f/1.4 is an absolute gem.

The 24-70 f/2.8L is a marvelous lens. It gets used when they CAN'T sit still. Why? The zoom is indispensable. When they were younger it was all I used since they just MOVED all the time. When they were babies I didn't have the 50mm f/1.4 yet, but I would have used it a lot - again, because they stayed where you put them.

For parties? I use the 24-70 or the 16-35 (depends on the room). Outdoor parties, the 70-200 get's used too. Lots of running, hyper 5-year-olds? I don't use the prime. Zoom all the way.

So back to your question - "Which is better". IMHO, the question doesn't apply as stated. Rather - "Which is better for a specific application?". As posted above, I believe it depends on what you want to do.

If you would like to expeand your skills and widen the range of creative possibilities in your gear, get the 50mm f/1.4 - you won't be sorry. It's a LOT of fun.

GAD
--
Cameras don't take great pictures; people do