24-70 2.8L Versus Non L Primes ? Need some input

[jon_kobeck1]

<p>I need some honest input here. I use a 5D. I do mostly street and documentary work. I started out with the 24-70L which was a great lens. But the problem I had with it was the weight and size. It wasnt so much the weight really, but more the size. In places like the subway it was very hard to blend into the crowd. So I sold it and with the money I bought a 28mm 1.8 and a 50 1.4, good lenses in general. But i am starting to look back at all my images last year with that L zoom, and the contrast and colors seem much better to my eye. They required much less post production in photoshop. Also when shooting fast on the street the focus was much more dead on, where as the primes tend to miss the focus very often. I was doing alot of digital conversion to black and white then But since selling the L I have partially gone back to film, so now I use a Nikon fm2 with ais primes for all my black and white work and digital strictly for color. <br>

So I guess im trying to decide if I should sell the primes and maybe go back to the 24-70 2.8L or maybe a 17-40 f4 L. I wish I could afford prime L's but cant right now. <br>

I read on some of the reviews that the 50 1.4 was actually better then the 24-70 2.8L at 50mm, so thats a little dissapointing. </p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>I use L zooms and non-L primes, and I really do not think you would expect to see "much better" contrast and color from the zoom. The zoom is fine, but in general a prime - even a good non-L prime - is going to capable of producing IQ that is as good as or better than the zoom in quite a few cases. In particular the 50mm f/1.4 can produce very good IQ - it should be "better" than the zoom at 50mm.</p>

<p>I have a hunch that if you take an "either or" approach to this you may find yourself (expensively) going back and forth more than once. There are times when a L zoom could be the right lens, and there are times when a non-L prime could be the right lens.</p>

<p>But why choose one option and dismiss the other? Sometimes I shoot street with a zoom. Sometimes I shoot street with a prime (or two). While the zoom is not going to get you better image quality per se (excluding the IQ advantages of not having to crop) it does provide useful flexibility in many situations and a degree of simplicity in not requiring you to carry or switch lenses. On the other hand, using a prime or two can reduce the size and weight of your gear and possible make you less obvious.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[alexthornephotography]

<p>Maybe I'm missing something here but I just assumed/expected that my 50mm 1.4 would be better then my 24-70 2.8L. </p>

[jon_kobeck1]

<p>But Alex the 50 is not an L</p>

[alexthornephotography]

<p>Hmm, Jon you right. Maybe I should upgrade my monitor and print process because the magical qualities of my 24-70L just aren't shining through. </p>

[jon_kobeck1]

<p>My 50 is still under warranty, maybe I should send it in for calibration.<br>

I did that with my 28 and it came back much sharper</p>

[mike_bisom]

<p>I don't know about the 1.8 but our 50mm f/1.4 was my FAVORITE lens. No doubt better than out 24-70. Now I suspect our 24-70 wasn't the best copy out there, but we had two 50mm f/1.4s and both were great. Getting the 50 calibrated can't hurt.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>My 50/1.4 seems to be slightly sharper than my 24-70 at 50mm, and the contrast and colour rendition are indistinguishable. I'm contemplating selling my 24-70 for this reason, but likely won't.</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>Maybe stop <em>selling</em> lens. I've got the 5D and the 24-70, and the 50mm f1.4: there is no way I would part with either of those lens. They're both great, have their strengths.</p>

<p>G. Dan's second paragraph sums up my feelings: it's an expensive and frustrating game trading in lens to finance new lens purchases, unless it's some long unused sleeper that you really don't want/need.</p>

[kevin_penczak]

<p>I found my 50 1.8 to be sharper and overall a better performer than my 24-70 at 50mm, so i am sure the 50 1.4 should also be better.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>I find my 50 1.4 to be my sharpest lens except for maybe my 70-200 2.8. but at 2.8 I can not tell the difference.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that L lenses are not all about image quality, a lot of that money is going into build, so its not really fair to compare a prime to a zoom. IMO one of the biggest advantages of a prime is its small size. I think the 28 1.8 and 50 1.4 could produce the same if not better results then any zoom simply based on the wider aperture. Keep in mind with that larger aperture comes a shorter DOF and that can make you think that the lens is not sharp when in reality your just missing focus.<br>

<br /> Instead of a 17-40 how about a combo of 24-105 and a few primes? on a 5D thats a great combo. I love the 24-70 2.8 but I also find it way to big to lug around.</p>

[alexthornephotography]

<p>IMO at 2.8 the 50 1.4 blows the 24-70 out of the water. And, at least for me, 2.8 isn't fast enough for low light situation. I love my 24-70, but for low light situations where I don't need the flexibility of a zoom, I'll use the 50 and Sigma 30 1.4. Of course with your 5D the higher ISO is probably cleaner than my 30D. </p>

[link]

<p>Jon,</p>

<p>I have the 24 2.8, 35 2.0, 50 1.4 and 100 2.0 lenses with my 5d. I knew I didn't want to carry around the zoom after trying out in the store:)</p>

<p>From my experience with this combination, each of these lenses is capable of resolving more detail than the 5d sensor is able to capture. Maybe not in every far corner of the frame at every f-stop, but overall, yes. If you think you see a difference in image quality vs. the zoom, I think your brain is playing tricks on you. I will say this though, I picked the 24mm over the 28mm partly for image quality reasons even though the 24mm is the weakest of my lenses. The 50mm is darn near perfect at f2.5 or smaller.</p>

<p>I find it very hard to believe that you will see any significant improvement in image quality by using the "L" zoom, but hey, if you need to zoom, you need to zoom...but you gotta admit that the 5d camera with the little primes is a lot more fun to hold and shoot with!</p>

<p> </p>

[bjscharp]

Come-on, we all know L lenses give better colours. It's caused by the light reflecting of the red ring. It warms up the picture in a very special way.

 

The red paint reflects only a very select band of the spectrum, and Canon digital sensors are factury-tuned to react better to that light, leading to more dynamic pictures and, in low light conditions, up to a stop of better ISO performance.

 

(The white paint on telephotos is to focus the reflections better on distant subjects).

[Brad_]

<p>The above is the #1 reason I'm not going (for now) with a FF cam for street photography; size and weight.</p>

<p>Would love to have a 5D or D700, and can afford it, but then I need a much larger/heavier zoom to go along with the larger camera body to get the same equivalent FOV range. And the times when the lower light capability of FF benefits is low percentage of the total pix I shoot.</p>

<p>So for the time being I'm sticking with a small/light XSi and much smaller and lighter 17-50 f/2.8. Can shoot and adjust the cam one-handed all day. Great for SP, even in lowish light...</p>

<p> </p>

[edrodgers]

<p>Yes you are all correct. There is no reason to use an 'L' lens. A lens is a lens. The 'L' lenses are no better than the non-'L' lenses. Anyone who spends money on them is wasting their money.<br>

<br /> In fact, it's all just a big con job by Canon. Even though they cost 3-4 times as much as their non-'L' equivalents, there is absolutely no added value in them and the 'L' lens may actually be WORSE than the non-'L' equivalents. The fact that so many professionals prefer them is simply an example of mass brainwashing by the marketing folks at Canon.<br>

<br /> Take it from me.. I know quality and have an advanced degree in optical engineering. There really is no difference at all. Well, maybe there is a tiny bit of difference, but I can't really tell.<br>

<br /> And if you think those people that got suckered into buying 'L' lenses have it bad... Look at all those other saps that buy Leica lenses! They are shelling out 3-5 THOUSAND for a manual focus prime lens to stick on a 6 or 10 megapixel rangefinder! What a bunch of suckers! I can't tell the difference, so there must not be any difference.<br>

<br /> /s</p>

<p>I don't mind people choosing to use "regular" lenses instead of 'L' lenses. Fine. I don't care if you think the 'L' lenses are not worth the extra money spent.<br /> But as soon as you start mocking people that prefer them, I have to call immature stupidity.</p>

[mattb1]

<p>Jon, interesting observation. Thanks for sharing. Unfortunately I can't give advice on the subject, I do not have the 24-70. I have the 50 1.4 and it is sharper than my 24-105 L, but it is rather cool in tone. I'm very much thinking of purchasing the 24-70 L as I'm hoping that it is nearly the same sharpness but warmer and better contrast. Not sure if that will be the case, but it is important enough to me to be shopping for a 24-70. </p>

<p>Don't let some of the posters get to you, you see a difference and it is important to you. I'm hoping that I'll see the difference as well and be happy with the purchase, if not then time to look some more. They don't, nothing wrong with that except when they try and tell you that you are seeing things. I agree with Ed, but maybe not so bluntly.</p>

 

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p>Yes you are all correct. There is no reason to use an 'L' lens. A lens is a lens. The 'L' lenses are no better than the non-'L' lenses. Anyone who spends money on them is wasting their money.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh, come off it. You are inventing a phantom counter-argument that doesn't exist - and then continuing on to offer an impassioned rebuttal of the phantom.</p>

<p>I use both L and non-L lenses. There are situations in which a particular L lens is better, and there are situations in which choosing a non-L lens is the best choice. In my photography there are situations in which the demands of the shot cause me to remove the L lens already fitted to the camera and fit a non-L in its place. The opposite situations also occurs.</p>

<p>I do not think to myself, "This is an important shot - better use the L," nor do I think "It doesn't matter how this one turns out so I'll use the non-L." I consider the specific shot and what I plan to do with the resulting photograph and I select the lens that will produce the best result. Sometimes that is one of my L lenses and sometimes that is one of my non-L lenses.</p>

<p>An argument that "an L lens is always your best choice" is no less bogus than an argument that "a non-L lens is always as good as an L lens."</p>

[edrodgers]

<p>Dan,</p>

<p>Did you read this thread?</p>

 

<blockquote>

 

<p>Come-on, we all know L lenses give better colours. It's caused by the light reflecting of the red ring. It warms up the picture in a very special way.<br>

The red paint reflects only a very select band of the spectrum, and Canon digital sensors are factury-tuned to react better to that light, leading to more dynamic pictures and, in low light conditions, up to a stop of better ISO performance.<br>

(The white paint on telephotos is to focus the reflections better on distant subjects).</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>So, B.J... What are you saying?</p>

<p>Dan, what is wrong with my comment?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't mind people choosing to use "regular" lenses instead of 'L' lenses. Fine. I don't care if you think the 'L' lenses are not worth the extra money spent.<br /> But as soon as you start mocking people that prefer them, I have to call immature stupidity.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You are not talking to an idiot here. I can identify the lens used with the vast majority of my shots. I see the difference. I know my lenses intimately. I have spent a lot of time studying the properties of many exotic lenses. Unlike you, I love the tools as much as the craft. I respect that you don't and that's fine. I'm just telling you where I'm coming from. It bothers me when some ignorant fool, (not talking about you, of course), gets up on their soap box to tell everyone how smart they are for not wasting money on 'L' lenses, and how ignorant people must be to actually buy one. Oooooo, a magical red ring..... Ahhhhhhh..</p>

<p>You remind me a lot of Ken Rockwell.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>It's pretty obvious to me that BJ is being tongue-in-cheek.</p>

<p>As for your response to G Dan's eminently clear response to your post, Ed, I find it to be verging on incomprehensibility. Are you slamming those who claim that L's are better than non-L's, or those who claim the contrary? I believe that both extreme views are equally absurd. As G Dan says in his usual pragmatic way, which is "better" depends on the particular photographic uses to which the lenses are put.</p>

[jon_kobeck1]

<p>ok, whos Ken Rockwell?</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>I'll let Mark's reply stand here. BTW, lots of nice photographs in your gallery, Ed.</p>

<p>Take care.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>deleted</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>I must be one of the ignorant fools that people mention as I have quite a few L lens, I guess because so far I can aford the ones that I have. I can't compare all L lens with others but I do happen to also own the sigma 24-70 and the tamron 28-75, besides the 24-70L and the 24-105L. I took my 28-75 today to get some fun shots, excellent lens, did a low light event that I was paid for took my 24-70L. Why did I do some thing like that? Because my 24-70L does not hunt in low light the the 28-75 tamron and 24-70 Sigma do hunt. As for sharpness, all I can say all the old folks that I take photos off prefer that their wrinkles not be so sharp;-)</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>(Before your blood pressure rises to a dangerous level, Ed, understand that this message is not a reply to you.)</p>

<p>I can cover the 85mm FL with three lenses that I own: 24-105mm, 70-200mm, and 85mm. I frequently use the two L lenses, though obviously in different situations. If I happen to be shooting a subject that requires the highest possible resolution of detail or if I need a larger aperture than either of the zooms can provide I choose the 85mm non-L prime because it produces a better photographic result. If I don't need the very highest resolution possible and/or when IS or FL versatility are more important to me I will select one of the L lenses because they provide quite excellent image quality and greater flexibility than the prime.</p>

<p>I can cover 50mm with one of my L zooms or with my 50mm f/1.4 non-L prime. There are good photographic reasons to select one or the other as the best for the situation depending upon a bunch of variables. Sometimes I may choose the prime for practical reasons related to the circumstances in which I do the photography - e.g in a situation where I need to be "fast and light." I could purchase a 50mm f/1.2 L prime - and it would not be the most expensive lens in my bag. But it would provide no better image quality or utility in the situations where I prefer to use a 50mm prime in my photography - in other words it would not be "better" for my photography.</p>

<p>If I were purchasing a 135mm prime I would probably select the 135mm f/2 L lens. If I were selecting a macro lens I would get the 100mm non-L lens.</p>

<p>I'm clearly not saying that buying an L is proof that one is a fool. I am saying that if selecting the best tool for the photographic result is your main criterion for selecting a lens, the reflexive choice of an L lens in all situations does not necessarily demonstrate a lot of sophistication regarding lens selection.</p>

<p>Dan</p>