Can 24-70/2.8 II replace 35/1.4?

[Grumbaki]

The F difference is still pretty huge to me. Just for random reflexion, DoF at 5m is 1.7m at f1,4 vs 3.8 at f2.8. And that's just the math, the feeling is even stronger when I look at my pictures. Same for ISO. Yeah we can push it but should we?

To extend what alexander said the use, the feeling when shooting and the "creativity by self limitation" are also to take into account.

So +1 to the original post of Dylan, If you don't need the cash don't sell.

24-70+70-200 for efficiency, 35+85 for pleasure.

 

[fyah5dmarkiii]

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.

Indeed! 24-70ii and 70-200ii is a killer combo!

 

[pwp]

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. I was just about to put the 35/1.4 up for sale but I simply can not make up my mind....

Mine is sold, and so is the 24 f/1.4II and the Sigma 50 f/1.4. The new zoom is a total knock-out.

-PW

 

[Murilo_mms]

Great thread.

I´m thinking to sell my 24-70mm 2.8II, because 50mm 1.2L and 135mm 2L always outperforms the 24-70 II. It is a great lens, but when you compare to 50L and 135L...

What do you prefer:

1) 24mm 2.8 IS + 35mm 1.4 Art + 50mm 1.2L + 85mm 1.8 + 135mm 2L

or

2) 24-70mm 2.8 II + 50mm 1.2L + 135mm 2L

 

[bholliman]

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. I was just about to put the 35/1.4 up for sale but I simply can not make up my mind....

Mine is sold, and so is the 24 f/1.4II and the Sigma 50 f/1.4. The new zoom is a total knock-out.

+1

I just sold my 35 1.4 (along with my 7D, 24-105 and some other equipment). I hardly used the 35 after receiving my 24-70 2.8 II. I still use my 50 1.4, as I prefer that focal length on a FF camera. The 50 is also useful with my EOS-M.

 

[curtisnull]

I'm just realizing after reading this post that I haven't used my 24/1.4 or my 50/1.4 since I got the 24-70/2.8L IS II about 3 months ago. Maybe they will be coming up for sale sometime soon.

 

[Nishi Drew]

What I have come to see is that prime users are envious towards the 24-70 users with all their versatility and weight saving. While I see zoom users that envy the prime users for the better image, and of course bokehliciousness of 1.4 and faster. Some girl that spent all she got on a 5D2 and the 24-70L II later wanted to get primes instead LOL, wish I could afford that lens though...

 

[sandymandy]

No sense in getting primes if u dont want to use it wide open. Image quality (sharpness) is not a big difference anymore nowadays between zooms and primes.

 

[mackguyver]

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'd like to thank the OP for this one - you and the people who replied made me realize how little I use my primes. I've decided to sell my 35 f/1.4, 50 f/1.2, 135 f/2, and 400 f/5.6 to fund a 300mm f/2.8. I would love the 200-400, but the price is insane, I have both mkIII teleconverters, and don't shoot in Africa or the desert...

I'm holding onto my 24 f/1.4 - it's my 'desert island' lens - my FAVORITE focal length, and my walkaround lens of lenses. The 24-70 II may kill it someday, too...but it hasn't yet...

I'm also keeping my 85 f/1.2. After buying it earlier this year, I realize that they hype around this lens is way understated. It's insanely good and killed the 50 f/1.2 off for me.

Just my personal two cents, many people prefer the 35 to the 24, 50 to the 85, etc., etc.

 

[mrsfotografie]

How about this analogy:

Lenses really are only 'tools', and despite the usefulness of an adjustable spanner, there's no arguing with the superiority of a good set of (ring) spanners in fixed sizes. Interestingly, a good ring spanner is also kinder to the subject (nut) and yields less distortion of the corners

Now if I look at my toolbox, that I built up over the years, I don't own a full set of spanners in all sizes, just only the sizes that I use most often. In other cases the adjustable will do

Yes I just sold my 24-70 MkI. And I will get myself a 35mm f/1.4 instead to complement my 14, 20 and 50 mm primes. Oh, and my adjustable spanner is there too if I need it - the 24-105 f/4 L 8)

More interestingly, the money I got from selling my 24-70 found its wat to a set of winter tires for my car, also a dedicated tool as I prefer having a summer and winter set vs one set of 4-seasons.

So, for best results always remember to use the right tool for the job at hand ;D

 

[sdsr]

What I have come to see is that prime users are envious towards the 24-70 users with all their versatility and weight saving. While I see zoom users that envy the prime users for the better image, and of course bokehliciousness of 1.4 and faster. Some girl that spent all she got on a 5D2 and the 24-70L II later wanted to get primes instead LOL, wish I could afford that lens though...

I think I'm with that girl. I'm probably weird, but I don't find 24-70 zooms very appealing. They're nowhere near versatile enough in focal length for me (for versatility my 24-105 is more useful), and within their rather narrow range zooming with your feet makes as much sense. I would rather cover that range via a couple of light primes - a 28 IS or a 35 1.4 plus a 50 1.4, say - and save the zooms for lengths where foot-zooming isn't a good substitute: ultrawide and long. So I would likely be asking the question in reverse....

 

[Viggo]

What I have come to see is that prime users are envious towards the 24-70 users with all their versatility and weight saving. While I see zoom users that envy the prime users for the better image, and of course bokehliciousness of 1.4 and faster. Some girl that spent all she got on a 5D2 and the 24-70L II later wanted to get primes instead LOL, wish I could afford that lens though...

I think I'm with that girl. I'm probably weird, but I don't find 24-70 zooms very appealing. They're nowhere near versatile enough in focal length for me (for versatility my 24-105 is more useful), and within their rather narrow range zooming with your feet makes as much sense. I would rather cover that range via a couple of light primes - a 28 IS or a 35 1.4 plus a 50 1.4, say - and save the zooms for lengths where foot-zooming isn't a good substitute: ultrawide and long. So I would likely be asking the question in reverse....

Still, it's hard to change the perspective between 24 and 70 with your feet. I don't use the 2470 to get closer, I use it to set my perspective and then footzoom to the crop I want. Plus the AF of the 2470 kills every prime under 200mm.

 

[mackguyver]

Still, it's hard to change the perspective between 24 and 70 with your feet. I don't use the 2470 to get closer, I use it to set my perspective and then footzoom to the crop I want. Plus the AF of the 2470 kills every prime under 200mm.

Exactly! Using a zoom to get closer is why zooms are lousy for beginners but great for experienced shooters who have learned how to use lens perspective.

 

[Chosenbydestiny]

What I have come to see is that prime users are envious towards the 24-70 users with all their versatility and weight saving. While I see zoom users that envy the prime users for the better image, and of course bokehliciousness of 1.4 and faster. Some girl that spent all she got on a 5D2 and the 24-70L II later wanted to get primes instead LOL, wish I could afford that lens though...

I think I'm with that girl. I'm probably weird, but I don't find 24-70 zooms very appealing. They're nowhere near versatile enough in focal length for me (for versatility my 24-105 is more useful), and within their rather narrow range zooming with your feet makes as much sense. I would rather cover that range via a couple of light primes - a 28 IS or a 35 1.4 plus a 50 1.4, say - and save the zooms for lengths where foot-zooming isn't a good substitute: ultrawide and long. So I would likely be asking the question in reverse....

Still, it's hard to change the perspective between 24 and 70 with your feet. I don't use the 2470 to get closer, I use it to set my perspective and then footzoom to the crop I want. Plus the AF of the 2470 kills every prime under 200mm.

+1 as much as I love primes, you're right about perspective. That's why I use one body with 24-70 and another body with a 135mm L prime. Sometimes I need to go wide and get some drama into the shot, zoom in and step forward for some normal shots. Can't switch fast enough during a performance to get the shots you need. Having a prime on a second body is nice for when you know it can do things a zoom cannot for creative DOF, higher shutter speed, and low light.

 

[mrsfotografie]

+1 on perspective, and +1 on the 24-70 not being versatile enough. For bright days I'll take the 24-105, for low light I'll stick with primes

 

[sdsr]

I think I'm with that girl. I'm probably weird, but I don't find 24-70 zooms very appealing. They're nowhere near versatile enough in focal length for me (for versatility my 24-105 is more useful), and within their rather narrow range zooming with your feet makes as much sense. I would rather cover that range via a couple of light primes - a 28 IS or a 35 1.4 plus a 50 1.4, say - and save the zooms for lengths where foot-zooming isn't a good substitute: ultrawide and long. So I would likely be asking the question in reverse....

Still, it's hard to change the perspective between 24 and 70 with your feet. I don't use the 2470 to get closer, I use it to set my perspective and then footzoom to the crop I want. Plus the AF of the 2470 kills every prime under 200mm.

No, you can't change perspective by foot-zooming; that's why I suggested a couple of primes within that range, not one, and zooms for wider (which will go at least up to 24mm) and longer (which will usually start at 70mm). But the suggestion was for someone who shares my preferences: I was offering a, um, perspective, not a general recommendation (for all I know, no-one shares that particular preference of mine). I simply don't find the 24-70 range very useful most of the time.

I have no doubt the 24-70 is as good as everyone says, but does its AF really "kill" the AF on the new IS primes? The AF on the 28mm IS I own and the 35mm IS I rented is/was impeccable and very fast, while my second copy of the old 50mm 1.4 (unlike the first one I bought) has been fast and accurate too along with having the obvious advantages of being a faster lens.

 

[Viggo]

I think I'm with that girl. I'm probably weird, but I don't find 24-70 zooms very appealing. They're nowhere near versatile enough in focal length for me (for versatility my 24-105 is more useful), and within their rather narrow range zooming with your feet makes as much sense. I would rather cover that range via a couple of light primes - a 28 IS or a 35 1.4 plus a 50 1.4, say - and save the zooms for lengths where foot-zooming isn't a good substitute: ultrawide and long. So I would likely be asking the question in reverse....

Still, it's hard to change the perspective between 24 and 70 with your feet. I don't use the 2470 to get closer, I use it to set my perspective and then footzoom to the crop I want. Plus the AF of the 2470 kills every prime under 200mm.

No, you can't change perspective by foot-zooming; that's why I suggested a couple of primes within that range, not one, and zooms for wider (which will go at least up to 24mm) and longer (which will usually start at 70mm). But the suggestion was for someone who shares my preferences: I was offering a, um, perspective, not a general recommendation (for all I know, no-one shares that particular preference of mine). I simply don't find the 24-70 range very useful most of the time.

I have no doubt the 24-70 is as good as everyone says, but does its AF really "kill" the AF on the new IS primes? The AF on the 28mm IS I own and the 35mm IS I rented is/was impeccable and very fast, while my second copy of the old 50mm 1.4 (unlike the first one I bought) has been fast and accurate too along with having the obvious advantages of being a faster lens.

I have barley tried the 28 IS, but I have had every L prime from 14 to 300 and still consider the 2470
Mk2 to be absolutely spot on in a series of 12 fps with seriously difficult erratic behavior in a way non of those primes could keep up with at all, only matched by the 70200 mk2.

 

[tron]

It's like comparing apples to oranges. Granted for 95% or even 99% the 24-70 2.8 II does the job but for the rest very few cases f/1.4 is absolutely necessary.

 

[TM]

Interesting reading everyone's perspective. I initially owned the 24-70 f2.8 II, then decided I also wanted the 35mm/1.4 and the 24mm tilt-shift to achieve more unique looks. If I don't need the convenience of the zoom, I'm reaching for the primes. Love having options!

 

[MLfan3]

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.

it really depends on how fast you want it to be , if you need f1.4 or even f1.8, then the zoom does not work for you.
I have the 24-70Lii and Zeiss 35mm f1.4 and I need both.
but for pure resolution , I don't think the prime is any better , maybe the new 24-70f2.8 markii beats it.
the new 24-70mm f2.8 is an amazing lens, and imho, it is one of the best zooms ever made , I rate it better than my 70-200f2.8Lii or Nikon AFS70-200f2.8VR2.