Hello all, long time reader and first time poster.
I've recently jumped from crop to FF with the new 5D after piling up a few lenses with with crop cameras. Please file me under 'poorly self-taught enthusiast' -- no teaching, perhaps 30k exposures of flight time logged.
Though I have the standard 24-70 F/2.8L zoom (Mk I) and 50 F/1.4, I feel these lenses don't fully serve me in my walkaround needs. I've recently moved from a very small town to a major city, and I'd like to bring the camera along as I discover my new home. Weight and size precludes bringing the 24-70 around everywhere. Though the 50 prime is often my walkaround, my most troublesome environment is wide, indoors, low light. This comes up a lot, as I'm often out with friends at a cramped bar / restaurant and have to sandwich all their faces together. I'm not just shooting candids -- everywhere in this city is compacted into small spaces where width gives me more elbow room for composition. I also don't carry a flash with me in my travels, so even with the 5D3's great low light performance, I need something very quick.
So I have rented the 35 F/1.4L and the new 28 F/2.8 IS to test them out head to head, with the intention of buying one of the two. I've opted out of the 24 F/1.4L II as I feel that the 24mm FOV on FF is great for landscapes, but clearly shows distorted view of closer objects. I also love circular polarizers for outdoor shooting, but 24mm on FF shows that FOV quasi-vignetting thing that I'd like to avoid.I know many pros on this forum have thrown their hands up at the new 24mm and 28mm primes for still shooters -- why give IS to a wide lens, these are meant for video, I'll take the F/1.4 over the F/2.8 with IS, etc. But I'd like to understand that better in the context of my shooting style/need.
I ask because from everything I've seen, the 28 is just as good if not better than the 35L in my hands from a few days of shooting. Keep in mind, I'm not a super pixel peeper guy. I leave that for the testing guys, and if you spotted the LensRentals.com posting, the 28 @ 2.8 is within a hair of the resolution performance of the 24 F/1.4L II stopped down to 2.8. As you'd expect, the 24 F/1.4L II was considerably softer fully open. Unfortunately, I don't have the same data in the same test for the 35L, but it's (from other sites) in the same ballpark as the 24 F/1.4L II.
So, after all that, my question is this. As I'm not shooting moving targets where the 1.4 will buy me a usefully faster shutter speed, wouldn't I rather use the new 28 @ 2.8 with its four stops of IS at a higher overall IQ than the 35L wide open? In my unique need, isn't the new 28 a better choice?
I ask because though I am not shy about buying L glass (I own quite a few), the 28 is small, light, sharp, and surprisingly well built -- as good as any non-L I've seen. Further, the 35L looks and feels far *less* solid than my other L glass, and the design is certainly dated. I know people have raved about the 35L, but is this non-L perhaps the better lens for me?
As an engineer and legendary overthinker in RL, I've spreadsheeted it up like I do for most tough calls. :-) See attached with the grain of salt that I am a non-pro and non-pixel peeper. See link: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0Bw1Ov5b4ZHg1ZGRCamEtd2ZITjg
I welcome all commentary on this lens decision. Thanks in advance for your help!