Advice: have 24/1.4L II, get 35/1.4L II or replace with 24-70/2.8L II?

[George D.]

Happy (Canon) holiday season and leave the socks hanging on the fireplace for Santa is rumored to visit in January with new dSLRs. As mentioned in subject I'm totally baffled if it's better to part with my 24/1.4L II prime and get a 24-70/2.8L II or keep it and get a 35/1.4L II.

I'm shooting landscapes and f/1.4 has proven of no real use to me but I need the best 24mm throughout the aperture range. I have now decided to get a slightly wider than 50mm lens for more flexibility and the new 35/1.4L II is a real temptation, then again f/1.4 is not a priority but all other apertures are. 24/1.4+35/1.4 sound like a perfect quality match. On the other hand, if you've tried is the 24-70/2.8L II comparable from f/2.8 and above and up to 50mm or don't I even bother?

 

[gregorywood]

You don't mention what your focal length needs or misses are. If you aren't longing for anything beyond 35, it seems that you may be trading in some capabilities for others that you clearly don't need.

For me - and this is just me - I'd much rather have the ability to go wider in aperture at the expense of zoom.

If you want convenience, then the one lens gives you that and a longer focal length. But giving up 2 stops seems like a high price to pay.

Just my opinion.

 

[neuroanatomist]

If you're stopping down beyond f/4 anyway, there's no advantage to the primes given the IQ of the 24-70/2.8 II.

 

[H. Jones]

Not exactly what you're shooting, but I know of a combat photographer in Afghanistan who only shoots with the Canon 24mm and 35mm, and his work is absolutely incredible. That said, you can practically anything you want with those two lenses! 35mm is a great length and definitely has a different look from 24mm.

Personally I'm a lot more of a zoom-sorta guy, and I absolutely love my 24-70 II. It's brilliant. As long as I have it in my bag, I know I can shoot practically anything. I really enjoy having the zoom during landscapes to get some different compositions, and I've found that it's tack sharp throughout the whole zoom range when stopped down. It's definitely sharp at F/2.8, but I've heard some people have different conclusions, so that might be a variance thing. Mine is absolutely awesome, at least.

Are you going to shoot with a tripod? F/1.4 is a lot more hand-holdable than F/2.8, and that might be of value to you during darker sunset/sunrise landscapes. The new 35mm F/1.4 II is sharp through most of the frame even at f/1.4, so you could definitely use it at that aperture.

 

[AshtonNekolah]

IMO, I also shoot landscapes as well, ask yourself this, are you a low light landscape shooter or you shoot more in the day or evenings, low light as in dust and dawn times. if you shoot dusk and dawn times keep the 24mm 1.4 and get a 85mm 1.8 if you can afford it get the 85mm 1.2 for those tight shots. if you shoot in the day and use a tripod allot more (also with primes) a 24-70 2.8 will make more sense and will be less hassle to be changing vocal lengths.
another note here: if you like it shooting wide most of the times the prime lens is the way to go, if you like 35mm and up more then get yourself a zoom.

I shoot primes only because of convince, they are brighter vs the new 24-70mm and I prefer to use my feet to explore.

Good luck with that and happy holidays as well.

 

[tron]

I personally find 24-70 2.8L II is much more versatile. Also it has excellent IQ. I have the original 35mm 1.4L and I use it only for low light events/portraits.

P.S Keep in mind that lenses fit in socks just fine too. This way, the socks can be filled during holidays (OK with existing lenses...) ;D ;D ;D

 

[StudentOfLight]

I would only seriously consider the 35L II if I were needing to shoot wide open at f/1.4. If that's not the case then there are a few really good options. Options wider than 50 would be 40, 35, 28 and then 24mm.
40mm STM. (Compromises: Vignette, build quality, vignette, CA)
35mm f/2 IS USM. (Compromises: Vignette, barrel distortion)
28mm f/2.8 IS USM. Compromises: Vignette, barrel distortion, CA)
Stopping down to f/5.6 and onwards will resolve most issues.

I suspect that a new 24-70mm f/2.8 IS will be released in the next 18 months so if you desperately wanted to get one further down the line then you could probably pick up one second hand at that stage for a bit less than if you got one now.

The other option is the 16-35mm f/4 IS USM is also not very expensive and gives good resolution and more versatility that the 24-70 in the "wider-than-50mm" range.

 

[martti]

For shooting crazy people who have had too much to drink, the 35mm f/1.4 is excellent. I have the I version.
I tried shooting crazy people who had had too much to drink with the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 but for some reason the VC or the stabilizer let the people fool around as is no stabilization ever was applied. Disgusting.

If you do not need the f/1.4 do not buy it. With my reference group it is the lens of choice. Of course, when you start picking up the faces, you want the 100mm f/2.0 or better still the 85mm f/1.2.
Maybe the new EF 24-70 f/2.8 focuses in the dark, I don't really know. The primes do, even the old ones.

Is there a reason you could not use the 35 mm for landsapes? Or the 24-70 f/2.8?
I don't know. What is the matter with people today, can't you walk?

 

[George D.]

There's a difference in the perspective of 24mm and 35mm. You don't just walk nearer. If it were like this we'd just use a 24mm, crop and get a 50mm view? Or 500mm. No. About 1.4 I rarely use it but if you see how the 24/1.4L II delivers at f/2.8 it's jaw-dropping compared to any other 24mm. Well, it's the zoom I don't know about.

Still a tough choice. Maybe I'd better rent the zoom and see. Many thanks for all opinions. Cheers.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I'm shooting landscapes and f/1.4 has proven of no real use to me but I need the best 24mm throughout the aperture range.

Incidentally, if you want the best 24mm IQ through the relatively narrower aperture range often used for landscapes, you should ditch the 24/1.4L II in favor of the TS-E 24/3.5L II, which delivers truly excellent IQ and also the possibility of using tilt to orient the DoF along the landscape and use a more moderate aperture to capture near-to-far without using apertures so narrow you lose sharpness to diffraction.

 

[d]

The 24/1.4L II and 35/1.4L II make a great pairing, IMHO. I've been alternating the two on my camera over the past couple of days, and really enjoying the results both give when used wide open. The 35L II does seem to show up the 24L II a little when you start looking at things like colour fringing and the smoothness of rendering, but to my eye they're a nice match to each other. Not particularly relevant to the OP's intended purpose of shooting landscapes, but I've been casually snapping shots of family members during Christmas get-togethers this past week, and when I nail focus with the 35L II wide open, the results are exquisite, and continue as the lens is stopped down.

Whether the 35L II is a better option for the OP than a 24-70 zoom, I'm not sure, but it's nice to have the option to open up a few stops beyond 2.8, and I prefer the simplicity and purposefulness of the primes, even at the expense of a zoom's flexibility.


d.

 

[PureClassA]

Amen to this. The 24L TS is on my Wanted List. I dont think you could have a better lens at that focal length unless you want wider (there's a 17 TS too). Otherwise, consider the new 16-35L. It's truly excellent and if you're shooting landscapes with all these, I assume you're using f4 and smaller anyway. Plus you get IS. Only issue with the TS lenes is you need to realize they are Manual focus only. That's not a problem, just an attribute i think some folks over look.

I'm shooting landscapes and f/1.4 has proven of no real use to me but I need the best 24mm throughout the aperture range.

Incidentally, if you want the best 24mm IQ through the relatively narrower aperture range often used for landscapes, you should ditch the 24/1.4L II in favor of the TS-E 24/3.5L II, which delivers truly excellent IQ and also the possibility of using tilt to orient the DoF along the landscape and use a more moderate aperture to capture near-to-far without using apertures so narrow you lose sharpness to diffraction.

 

[jd7]

Unless you go for the TS-E lenses (which seem fantastic although I have not used one myself), another option you could consider is the 24-70 f/4L IS. In my opinion it's a very good option if landscape is your thing (and provided you aren't getting into the TS-E lenses). Just make sure you get one which is well tuned.

 

[AUGS]

This,

If you're stopping down beyond f/4 anyway, there's no advantage to the primes given the IQ of the 24-70/2.8 II.

and this,

The other option is the 16-35mm f/4 IS USM is also not very expensive and gives good resolution and more versatility that the 24-70 in the "wider-than-50mm" range.

These are my "go to" lenses for landscapes as I'm always stopping down to about f/8 to f/16 anyway, so the speed of the primes doesn't matter and the versatility of the zooms make these my best option.
The 24-70/2.8 II also gives you added versatility if you want to do panoramic stitching in portrait mode, which I use often.

 

[docsmith]

Happy (Canon) holiday season and leave the socks hanging on the fireplace for Santa is rumored to visit in January with new dSLRs. As mentioned in subject I'm totally baffled if it's better to part with my 24/1.4L II prime and get a 24-70/2.8L II or keep it and get a 35/1.4L II.

I'm shooting landscapes and f/1.4 has proven of no real use to me but I need the best 24mm throughout the aperture range. I have now decided to get a slightly wider than 50mm lens for more flexibility and the new 35/1.4L II is a real temptation, then again f/1.4 is not a priority but all other apertures are. 24/1.4+35/1.4 sound like a perfect quality match. On the other hand, if you've tried is the 24-70/2.8L II comparable from f/2.8 and above and up to 50mm or don't I even bother?

This one is tricky. First, the easy stuff, if you ever want to shoot astro or nightscapes, f/2.8 at 24 mm is ok, but having f/2 (at f/1.4 too much coma/IQ takes a hit) or less is very nice.

For general landscapes, I agree that from f/4-f/11 the 24-70 II is basically as good as primes. In truth, it is as good at center frame and mid-frame, but isn't as good at the edges. So, if you want corner to corner the best IQ, you still need a prime.

But that is resolution, the other difference that I see as a factor in the "prime vs elite zoom" debate is vignetting and distortion. Using TDP numbers, at 24 mm f/2.8 the 24-70II has greater than -3 EV vignetting in the corners where the 24 II has ~-1.5 EV. They are about the same by f/5.6. As for distortion, using photozone numbers, the 24-70II has -2.83% barrel distortion where the 24 II -1.35% barrel distortion. Both of these are "easily correctable" in post processing, but I feel there is a hit, even if minor, to IQ.

All that said, I think the ultimate IQ is still with the primes. But the 24-70II is my most used lens. For me, it is close enough. I do own and occasionally use the TSE 24 II, which is amazing. But since I bought the 24-70II I have hardly ever reached for the Sigma 35A, which I've decided to sell.

As to what I would recommend you do, I do not see why you need to sell the 24 II to fund the 24-70 II. It seems that you have enough money to buy the 35 II, which is about the same price as the 24-70 II. My recommendation, unless you crave the absolute best for IQ, would be to keep the 24 II and buy the 24-70II. Shoot with both for awhile and see how much the 24 II gets used. If it hasn't been used much in a year, sell it to fund your next lens.

 

[privatebydesign]

As has already been said, the ultimate 24 for landscape use is unquestionably the TS-E 24, the differences between being 'in acceptable focus' and actually being 'in focus' is so blindingly obvious the first time you use tilt you will wonder how 'acceptable focus' ever became an acceptable phrase.

Look at the 'another sample' section here https://luminous-landscape.com/nikon-24-mm-f3-5-pc-e-nikkor-ed/ and know the Canon TS-E 24 is considerably better than the Nikon PC-E 24 in that review.

 

[martti]

You can stack photo with all of the above mentioned lenses and use SW to get as sharp pictures you can ever dream of.

While it is true that the optical and the technical quality of the TS lense are astounding, once you have to go shooting stuff that moves, you will have to change.

I guy who asks questions needs a zoom.
A guy who has answers shoots primes.

 

[privatebydesign]

You can stack photo with all of the above mentioned lenses and use SW to get as sharp pictures you can ever dream of.

While it is true that the optical and the technical quality of the TS lense are astounding, once you have to go shooting stuff that moves, you will have to change.

I guy who asks questions needs a zoom.
A guy who has answers shoots primes.

Those two comments rather contradict each other. How do you make stacked images if there is significant movement in the scene? On the other hand you can get an entire ocean sharp and in focus, including any fast moving objects or subjects on it, at f4 with a T/S lens.

I shoot zooms and primes, whichever is most appropriate and gives me the perspective I am looking for.