35mm lenses vs 24-70

[yoni_blau]

Hi there,

First post for me here (although for years I've been checking it out every day)
I stopped using my 450d and ef-s lenses when I got my fujifilm x100 (which is awesome btw)
I'm mostly into street photography and the x100 gave me a great light-weight solution for my long trips abroad

However, now I want to go back to canon to experiment with some tele lenses/macro etc.
and since I cant imagine going back to my 450d I want to wait and buy the 6D (also light and good for street photography)

I love the x100's 35 equiv lens - I like shooting 90% of the time in 35mm.
So... im thinking of buying either a 35mm prime (either the new 35 f/2 IS or the new 35 1.4 sigma)
I heard not so great things about the bulky 35L and with 4 stops IS the new 35 f/2 the 35L has little to offer (or am i wrong)
the second option is to make the extra strach thinking longterm (family portraits/all purpose etc) and getting the 24-70 f/2.8 mkII

So I guess my question is as follows:
do you suppose that at 35mm the non L primes will outpreform the zoom
on one hand primes have usually better IQ however these are not L lenses and the new 24-70 f/2.8 suppose to be super-sharp.

any thoughts?

BTW- since I'm new you can see some of my pics at:
yoni_blau.500px.com

[neuroanatomist]

I heard not so great things about the bulky 35L and with 4 stops IS the new 35 f/2 the 35L has little to offer (or am i wrong)

You 'hear' a lot of things on the Internet - shockingly, some of it is untrue.   

The 35L is a wonderful lens, very sharp in the center, decently sharp in the FF corners, great bokeh.  The only complaint that I have is that it lacks weather sealing.  Personally, I love the 35L as a nighttime walkaround lens.

What the 35/1.4L offers over the 35/2 IS is that it lets in twice as much light.  IS helps with camera shake (not a huge issue with a 35mm lens), but does nothing for subject motion - the faster aperture allows a higher shutter speed.  People on the street move.  Also, f/1.4 delivers greater OOF blur for more creativity with close subjects.

So I guess my question is as follows:
do you suppose that at 35mm the non L primes will outpreform the zoom
on one hand primes have usually better IQ however these are not L lenses and the new 24-70 f/2.8 suppose to be super-sharp.

I expect there will not be big differences, but since the 35/2 IS isn't yet available, we'll see.  Regardless, the zoom is more convenient, but it's f/2.8.  Those two factors, not IQ, should drive your decision.

[Dylan777]

I love my 24-70 II - AF is fast, sharpness is great.

In your case, 90% is a huge number - therefore, I vote for 35L f1.4. For me, faster shutter speed is more important then IS(gain 4-stop, at slower speed).

[drjlo]

I heard not so great things about the bulky 35L and with 4 stops IS the new 35 f/2 the 35L has little to offer (or am i wrong)

Hmm.  There is a very good reason the 35L is in the Canon "Holy Trinity" (35L, 85L, 135L).  Perhaps a good strategy will be to wait for the Canon 35 f/2 IS to actually start shipping, then pick up a recent vintage used 35L off eBay when used prices drop (perhaps). 

As with all things Sigma, I strongly recommend waiting to see if the Sigma 35 f/1.4 turns out to be reliable with accurate AF before jumping in. 

As far as Canon 35 f/2 IS, it really should have been $200 less, and I would try to pick it up with some sort of rebate/sale down the line, if you so choose.

[Daniel Flather]

50%++ of my photos are of my ACTIVE 3 year old son, so IS vs. speed is a no brainer (I'll take the speed is the correct answer).

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The 35mmL is fantastic. but, as with any wide aperture lens, the depth of field at f/1.4 is shallow, and a slight error in focusing can make for a fuzzy image. 
If your camera does not have AFMA to fine tune the autofocus, you might actually be happier with the new 35mm f/2.  The price is a little less than I expected.
However, I do not expect to sell my 35mmL, its fantastic, and very good even at f/1.4

[Nishi Drew]

*Sigh* so little love for Sigma, go ahead and break the bank for outdated Canon equivalents but the AF issues with Sigma haven't come up much at all with the upper end lenses in recent times, most issues are AFMA-able anyways, and my Sigma 70-200 OS needed less AFMA adjustment then my Canon 50 1.4 while all I see anywhere is how the Sigma 50 is superior to the Canon shot wide open. While the Sigma 85 is sharp and produces great bokeh for half of what the 85L goes for. SO, judging by recent trends I'm looking at the new 35, the bokeh could be smoother than the 35L and probably be as sharp or better in the center wide open. We will see, the 35 f2 IS is in the same league for price, and for video use that lens would be great for general shooting...

[wickidwombat]

the 40mm pancake is about the same sharpness as the 24-70 mk1 in the center and sharper accross the rest of the frame

I am looking forward to trying out both the sigma 35 1.4 and the canon 35 f2 IS
I think based on specs i will more likely go with the canon due to IS and possibly a more compact size
if IQ is superior that is

a 35 or 40mm lens can quite easily cover just about everything that a 24-70 can IMO

based on the little 22mm f2 STM on the eos -M i am expecting great things from the 35 f2 IS that comes out

[bycostello]

they are all super sharp... 

but what you forget is crop factor...

the x100 is an APS-C and the 6d is full frame.

So a 35mm on the x100 is 56mm equivalent on the FF 6d.

So you prob want to look at 50mm or the zoom...

[yoni_blau]

they are all super sharp... 

but what you forget is crop factor...

the x100 is an APS-C and the 6d is full frame.

So a 35mm on the x100 is 56mm equivalent on the FF 6d.

So you prob want to look at 50mm or the zoom...

acually the x100 is a 35mm equivalent (23mm on crop)

But I get everyones point
I think faster is important and zooming with my feet is something im used to
so 35 f/1.4 is probably the best choise for me
that still leaves me with 3 choices : the new sigma, the canon L or wait for a new 35L (anytime soon?)

I guess we will have to see if the new sigma is as good as they claim

[SambalOelek]

they are all super sharp... 

but what you forget is crop factor...

the x100 is an APS-C and the 6d is full frame.

So a 35mm on the x100 is 56mm equivalent on the FF 6d.

So you prob want to look at 50mm or the zoom...

A moot point, since the X100 has a non-interchangeable 23mm lens, no doubt designed to closely resemble the field of view you get from a 35mm on a FF camera.

[bycostello]

yeah my error.. thought 23mm before crop factor taken into account and not after....

35mm quite wide though.. i'd still think 50mm if i was to go for a prime...

[yoni_blau]

yeah my error.. thought 23mm before crop factor taken into account and not after....

35mm quite wide though.. i'd still think 50mm if i was to go for a prime...

I get what ppl say about 50s but for me especially in a crowded narrow street i rather have 35.
In anycase I got my cheapo 50 1.8 that will fit on FF and is very sharp (af is a different story there).