Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 vs 50mm f/1.2

smash

I need an every day lens and I use my 16-35mm f/2.8 a lot because my 28-135mm decided to kill itself and I get annoyed with the distortion while shooting people. The 24-70mm is very appealing right now though. It's f/2.8 and is one of the sharpest all round lenses.

Then you come to forums and people constantly talk about their nifty 50 but while checking them out I've read reviews like this:

"The Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM Lens turns in decent but not-as-good-as-I-expected sharpness. It is reasonably (and usably) sharp at f/1.2 and continues to get sharper as it is stopped down several stops. From f/1.2 to somewhere between f/2 and f/2.8, no other Canon 50mm lens is as sharp as this one at respective apertures. At around f/2.8 through f/5.6 or f/8, there are other Canon 50mm lenses that are sharper."

So I don't know if I should go with a 24-70mm for it's versatility or the 50mm for the f/1.2 and less distortion.

What would you do. Does anyone have both?

squareballoon

Much as I would love an 85 1.2 I would go for the 24-70 2.8L. Mine is as sharp as a tack and a really great all rounder.

Paulw

I love my 24-70mm f/2.8 lens. I have a 50mm f/1.4 but seldom use it.

My vote would be for the 24-70.

DaireQuinlan

Two very different lenses really. The big brand fast zooms are great all rounders, typically a lot of resources are put into making sure they're as sharp and as distortion free as possible. They're also heavy and expensive for the most part.

That 50mm 1.2 is verging on a specialist lens. It's very probably optimized to be as sharp as possible wide open (and even that likely isn't going to be pin-sharp), and it's also no doubt heavy and expensive. If you're thinking a 50mm I'd say you'd be better off with a 1.4. Smaller, lighter, less expensive, and realistically you're only losing some fraction of a stop.

Obligatory "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept" quote. Also 'overrated' etc etc etc

-edit-

yikes. Having just checked those prices. That jump from 1.4 to 1.2 is going to set you back the guts of €1000 :-0 I'd say not worth it unless you have a wad of cash burning a hole in your pocket, or you're approaching this from a commercial POV and you see it making its money back somehow.

kfish2oo2

The overwhelming consensus among reviews is that unless you're a commercial photographer looking for a top notch portrait lens, the f/1.2 is not worth the extra money over the f/1.4 - and as daire said, its the bones of a grand. Do you really want to spend that kind of money for what is considered a slight improvement in image quality and a tad bit more light?

smash

That's why I was asking... I spent a lot on my 16-35, and got my 70-200 2nd hand and I love them. They're both great quality f/2.8 L lenses as is the 24-70. I just got slightly put off with how cheap the f/1.4 USM 50mm is... perhaps the price doesn't reflect the quality though and it's a good deal.

jpb1974

Typically when you buy an F/1.2 lens you do so in order to use it at F/1.2 because that's what makes it special for the most part... and that's why it costs big bucks.

If you wanted a 50mm to double up as an 'all-rounder' then the F/1.4 is probably better suited to your needs because you'll probably be using a greater range of apertures... and you might find that you'll end up using it moreso at something like F8... and I believe that there isn't much between the 1.2 and 1.4 at this aperture.

24-70 is a good all-rounder though... 50mm lenses are nice but the fixed focal length can sometimes be a tad restricting.

gloobag

I own an 85mm f1.2 (not the 50mm f1.2 but similar enough for this discussion I think) and 24-70mm f2.8. Equally my two favourite lenses to be honest, but for very different reasons. I pretty much always have both with me, wherever I go.

The 24-70mm is a great all rounder/workhorse/never leave home without it kinda lens. Very sharp with great colour and contrast rendition.

The 85mm f1.2 is a bit of a one trick pony, but it performs that trick so so well... I can't explain it, but if you can manage to nail the focus with that lens at f1.2 (which can be difficult), something special happens.

On the downside, it's big, heavy, very slow to focus with a fairly large minimum focusing distance and isn't weather sealed. Not to mention the price :eek: But I still love it, and unless I'm desperate for cash some time in the future, I can't ever see myself parting with it. That goes for the 24-70mm as well. It's such a useful lens, it deserves a place in any camera bag, if you can afford it.

I also have a 50mm f1.4, it's an excellent lens, but I haven't even put it on the camera since I got the 85mm f1.2 a few months back.

Borderfox

I would use the 24-70L as a workhorse in most jobs,I have the 85L and would keep it on the camera constantly if I could. Each lens is for a different (in my opinion) part of a wedding, the 50L is really nice but I prefer the 85L for a bit more reach. So to answer your question I would go for the 24-70L

Watch for focus shift problems on the 50L too
http://www.ronscheffler.com/blog/?page_id=370

dmg1982

I have the 24-70 f/2.8 L and 50mm f/1.4 - love them both, but they are completely different tools with different applications (for me).

Both have advantages and disadvantages, but as an 'everyday' lens the zoom makes far more sense. It's extremely versatile and built like a brick sh*thouse (big and heavy).

wersal gummage

Which one you go for in the end?