I have had the 24-70/2.8 II for a couple of months and I realise now that I have not used the 35/1.4 since. Obviously an f1.4 can do things a f2.8 can't but is DOF really an issue for a wide lens? And I have the 5D MKIII so light/ISO is not that much of a problem either. I was just about to put the 35/1.4 up for sale but I simply can not make up my mind.... Opinions are more than welcome.
Can 24-70/2.8 II replace 35/1.4?
- Thread starter CHL
- Start date
- Status
I can't recall having used my 35mmL since I bought my 24-70L MK II. I love the 35L, but with my 5D MK III, I can bump the ISO a stop or two easily enough.
I may still use it in some cases, but I'm beginning to think of parting with it.
I may still use it in some cases, but I'm beginning to think of parting with it.
Upvote
0
I sold my 24 f1.4 L II, my 35 and my 50 when I got the 2470 II, I have honestly not regretted it ONCE. Not once. The AF accuracy and IQ of the 2470 combined with "Always having the right focal" is just the winner for
Me.
In combo with the 70-200 it's fantastic range with fantastic everything .
Ps, and this comes from a worshipper of the 35 L, I used it for 90% of my shots.
Me.
In combo with the 70-200 it's fantastic range with fantastic everything .
Ps, and this comes from a worshipper of the 35 L, I used it for 90% of my shots.
Upvote
0
I'm having the same experience with my f/2.8 II (and 70-200 f/2.8 II). Those lenses combined with my 5D MkIII have made my f/1.2, 1.4, and 2 (other than the 85 f/1.2 II) collect a lot of dust 
I'm seriously considering selling my 24, 35, 50, and 135, which I couldn't even begin to imagine not too long ago.
Unless you're shooting events (i.e. very low light where you'd be at f/2.8, 1/60s, and ISO 6400+), sports (to stop motion), need really shallow DOF, or require lower distortion (only real weakness of the 24-70 f/2.8 II IMHO), the 24-70 f/2.8 II will be your best bet.
I'm seriously considering selling my 24, 35, 50, and 135, which I couldn't even begin to imagine not too long ago. Unless you're shooting events (i.e. very low light where you'd be at f/2.8, 1/60s, and ISO 6400+), sports (to stop motion), need really shallow DOF, or require lower distortion (only real weakness of the 24-70 f/2.8 II IMHO), the 24-70 f/2.8 II will be your best bet.
Upvote
0
Interesting topic, I'll be following this one! I've been considering selling my 24-70 f/2.8 Mk I in favor of a 35mm f/1.4 Sigma, but... can't justify the cost of the Sigma for the use it'll get. My 24-70 has been under heavy pressure by my 24-105 f/4 IS which is simply excellent for general purpose use (and I enjoy the added flexibility of the 70-105mm range). So what to do? I'm for sure my 24-70 has been gathering too much dust to justify keeping it, so it's up for sale - I'm waiting to get a good price. I may end up not replacing it by anything ( I have a Sigma 20 mm f/1.8, Canon 35mm f/2, Sigma 50 mm f/1.4 and Canon 50mm f/1.8 Mk I).
Anyway, still need to make up my mind...
Anyway, still need to make up my mind...
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
The main reason to keep the 35/1.4L is for wide angle shots with shallow DoF - something you can't really do with the 24-70/2.8L II. At least, that's why I've hung onto mine. As a low light lens, after getting the 1D X with it's high ISO performance, f/2.8 is generally sufficient and for many situations the DoF of f/1.4 is too shallow (unless that's the look I'm going for, which it certainly is, sometimes).
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
That's one consideration... upgrade the lenses or the body. The 1DX is certainly something else, but wish I could chop off the grip on holidays for compactness.
Upvote
0
Depends on use. Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II surely can replace 35L or other fast primes for shooting landscapes, studio/strobe work, product photography, etc, but for non-studio portraits, shallow DOF photography, and low-light photography, I still prefer to use 35L. My feelings may change if 24-70 could achieve at least f/2 aperture at 70 mm end, which will make for a nicer non-studio people shots for me, which is why hope the rumored Sigma 24-70 f/2 is a good one..
Upvote
0
Before the 24-70 II, I covered the range exclusively with primes. In good light, the 24-70 II is the choice. But when the sunlight fades or if I'm indoors, the fast primes come out. It's nice having the additional two stops of aperture to trade for DOF or ISO/shutter speed. For me, it's not the 35L that is the most threatened by the 24-70, but the 24mm prime.
Upvote
0
I had similar situation .
After buying 70-200mkii my 85Lmkii gathered dust for over a year. I sold the 85 and about a month later had a bad case of buyers remorse
But with 24-70mkii I was never tempted to sell the 35
The 35L just gets a look that the 24-70ii can't achieve.
I sold my 50/1.4 as the optics were in a lower class, but the 35L is my fave prime
After buying 70-200mkii my 85Lmkii gathered dust for over a year. I sold the 85 and about a month later had a bad case of buyers remorse
But with 24-70mkii I was never tempted to sell the 35
The 35L just gets a look that the 24-70ii can't achieve.
I sold my 50/1.4 as the optics were in a lower class, but the 35L is my fave prime
Upvote
0
Since I received my 24-70 2.8 II I don't use my 35 1.4 or 50 1.4 nearly as much on my 6D. I only use the primes when I'm looking for extremely shallow DOF now.
My 50 1.4 gets a fair amount of use these days on my EOS-M as a portrait lens.
My 50 1.4 gets a fair amount of use these days on my EOS-M as a portrait lens.
Upvote
0
I use the 24-70II (and the 70-200II) a lot. But I also use the 35 f1.4 (Sigma) and the 85 1.2L II (and a few other primes) a lot also . The zoom is excellent and very practical. The volume production is done with the zooms. But I get this hard-to-describe feeling of being more creative with the primes. I think more, I move more, I spend more time on composition and framing etc. When I look back at a year´s shooting, when I´m going through all the images during Christmas break, it´s almost always pictures shot with the primes that stand out.
So I will continue to look for improvements in newer versions of the various lenses (I hope a 85mm f1.2L IS III, with improved AF speed is next), but I will always have a combination of primes and zooms. For a zoom to make a prime obsolete would mean a 24-70 f1.4L IS, which I don´t believe I´ll ever see.
So I will continue to look for improvements in newer versions of the various lenses (I hope a 85mm f1.2L IS III, with improved AF speed is next), but I will always have a combination of primes and zooms. For a zoom to make a prime obsolete would mean a 24-70 f1.4L IS, which I don´t believe I´ll ever see.
Upvote
0
You are right, close focus on the 24-70mmL is poor at best. Its awful. Fortunately, my 100L is good for close focus. My 24-105 which I've kept is also good at close focusing.Etienne said:
There is never a perfect lens.
Upvote
0
Viggo said:Etienne said:
I also read that before I bought it, it worried me. Haven't even thought about it until you mentioned it. I shoot up close but a non-issue for me. Try the 50 L up close :
I don't use my 50 (1.4) up close, but I really like the perspective of a close subject in a broad environment on 24mm. I may get the 24-70 2.8 II one day, but I am more interested in a 24 1.4 right now
Upvote
0
- Status
