Comparison Canon fixed 1.2-1.4 lenses vs Canon 24-70mm zoom

[hasselbladfan]

Good morning everyone,

Did anybody test a 24 / 35 / 50 / 85 Canon L lens vs a Canon 24-70 L zoom? Anybody having some experience with these 1.2-1.4 lenses? Or is there any test report I should read?

Are these lenses much shaper than the zoom? Is it worth the price difference? I am considering buying a 35/85/135, a 24/50/135 or a 24-70/135.

Any advice welcome. 

[duane_bolland]

Try this:

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff

I'm very happy with my 24-70 even though photozone claims the Nikon is better.  My 85 and 135 are fab, but they aren't used in the same way as the 24-70.  The 35/85/135 is referred to as the Holy Trinity in some circles.   

[EinstStein]

Since you are asking for Canon L, so I think 50mm1.4 is not part of your interest. Nevertheelss I've recommended 50mm/1.4 to a friend because I like Zess 50mm1.4 and I believed they should be close. But to my surprise, my friend said Canon 50mm 1.4 is not as good as his 24-70mm L. (for whatever he is concerned). This is a second hand info, somewhat vague, but hope it helps you somehow.

[torger]

Sharpness is typically the last factor to consider, unless there's some special need for it like tripod-mounted photography of detailed landscapes. For hand-held photography all lenses are sharp enough.

24-70 zoom can only go to f/2.8, so if you need f/1.4 that is a problem, and the primes will generally be better at f/2.8 than the zoom will. Bokeh may be nicer with the primes. For low light photography the primes are generally better, not only due to the larger aperture but also less T-stops due to less lens elements. The 50mm/1.2L has 1.4 t-stops while the 24-70 has 3.4 according to dxomark, meaning you can use shorter shutter times at the same aperture with the prime. If you will typically be using f/8 or so and shoot from a tripod and/or not use them in low light the zoom can be a really good alternative.

Cost aside, the deciding factor is often however how you like to work, if it is important to have the zoom flexibility. If you don't mind to have several primes instead of one zoom in your camera bag, and don't mind needing to switch lens when you need another angle of view the solution with primes is generally better.

[Sheldon N]

Detailed comparison crops showing center/edge performance at all apertures can be found here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=101


I own the 24-70 as well as the 35/50/85 L series lenses. The L primes will have a sharpness edge around f/2.8 when the zoom is wide open and the primes are stopped down. By f/5.6 they are all quite sharp.  I generally reach for the 24-70 when I need flexibility and I reach for the fast primes when I want to shoot wide open for shallow DOF or to get a certain "look". All of them are sharp enough for my purposes.

[stever]

take a look at the reviews on photozone.de and the-digital-picture.com

the main reason to own the primes is for low light and limited depth of field - for which you pay a lot of money and carry a lot of weight

resolution at large apertures will be better, particularly at the edges.  although it's usually not that important in large aperture images, the wide-medium zooms are pretty commonly asymterical at larger apertures and can have pretty bad resolution on one side or the other (which may vary with focal length) as a result of manufacturing tolerances - i wouldn't buy one of the lenses without carefully testing

a point against the 24-70 is that it's a beast to carry - i prefer the 24-105 plus a prime or two when needed

the 50 1.2 and 1.4 have entirely different performance, with the 1.2 optimized for large apertures and the 1.4 extemely soft (to be generous) wide open - but by f4 or 5.6 the 1.4 is at least as good.  the 85 1.2 vs 1.8 are similar

[Ben Rubinstein]

The canon 50mm 1.4 isn't actually that soft wide open but it does have a lot of glow around the edges which makes it look like it and the bokeh kind of gives a girlish scream and gives up if there is anything even approaching a highlight in the scene. At f1.8 it's all gone and it's very sharp. From f2.8 onwards it will slam any of the three 24-70L's I owned for sharpness, contrast and clarity. That cheap 50mm is responsible for some 60% of every wedding I shoot, at least 2/3rds of it at f1.8.

As many write, sharpness isn't necessarily the most important issue, contrast, clarity and 'look' are all more important once you get past a certain level of necessary sharpness. The one thing I do miss from my L zooms, the only thing in fact, is the L colour.

[DaveCurtis]

If you dont need AF you could look at Zeiss primes.

I have still kept my Canon 24-105mm for AF/IS convenience, however my Zeiss primes:21,35,50 and 100mm are always first choice. They have great micro contrast and are generally in a different league to the 24-105mm.