Suggestions for a 24-70mm Canon substitute?

qianp2k wrote:

Sovern wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Sovern wrote:

I'd go with three primes. The 28 1.8 or 35f2, 50 1.4 or 50 1.8, and the 85 1.8. All three of those lenses will be sharper and faster than the 24-70 II and it should cost you a total of about $900 if you get all of them new.

Sharper? I don't think so. Faster? From max aperture it's but I don't think AF speeed at f/2.8 and beyound as 24-70L II has much better and quicker AF motor inside. Check MTF and Photozone lab you will know. Canon 24-70L II is the sharpest zoom, and even sharper than 70-200L/2.8 IS II as Canon claims, is as sharp as respective L prime at the same F stops no mention those non-L prime lenses you quoted here. 50/1.4 or 50/1.8 is shaper? LOL. Even My tiny 40/2.8 STM pancake beats either 50's easily at f/2.8.

The 85 1.8 will be vastly superior to the 70mm end of the 24-70 and shooting with all primes will give your photos a distinct look to them and allows you to isolate your subjects more and shoot in lower light.

I will not say vastly. Check this review. At f/2.8 their centers are about the same, 24-70L II maybe even better in mid-range while 85/1.8 is slightly better in corners/edges. 70mm is relative weak focus length of this zoom. Its 24mm, 28mm, 35 and 50mm are better than those primes you named if you check.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=106&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

at 85mm or even 70mm or entire 70-200mm I will pull out another Canon excellent zoom 70-200L/2.8 IS II. Now a different story

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=106&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

The 85mm 1.8 is one of Canons fastest focusing lenses..... definitely focuses faster than the 24-70L II. The rest of the primes should focus just as fast the 24-70II and by faster I wasn't necessarily talking about AF speed I was talking aperture low light wise.

From max aperture number I agreed. AF lock-in speed in a different story as 24-70L II is a pro grade and will be widely used in sport vanues.

The 24-70 can't do f1.4 or f1.8 which is 2 stops faster and 1 & 1/3rd of a stop faster respectfully than the 24-70 at it's fastest aperture. That's the difference between using iso 800 vs 3200 in the case of the 50 1.4 and using iso 1600 vs 3200 in the case of the 85 1.8.

On paper yes, the issue is that either 50's needs to stop down around f2.8 to get reasnable sharpness espeically at corners. 40/2.8 pancake is sharper at f/2.8 than 50/1.4 that both I own, no competition at edges/corners. See my 40/2.8 pancake samples below.

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/7843305573/albums/canon-40-2-8-stm-pancake

The 50 1.4 will be sharper than the 24-70II with both lenses set to 2.8 at 50mm.

Not sure.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=115&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4

I don't care for charts I wan't to see real world examples. According to those charts the Tamron 17-50 that I just sold is better than the 50 1.8 II that I had prior to that which is bogus. In real world usage the primes will have better micro contrast, saturation and image quality. A black and white chart shot from different distances won't show this.

I will give some real samples in this weekend. I will add this time. I will receive 24-70L II tomorrow and I have already owned 50/1.4 and 40/2.8 pancake. I am eager to know. I also think there is a bit of hype in this new 24-70L II as Canon claims it's the sharpest zoom (really? even sharper than 70-200L II, hum). So I will test it against 24-105L and 50/1.4 and 40/2.8 pancake at respective F number and focus length. I will be glad to find out it's not true or I receive a bad copy so I could have return or exchange Nevertheless I'd agree 85/1.8 is better for portraiture purpose, no doubt. For landscape and sports I don't think so.

2.8 also might not give you enough subject isolation when needed.

True for this 24-70 range. But different story from 70-200 at 200mm for example. Even f/4 IS version gives some decent separation at 200mm.

Zooms are a major compromise as they need a lot more glass/groups while primes are amazing at what they do at their respected focal length.

Yes in general but not these top zoom, they are Canon two flagship zoom. And their IQ - sharpness, contrast and colors can really match to L prime at the same F stop. But those L prime can open wider with better bokeh.

In my opinion the 24-70 II is overpriced anyways. I'd rather just have 3 fast primes or a zoom that extends further like the 24-105F4L.

Agreed. It will be reasonable around $1800-1700 normal price. For general walk-around purpose, I agree 24-105L IS and Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC is more lens on money. For Pro (I am not, lol) I can understand why they will spend more in sports, events, studio, portraiture and landscape on tripod.

Well having the ability to shoot 50 at 1.4 soft or not is still a good ability to have especially when shooting weddings. I found the 2.8 aperture to not be fast enough and not give good enough bokeh at the 17-50 and 24-70 range. The 70-200 I agree is an excellent lens and probably the only zoom lens I'd ever consider buying (I'd still prefer a 200 2.8 prime over it just due to cost and because the prime will have better IQ).

L primes will still have better color saturation & micro contrast though as physically speaking glass is glass.....more glass will lower the quality of the image and the L primes and even regular primes have less glass than these L zooms.

I think that the 24-70II should be priced at $1,200 but than again I don't like zooms.