If you could buy one ...

[hpaton]

If you could buy only one, which would you choose?

24-70mm f/2.8 L
35mm f/1.4 L
50mm f/1.2 L

Presumed use -- wide variety, including portrait, landscape, interior, and even a little basketball (close-to-basket lens)

Wondering: Is it dumb to buy 24-70 now with rumors of new-gen version out soon?

Especially interested in feeback from anyone who owns or has used all three.

Want to make a buying decision before rebates expire Feb. 4.

Many thanks in advance.

 

[evargas]

24-70mm f/2.8 L...

Just bought it and it is my new walk around lens. With the rebate + calumet's winter sale i saved like $250.
The new one will be significantly more expensive.

Using a 60D (1.6x crop) the 70-200mmL IS II can be a little too long for casual close encounters.

I plan to get the new 50 and the current 35 though. But I would prioritize the 24-70 if you want versatility.

 

[Michael_pfh]

The 24-70 f/2.8 is definitely the best choice among the 3 when it comes to versatility although it could be too slow for indoor Basketball in certain situations - the 135 f/2 or any longer and faster prime tele would be a better choice for that but on the other hand would not fulfill your other intended purposes.

If you need/want that lens now go for the existing version of the 24-70, apart from being comparably heavy it is a great lens (the Mk2 is not going to have IS either and will most probably extend for focusing as well). If you do not need/want it now be prepared for another 6 months wait since the Mk2 will be hard to get after its launch since half of the entire Canon community seems to be drooling over it for quite some time (myself included).

 

[briansquibb]

85 f/1.8 might be an alternative?

 

[dunkers]

I've used the 24-70L on my 60D to shoot college basketball. I always sit in the media area right next to the basket so I sit as close as you can get.

I really liked the 24-70L combo. It is wide enough when they are standing right in front of you (even when passing the ball in). And the reach is enough to cover your half of the court.

The 24-70L also functions as a good portrait lens. It can also do all of the other things you were looking to do as well.

 

[willrobb]

Definitely the 24-70 f2.8L!

This is a brilliant all round lens, it'll be great for portraits and landscapes, it's wide enough for interiors and even for basketball you'll have a lot of bases covered. Sure, the 35L a d 50L are great lenses, you'll get much better bokeh, but you won't beat the versatility of the 24-70mm f2.8L. I easily use this lens 70% of the time I am shooting, I use the 50mm f1.2L a fair bit, but mainly for portrait shoots.

 

[Tijn]

24-70mm f/2.8 L

24-70mm f/2.8 L

24-70mm f/2.8 L

For me personally, anyways. I like zoom lenses a lot for the flexibility they provide. However, for indoor sports, some would say f/2.8 is pushing it (they would recommend f/2 or larger). I'm not too experienced yet in that section so I won't comment on that.

 

[funkboy]

Well, since you haven't asked about the 17-55 f/2.8 IS I'm going to assume you're on a full-frame camera.

The 35 f/1.4L is the best handling of the three and is better for close work in very low light (like jazz clubs etc) as well as the most practical & least conspicuous for street shooting (& I feel the most inspiring as well). The AF is quite fast as well & doesn't have the "niggles" of the 50 f/1.2L.

But as everybody else said, if you're not doing a lot of that kind of stuff & just need a very good all-round lens, the 24-70L is your mule. Most of the folks I see around using 5DIIs for semi-pro & pro video work have a 24-70L mounted.

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

I would buy a 35mm f/1.4

For my uses, I'd rather keep on carrying the 24-105mm over the 24-70mm. I prefer the additional range & IS over the one extra stop.

I already have an EF 50mm f/1.4, don't need sealing, and I wouldn't cough up the money to gain 1/3rd of a stop.

I have & use the 35mm f/2, and USM, extra full stop, and improved IQ will be welcome.

 

[smirkypants]

I think you need to ask yourself how much you need flexibility.

If the majority of your shots will be taken under conditions where the focal length is constantly changing and you need to act quickly to avoid missing a shot, then the 24-70 is your answer. Priority: getting the shot.

If your shots will be taken under relatively fixed conditions where you will have time to change lenses if need be, then a good prime is highly desirable. Priority: best image quality possible.

 

[dstppy]

I want to phone a friend! No, wait, 24-70mm f/2.8L, final answer.

Seriously though, unless you shoot a lot at 35 or 50, a zoom at f2.8 has much more utility than a prime.

One note from our good friends at lens rentals on the 50mm:
"Well, we could talk about this for hours, this is one of the most controversial, irritating, and spectacular lenses in the lineup." -- it has a learning curve

That said, my only real complaint (and it's probably because I've heard other people say it so much that I noticed it) that the much more affordable 50mm f1.4 is a bit slow on the autofocus (not kit lens slow, but you get the picture).

Re: Is it dumb to buy a new version when a new one is coming out?
1) A new one will either be released tomorrow . . . or a new one won't be released for 3 more years
2) SOMETHING may be coming with a new DSLR . . .
3) A new DSLR will either be released this month . . . or A new DSLR will be released in the next 18 months

All of the above is as true as anyone randomly posting on twitter, so you can take the advice everyone doles out daily here:
Buy it if you need it, wait if you want it . . . or anything in between.

I'm considering picking one up and seeing how there's a direct correlation of the peace in my household to lenses purchased (directly inverse that is) I figure I'll wait another month and see if anything turns up.

Good luck.

 

[EYEONE]

35mm f1.4L

Rented one for my last wedding and it was a pleasure to use.

 

[bonedaddy.p7]

for my money it'd be the 35mm 1.4L. it is a nice lens, with pretty good speed. but then again I already have a 2.8 zoom that covers most of the wider angles and I rarely feel a need to go longer than my current zoom. if it were to be my only lens then I would be more inclined for the 24-70.

 

[7enderbender]

If you could buy only one, which would you choose?

24-70mm f/2.8 L
35mm f/1.4 L
50mm f/1.2 L

Presumed use -- wide variety, including portrait, landscape, interior, and even a little basketball (close-to-basket lens)

Wondering: Is it dumb to buy 24-70 now with rumors of new-gen version out soon?

Especially interested in feeback from anyone who owns or has used all three.

Want to make a buying decision before rebates expire Feb. 4.

Many thanks in advance.

If I could pick really only one then I'd go for the 50L - if alternatives are allowed I might opt for the Zeiss 50 1.4 instead.

 

[sheedoe]

While all those are good choices, If I had to choose one, it'll definitely be the 24-70mm. The versitility of zoom is very important if you're covering a wide variety of work. IQ wise, I would put the 35mm 1.4 ahead of the 3. But the 24-70mm is no slouch. I bought mine used about 5 months ago for $1170. Given today's price after the rebate, its a great value. When the new one comes out, you can sell it to fund the other purchase. But I suspect the price of the new one will be significantly higher.

 

[funkboy]

If I could pick really only one then I'd go for the 50L - if alternatives are allowed I might opt for the Zeiss 50 1.4 instead.

I'm getting ready to hock my ZE Planar 50mm f/1.4 on either the Makro-Planar 50 or the Distagon 28 f/2. It's definitely not doing the "Zeiss thing" for me at fast apertures like my old C/Y 50mm Planar did (why, oh why did I sell that one? Well, good adapters weren't readily available at the time like they are now...).

 

[neuroanatomist]

If you could buy only one, which would you choose?

24-70mm f/2.8 L
35mm f/1.4 L
50mm f/1.2 L

Presumed use -- wide variety, including portrait, landscape, interior, and even a little basketball (close-to-basket lens)

When making a buying decision, there are three main factors to consider:

• What you want to shoot
• What camera/lenses you already have
• Budget

You provided details on the first (which is more than many people asking similar questions), and the third is not a factor here since all three lenses fall in the same cost range.

But a bit of info on your current gear would help. For example, if you have a 24-105mm f/4L IS already, I'd opt for one of the primes. If you're shooting APS-C, I'd get the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS over any of those you list above, unless you already have one. Etc.

 

[squarebox]

hehe I actually just went through a similiar thought exercise for my 550d.

I ended up getting the 35 1.4L (though in all honesty the f2 is very close in optical quality) and 50 1.4L

As it is, the 35mm is on my camera all the time now. I only bring out the 50 when i'm in larger rooms, or when i'm too lazy to carry the weight of the 35L

 

[00Q]

24-70mm f/2.8 L

24-70mm f/2.8 L
24-70mm f/2.8 L

24-70mm f/2.8 L
24-70mm f/2.8 L

24-70mm f/2.8 L
24-70mm f/2.8 L

24-70mm f/2.8 L
24-70mm f/2.8 L

24-70mm f/2.8 L
24-70mm f/2.8 L

24-70mm f/2.8 L
24-70mm f/2.8 L

24-70mm f/2.8 L

 

[Taemobig]

My vote goes for 24-70 as well. Its just too useful for what it can do.