Canon 24-70 2.8 ii or 35mm 1.4 ii

[AlanF]

i own the 35L II it is amazing - but so is the 24-70 F2.8 II - i would never sell one to buy the other

there a few big differences between the 35L ii and the 35F2
- weight is a huge difference
- weather sealing
- 35L II is tack sharp almost across the entire frame at F1.4 (it is stunning)
- the 35F2 is not tack sharp at F2 but is at F2.2 - but it is acceptably sharp at F2
- the 35F2 is not sharp across the frame at F2 like the 35L II is at 1.4 so you get the traditional center sharp rendering effect
- the IS on the 35F2 is excellent

If you use the 24-70 F2.8 II don't sell it - you will regret it.

The Sigma 1.4, the Tamron 1.8 or the Canon F2 are all good cheaper alternatives.

Bought a 35f/2 IS for my current trip. Tested it on a group photo. Faces in centre tack sharp, on the right edge soft, and on the left appalling. Tested against charts showed bad decentering. Sent back and travelling with M and 22mm f/2.

 

[Larsskv]

I've never understood this particular argument. If you need or want both then you need to save and buy both. But they are completely different lenses and have very little over lap in abilities. If you go down the fast prime route...then you will need a 24IIL, a 35IIL and a 85IIL to cover a similar focal range to the 24-70 II L. You will gain several stops and it's way easier to melt a background or isolate a subject when working with such slim DOF...which is really tricky too. BUT juggling three primes is a) heavy b) expensive C) inconvenient. The zoom (if you can make it work for you) is a lot lighter, cheaper and far more versatile. I have both and there's a need for both.

Exactly !!! One does not replace the other. Never understood this line of thinking unless cost is a huge problem and if that's the case maybe you shouldn't be buying these types of lenses when other perfectly fine options are available...

I think I explained my decision perfectly. I have the 24-70 f/4 L IS which is 97 percent as good as the f/2.8, when stopped down. I often prefer the f4 for it smaller size and weight.

I found myself not shooting the 24-70 f/2.8 at f2.8 very much. I mainly used smaller apertures, and prefer a prime for low light or shallow DOF, and therefore MY need for it wasn't big enough.

I believe that if I were a professional, and especially if I shot weddings, I would see the 24-70 f2.8 as a must have lens.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

i own the 35L II it is amazing - but so is the 24-70 F2.8 II - i would never sell one to buy the other

there a few big differences between the 35L ii and the 35F2
- weight is a huge difference
- weather sealing
- 35L II is tack sharp almost across the entire frame at F1.4 (it is stunning)
- the 35F2 is not tack sharp at F2 but is at F2.2 - but it is acceptably sharp at F2
- the 35F2 is not sharp across the frame at F2 like the 35L II is at 1.4 so you get the traditional center sharp rendering effect
- the IS on the 35F2 is excellent

If you use the 24-70 F2.8 II don't sell it - you will regret it.

The Sigma 1.4, the Tamron 1.8 or the Canon F2 are all good cheaper alternatives.

For some, insane sharpness isn't the be all and end all of a useful lens. I have a sterling copies of the 24-70L and 35L. I've never found them lacking sharpness and I've been using both for well over 9 years in a professional capacity.

 

[bholliman]

i own the 35L II it is amazing - but so is the 24-70 F2.8 II - i would never sell one to buy the other

there a few big differences between the 35L ii and the 35F2
- weight is a huge difference
- weather sealing
- 35L II is tack sharp almost across the entire frame at F1.4 (it is stunning)
- the 35F2 is not tack sharp at F2 but is at F2.2 - but it is acceptably sharp at F2
- the 35F2 is not sharp across the frame at F2 like the 35L II is at 1.4 so you get the traditional center sharp rendering effect
- the IS on the 35F2 is excellent

If you use the 24-70 F2.8 II don't sell it - you will regret it.

The Sigma 1.4, the Tamron 1.8 or the Canon F2 are all good cheaper alternatives.

Bought a 35f/2 IS for my current trip. Tested it on a group photo. Faces in centre tack sharp, on the right edge soft, and on the left appalling. Tested against charts showed bad decentering. Sent back and travelling with M and 22mm f/2.

Sorry for your bad experience with a bad copy. I'm sure this put a damper on your trip.

I really love my 35 f/2 IS and am very happy with the results. The center is very sharp wide open and the corners by f/2.2 are really good. I know there are better 35's optically, but the small size, excellent IS and very good IQ at a reasonable price make the 35 f2 IS one of Canon's best lenses for the money IMHO.

 

[j-nord]

I've never understood this particular argument. If you need or want both then you need to save and buy both. But they are completely different lenses and have very little over lap in abilities. If you go down the fast prime route...then you will need a 24IIL, a 35IIL and a 85IIL to cover a similar focal range to the 24-70 II L. You will gain several stops and it's way easier to melt a background or isolate a subject when working with such slim DOF...which is really tricky too. BUT juggling three primes is a) heavy b) expensive C) inconvenient. The zoom (if you can make it work for you) is a lot lighter, cheaper and far more versatile. I have both and there's a need for both.

Exactly !!! One does not replace the other. Never understood this line of thinking unless cost is a huge problem and if that's the case maybe you shouldn't be buying these types of lenses when other perfectly fine options are available...

I think I explained my decision perfectly. I have the 24-70 f/4 L IS which is 97 percent as good as the f/2.8, when stopped down. I often prefer the f4 for it smaller size and weight.

I found myself not shooting the 24-70 f/2.8 at f2.8 very much. I mainly used smaller apertures, and prefer a prime for low light or shallow DOF, and therefore MY need for it wasn't big enough.

I believe that if I were a professional, and especially if I shot weddings, I would see the 24-70 f2.8 as a must have lens.

I agree the 24-70 f4 is "good enough" in a lot of scenarios. However, I picked up the f4 over the f2.8 for just about every reason other than IQ (IS, 0.70x macro, price, 77mm filter, size, weight, etc). I think the 2.8 is still noticeably sharper even at f8 or f11. I'll definitely part with the f4 for a 24-70 2.8 IS or a 24-105ii. For me, for this type of lens, IS is #1 priority and sharpness is #2. I may even consider the 24 IS + another prime but there is no 50-85 IS yet.

 

[Viggo]

Here's an example of why I sold the 24-70 and have the 35. These kind of shots is a snapshot at 2.8 or smaller, and with the great pop and 3D feel at 1.4. Shot with the Profoto B1 camera left and sun high right.

 

[Ozarker]

Well, I intentionally chose the zoom route for my lenses... because of total cost. I can say I am not disappointed at all. Canon's EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II is just so sharp. If I ever get the money, then I might add the primes. I now own only one prime... Canon's EF 135mm F/2L and it is wonderful, but too long for confined areas where I wouldn't use it anyway.

I do understand wanting short primes in restricted environments, but I cannot find any reason to choose such a short prime for outdoors during the day at that wide aperture. I know nobody is shooting at F/1.4 in the midday sun (Or, I wouldn't think so.) so I don't see the point as far as shooting outdoors. The again, I still have much to learn.

One would probably have to stop down, distance to background is probably huge... I just cannot see the advantage of the 35 over the 24-70 outdoors during the day. I may be wrong, but I don't see it. I would happily accept suggestions as to why the 35 would be an advantage outdoors during the day. If somebody could tell me the advantage I would be happy to learn. There are many pros here, so I'm willing to listen to any instruction at all.

I would think the 35mm is more an indoor lens when used at wide apertures below f/2.8. If outdoors at night... maybe I can see the advantage, but if flash is used at all I cannot.

I'm just a dumb rookie though.

Please, nobody take this as a hit on your own opinions. This is just what I have determined for myself. I do not do a lot of indoor photography at all. If I did, I would use flash. I have a lot of flash.

Canon EF 24-70mm II below. I'm just a hobbyist so don't be too harsh. I will never sell the 24-70. It is a fantastic lens. The photo may look a little "cooked" because of my post work, but I am extremely happy with the sharpness. I can't imagine it being sharper. I couldn't be happier and the depth of field is fine with me. This was at f/7.1 @ 1/200th sec so I could have really opened up the aperture and run HSS. The background is far enough away that there is plenty of separation so no need to open so wide.

This is focusing in near darkness (The subject is silhouetted by the impending sunrise) with no focus assist, but with AF, not manual focus. Flashpoint Streaklight 360ws with Cells II trigger, so HSS was possible.(Shoulda got three of these instead of so many 600EXs).

It doesn't show well unless you click on it. Not on my end anyway.

 

[Viggo]

CanonFanBoy: I just in the post before yours demonstrated a wide open shot in midday sun, which I do A LOT, almost always with flash.

My son and I went to the zoo day, same story there I isolate him in the surroundings with the fast apertures while keeping a lot of the surroundings with the wide angle.

I don't use 1.4 for low light, I use it for shallow dof.

 

[Ozarker]

CanonFanBoy: I just in the post before yours demonstrated a wide open shot in midday sun, which I do A LOT, almost always with flash.

My son and I went to the zoo day, same story there I isolate him in the surroundings with the fast apertures while keeping a lot of the surroundings with the wide angle.

I don't use 1.4 for low light, I use it for shallow dof.

Nice shot, and I understand.

 

[d]

Both nice shots, Viggo and CFB!

Viggo...you took a B1 to the Zoo?! Is it on a stand or do you hand-hold?

d.

 

[Viggo]

Both nice shots, Viggo and CFB!

Viggo...you took a B1 to the Zoo?! Is it on a stand or do you hand-hold?

d.

No B1 to the zoo, but o thought long and hard about it. Have thought about buying the standard reflector and bring it even more with without a stand, since the Magnum is a bit large.

 

[Pookie]

I do understand wanting short primes in restricted environments, but I cannot find any reason to choose such a short prime for outdoors during the day at that wide aperture. I know nobody is shooting at F/1.4 in the midday sun (Or, I wouldn't think so.) so I don't see the point as far as shooting outdoors. The again, I still have much to learn.

Come on CFB... you know nobody shooting wide open ( or near) primes in mid-day sun

This is how I make money everyday... using both B1's and Eli's. I don't have the new 35 but use the old one quite often. I now stick to the 50 as my shortest FL for portraiture because I love the look of the 50 better than the 35 FL. For enviro portraiture the 35 is a good choice if you have interesting bg but want to isolate your subject. If you don't have enough stuff to fill the foreground/bg it looks a little too empty for my tastes.

On a side note... the old 35 was considered one of the sharpest prime out and is still no slouch. Love it when people go all doe-eyed for the latest and greatest. I bought a near new 35L for under 500 a few months ago because someone absolutely had to have the new version.

 

[privatebydesign]

On a side note... the old 35 was considered one of the sharpest prime out and is still no slouch. Love it when people go all doe-eyed for the latest and greatest. I bought a near new 35L for under 500 a few months ago because someone absolutely had to have the new version.

Don't think anybody in their right mind ever considered the 35L MkI to be "one of the sharpest prime out" http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=121&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=994&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0 and the CA from it was very noticeable too.

The MkII lens is a quantum jump in image quality over the MkI, not saying a good image can't be shot with the MkI, but from a technical point of view the MkII is considerably 'better' and vastly more capable of delivering much higher image quality.

 

[Pookie]

Both nice shots, Viggo and CFB!

Viggo...you took a B1 to the Zoo?! Is it on a stand or do you hand-hold?

d.

No B1 to the zoo, but o thought long and hard about it. Have thought about buying the standard reflector and bring it even more with without a stand, since the Magnum is a bit large.

That would be interesting... in SF you'd get the boot quickly for flash photography of that type at the zoo. Speedlites maybe but a B1 or Eli would get you into real trouble. I've done event work at the zoo a few times (both after and during business hours) in SF and Oakland... it was expressly forbidden to protect the animals. Also most places like that have a rules specifically for "professional gear" and you'd need a release to even get through the doors. At least in California, not sure where you live. It has become especially prevalent in the last few years in many places where it used to be "ok". The biggest one I can think of is Filoli Estates here in NorCal. Great site where you used to be able to take your family or clients for photos with all kinds of gear... not anymore, you get pounced on immediately as you get out of your car in the parking lot. A real shame but also understandable as many times you had to swim through photogs just to see the gardens.

Can't do this anymore... 2012 it was cool, 2013 negative

 

[Pookie]

On a side note... the old 35 was considered one of the sharpest prime out and is still no slouch. Love it when people go all doe-eyed for the latest and greatest. I bought a near new 35L for under 500 a few months ago because someone absolutely had to have the new version.

Don't think anybody in their right mind ever considered the 35L MkI to be "one of the sharpest prime out" http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=121&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=994&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0 and the CA from it was very noticeable too.

The MkII lens is a quantum jump in image quality over the MkI, not saying a good image can't be shot with the MkI, but from a technical point of view the MkII is considerably 'better' and vastly more capable of delivering much higher image quality.

I'm sure it is but the original is quite good. In 2005 when I bought my first one it was considered one of the sharpest primes out and a staple of every wedding photographers kit.

 

[privatebydesign]

I used a few MkI's and was never impressed, ended up with the 35 f2 IS which has considerably higher IQ than the MkI 35L and is cheaper, lighter and has IS, but it is that one stop slower. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=121&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=824&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

 

[Pookie]

I used a few MkI's and was never impressed, ended up with the 35 f2 IS which has considerably higher IQ than the MkI 35L and is cheaper, lighter and has IS, but it is that one stop slower. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=121&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=824&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

I've had 3 over the years and was never let down by it. Had a second shooter destroy one, sold the older ones but this last one is practically new. Too good a deal to pass up.

 

[Viggo]

I used a few MkI's and was never impressed, ended up with the 35 f2 IS which has considerably higher IQ than the MkI 35L and is cheaper, lighter and has IS, but it is that one stop slower. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=121&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=824&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

I've had 3 over the years and was never let down by it. Had a second shooter destroy one, sold the older ones but this last one is practically new. Too good a deal to pass up.

I have had 8-10 35 L's for a shorter or longer periods, and my take on it is that you're both right, even with MF and live view and careful calibration some 35 L's are VERY soft, like the 50 f1.4 or worse, and others are very sharp wide open. The copy variations are strong with that one 8)

 

[Viggo]

Just a sidenote: I never planned or never have shot the animals with flash, it was meant for my son on some of the other activities or just with the surroundings. We live 7 minutes from the most popular zoo in Norway.

No limit to gear I can bring either. Both my 300 f2.8 IS and 200 f2 have been with me and the only reaction I get from staff or other visitors are comments are on the funa and friendly side.

 

[d]

Just a sidenote: I never planned or never have shot the animals with flash, it was meant for my son on some of the other activities or just with the surroundings. We live 7 minutes from the most popular zoo in Norway.

No limit to gear I can bring either. Both my 300 f2.8 IS and 200 f2 have been with me and the only reaction I get from staff or other visitors are comments are on the funa and friendly side.

Last time I took a 300mm 2.8 to the zoo I was tracking zebras and tripped over a bench seat I hadn't noticed. Lens took a hit to the MF ring, knocking it out of round and making MF difficult. I was heartbroken.