Suggestions for a 24-70mm Canon substitute?

twiggs wrote:

Hello! I'm a photographer, still growing my business and I'm buying lenses at a slow pace. I always try to find which are the ones that I really need and start saving to get them.

However sometimes I need to find a substitute (read a cheaper substitute) for some lens that I really need. I'm now fighting the need for a 24-70mm, because as a wedding and similar events photographer, this is really needed for its flexibility.

The thing is that the new one from Canon is hugely expensive and there's no way I can afford that one now! And I cannot find the old one in stores, not even in second-hand.

So my question is - which one should I buy that it's great in quality and doesn't cost me over $2000??

Have you heard about relative new $1300 Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC? It is pretty sharp and has its own 4-stop 'IS'.

http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-24-70mm-Canon-Mount-AFA007C-700/dp/B007SNP02K

BTW, Canon 24-70L II (that w/o 'IS') now reduced to $2049, quickly dropped $250 in last 2 weeks. Although Tamron version is pretty good, however, if you can overcome w/o 'IS' and $2K price tag, Canon 24-70L II is still better overall, (slightly) better in sharpness especially in corners/edges, micro contrast and colors, and it's Canon brand.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

The 24-70L II with 'IS' is CR2 rumor now.

http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/12/ef-24-70-f2-8l-is-exists-as-a-working-prototype-cr2/

Suggestions?

Thank you!

dave_bass5 wrote:

I'd also suggest the Tamron 24-70. In fact i had the choice and although money was a consideration i could have afforded the Canon but went for the Tamron, as i felt the VC would be useful over a bit more sharpness and extra weight etc.

Agreed on your priority.

I really do thing the Tamron is a hands down winner for those who cant afford the new 24-70 f/2.7 MKII.

Personally I bought Canon 24-70L II (just on my priority) - a) I only paid $1829.10 (this is the normal price should be) by using another Amazon 10% deal and Amazon gave me refund twice in total $150 to reflect its price dropped two times in last 4 days; b) Just personally I'd not compromise the most critical lenses such as this one and 70-200L II from third party alternatives even with just 5% better; c) I will use for multiple purposes not just walk-around such as in portraiture, studio and my kids' sports; d) I use tripod now as much as possible in low light; e) 'IS' is important but seem not critical in this range of zoom and usually I use 24mm side much more than at 70mm side as it's still sharp at f/2.8 even at edges and 5DIII is very good in low light.

Nevertheless just a personal choice. I fully agree many like you chose Tamron on your reasons that sound very logical. If this Canon version has ‘IS’ with current price I guess much more people can justify

-- hide signature --

Dave.
Gallery @
http://www.flickr.com/photos/davebass5/
http://davepearce.smugmug.com
Videos @ http://www.vimeo.com/user464364/videos

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.

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.

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

twiggs wrote:

That is an excellent suggestion... if only I didn't shoot weddings!

Shooting weddings is all about being ready for everything that is happening and it's far way better for me to be ready, and not waste time in exchanging lenses. If I had another MarkII body, I would probably go with that suggestion, but I only have one body and another cropped body, which is usually on my backpack in case of any emergency.

No, I made my suggestion on the fact that you are shooting weddings. You should have two bodys strapped two you at all times. The first body I'd have a 35mm on it as a general usage lens and on the second body I'd have a 85mm and swap it out with the 50mm as needed. You can get a fisheye or wide angle as needed too.

Many photographers shoot with just primes and two bodys at weddings, swapping lenses can be done very swiftly on your second what I would call auxilary body (due to it having a longer or wider lens than your standard 35mm lens if you're shooting crop or 50mm if you're shooting FF).

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. 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.

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

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.

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

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. 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.

.

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 and AI-Servo speed are 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 at f/2.8. 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, check these and I will find out in the weekend in real world photos.

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 world samples in this weekend. I will add this lens in my series of tests. 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 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.

Check these real-world samples from this 24-70L II. I am impressed even at such small size.

http://blog.benoa.net/2012/12/canon-ef-24-70mm-f2-8l-ii.html

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.

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.

Sovern wrote:

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.

Wishful thinking at $1200 price   Everyone will be glad too. But no way as even 24-105L official price (not street price) is around that figure, lol.  Check how much Nikon 24-70/2.8 G?  It's $1900 at promotion, so why Canon has reason to reduce the price as it's better than Nikon version in every aspect except at 70mm Nikon is a bit sharper at edges/corners.

You responsed during my modifying last post. Check these real-world samples from this 24-70L II. I am impressed even at such small size.

http://blog.benoa.net/2012/12/canon-ef-24-70mm-f2-8l-ii.html

Please don't jump on conclusion too quickly. These two Canon flagship zoom IQ are truly as good as L prime at f/2.8 and beyond from perspective of IQ - sharpness, contrast and colors. L prime lenses probably still better but only slightly. Nevertheless those L primes can shoot below f/2.8 and have better bokeh probably but also not huge difference. Personally I might add Sigma 35/1.4 and 85/1.4 later but not in priority as I am mainly zoom user. I will skip 135L, 50L, 100L macro (as I own Sigma 150/2.8 OS macro) and 200L/1.8 (200L/2.0 IS is for sports similar as 300L/2.8) in portraiture. Two Sigma f/1.4 lenses I mention should be good enough for whole body, half body and shoulder above portrait and rest ranges can be covered by two f/2.8 L zoom.

dave_bass5 wrote:

I play in a wedding band and see loads of wedding photographers using a 24-70 lens as their main lens. It might not suit everyone's style of shooting, and of course wont cover all situations but there is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to use one for weddings. Primes might be faster but they also have restrictions on them.

I really dont know where all this talk of primes is comming from as thats not what the OP is asking about.

The talk about primes is coming in because he asked for a substitute for the 24-70 and one of the substitutes would be the use of primes.

qianp2k wrote:

Sovern wrote:

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.

You responsed during my modifying last post. Check these real-world samples from this 24-70L II. I am impressed even at such small size.

http://blog.benoa.net/2012/12/canon-ef-24-70mm-f2-8l-ii.html

Please don't jump on conclusion too quickly. These two Canon flagship zoom IQ are truly as good as L prime at f/2.8 and beyond from perspective of IQ - sharpness, contrast and colors. L prime lenses probably still better but only slightly. Nevertheless those L primes can shoot below f/2.8 and have better bokeh probably but also not huge difference. Personally I might add Sigma 35/1.4 and 85/1.4 later but not in priority as I am mainly zoom user. I will skip 135L, 50L, 100L macro (as I own Sigma 150/2.8 OS macro) and 200L/1.8 (200L/2.0 IS is for sports similar as 300L/2.8) in portraiture. Two Sigma f/1.4 lenses I mention should be good enough for whole body, half body and shoulder above portrait and rest ranges can be covered by two f/2.8 L zoom.

I agree those photos look beautiful but still, primes are much cheaper as long as you stay away from L primes, are much faster than the 24-70, and due to being faster gives better low light and better bokeh respectively.

The primes will still be better even though slightly better than the 24-70LII when it comes to image quality.

I just don't see the point in spending so much money on a zoom that covers such a short range as 24-70 does when you can get 3 primes that can cover the same range (zooming with feet and eyeing your shot out before hand), are much faster, and offer even if it's only slightly better image quality all for 1/3rd the price of the zoom combining the cost of three primes.

dave_bass5 wrote:

I play in a wedding band and see loads of wedding photographers using a 24-70 lens as their main lens. It might not suit everyone's style of shooting, and of course wont cover all situations but there is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to use one for weddings. Primes might be faster but they also have restrictions on them.

I really dont know where all this talk of primes is comming from as thats not what the OP is asking about.

Agreed 24-70L and 70-200L II (or respective Nikon counterpart) are widely used by professional wedding photographers. Most times you don't need to shoot at f/1.4 as they use flash anyway. F1.4 or F1.2 prime lenses at such wide open will be soft and pretty slow AF anyway. Photogs use such extreme shallow aperture for special effect but not in normal shooting.

-- hide signature --

Dave.
Gallery @
http://www.flickr.com/photos/davebass5/
http://davepearce.smugmug.com
Videos @ http://www.vimeo.com/user464364/videos

http://www.kaycephotography.com/blog-entries/canon-ef-24-70mm-f2-8l-mark-ii-review/

You jumped your own conclusion too quickly on traditional prime vs zoom stereotype. This new version is nothing similar to the old mark I version. It's very new but you will see more and more photos from pro. Seriously it's not competing to those non-L primes (and I don't think those non L primes you mentioned are better in IQ on reviews), it's competing to L prime at f/2.8 and beyond but much more versatile in various fields from portraiture, landscape to sports.  I’d suggest wait and see…and I will do some tests as I said in this weekend.

I agree most cannot justify on this zoom but they are many others can if you use it seriously.

qianp2k wrote:

http://www.kaycephotography.com/blog-entries/canon-ef-24-70mm-f2-8l-mark-ii-review/

You jumped your own conclusion too quickly on traditional prime vs zoom stereotype. This new version is nothing similar to the old mark I version. It's very new but you will see more and more photos from pro. Seriously it's not competing to those non-L primes (and I don't think those non L primes you mentioned are better in IQ on reviews), it's competing to L prime at f/2.8 and beyond but much more versatile in various fields from portraiture, landscape to sports. I’d suggest wait and see…and I will do some tests as I said in this weekend.

I agree most cannot justify on this zoom but they are many others can if you use it seriously.

I agree with you on the most part and respect your opinion. If you have the money the 24-70L II is great. If you don't have the money and are like me and don't find the zoom range really that significant with these zoom lenses than go get yourself a set of primes and save money.

I found out after using a 2.8 zoom for a month coming from a 50mm prime that I was using only the 50mm and 35mm end and craving a longer zoom length all the time. I found the zoom range very small for the price of the lens, the speed you lose coming from a prime (2.8), and in the case of my zoom the image quality that you lose using the zoom compared to a nice prime.

I respect and agree that these top quality zooms are great but I also think that primes offer more bang for the buck and will always be faster and give you more capability's due to you being able to blow out backgrounds more when needed or when shooting in low light.

For what I personally shoot (portraiture) I found 2.8 to not be fast enough wide open.