Can a 24-70mm f/2.8 replace 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm primes for 10R prints?
Asked 1/31/2011
4 views
2 answers
0
I shoot a Canon 5D and currently use Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L, 50mm f/1.4, and 85mm f/1.8. For travel and walking around the city, I’d like to carry less and avoid changing lenses so often. I’m considering a Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 as a general-purpose replacement for those focal lengths.
My main concern is practical image quality in a 10R print, not pixel-level sharpness tests. I’m an amateur and mostly shoot portraits and street, with some landscape and architecture. Since I’m on full frame, 24mm is wide enough for me. I’d still keep the primes for situations where I specifically want their strengths.
For real-world use and smaller prints, is a good 24-70mm f/2.8 close enough in image quality to those primes?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
15y ago
2 Answers
11
It depends heavily on what qualities in the final picture you care about. An f/2.8 lens won't simulate the depth of field of an f/1.4 lens -- ever. Even if the zoom was sharper, it still wouldn't give the shallow DoF of the f/1.4 primes. For portraits, that can (and often will) matter a lot. For landscapes, you'll typically use a fairly small aperture in any case so it's unlikely to make any real difference.
Originally by user603. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user603
15y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
Yes—if your standard is real-world quality in a 10R print, a good 24-70mm f/2.8 is likely close enough for many uses, especially street, travel, and general shooting.
The main tradeoffs are not just sharpness. Your primes are faster, so they allow:
- shallower depth of field for portraits
- better low-light shooting at lower ISO
A 24-70mm f/2.8 cannot match the look of an f/1.4 or f/1.8 lens when you want strong background blur, and in low light you may need to raise ISO by 1–2 stops. On a 5D, that may be acceptable.
For landscapes and architecture, where you’ll often stop down anyway, the difference is usually much less important. For portraits, the wider apertures of the primes can matter more.
So as a convenience lens, the 24-70mm f/2.8 is a sensible choice and should deliver very good results in smaller prints. But it’s still a compromise versus primes, not a full replacement for their speed and subject-isolation look.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI15y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
How much better are Canon Mark II L lenses than the original versions?
Will 24-70mm primes become less common as 24-70mm f/2.8 zooms improve?
Is a 24-70mm lens worth renting or buying for family, maternity, and future wedding work on full frame?
Why do 35mm lenses with similar focal length and aperture vary so much in price?
What is Nikon’s equivalent to Canon’s 24-70mm f/2.8L for full-frame, and how do they compare?