Canon 24-70 2.8 ii or 35mm 1.4 ii

[Maiaibing]

The zoom (if you can make it work for you) is a lot lighter, cheaper and far more versatile.

Zooms are not more versatile. You gain flexible framing - but you loose out out two key dimensions:

1) as you note your self - with a fast prime you can create a wider range of photographic visual impressions than with the zoom. And visual impact is certainly what most photography is about.

2) you gain more time - each and every single day - to shoot when you use a fast prime. Where I live around 11/2 to 2 1/2 hours per day (depending on the season) between a f/2.8 and f/1.4 lens. In addition there are all the times you cannot substitute for lack of light with a flash such as in a museum. I do not know about others, but for me lack of time is the most limiting factor for my photography.

So primes and zooms are versatile in different ways.

Most people will thus gain much more photographic options and impact by adding a fast cheap prime to their kit such as the 50mm f/1.8 (if not already there) than by spending $$$ upgrading to the next camera body generation.

 

[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.

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.

Ouch! That sucks! At least you didn't knock your teeth out...

 

[Ozarker]

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.

I didn't realize that Pookie. I'm usually hunting for shade at midday and using the flash in the shade. I don't have those powerful strobes either.

So, I guess you are the guy I know. I may have to rethink my thinking. I have the 135 f/2L, but I have not used it in the bright sun at f/2. ND filter and lots of flash might be what I'll have to try. Looking at the Flashpoint 600ws flash. Never should have bought so many 600 EX-RT. Just too cumbersome to gang together and still not much power against the sun. I thought I was buying the right stuff at the time.

I had forgotten you use the 85mm, and was not aware of your 35mm. Good to know.

See! I told y'all I needed instruction! Always willing to listen.

I just don't get out much. I've not used my 6 stop ND at all yet. Keep forgetting. That and I live in a tiny town with scant few volunteers.

Some photos I have seen shot that way have very harsh shadows. (Not yours Pookie. You know I admire your work.) I don't like harsh shadows. I'll just have to keep experimenting

I don't know. To me, I would have thought a 35mm too short for portraits. At least a 50? Again, I have much to learn.

Viggo, I know you use the lens wide open because you showed it in your post and the exif says you are at f/1.4 and 1/8000th of a second. The shadow just looks harsh to me. I am not knocking the photo at all. I just like a softer look at the dividing line between the light and the shadow. Is the B1 to your son's left or right? I'm just trying to get an idea of the setup, whether an ND filter was used, where the sun was, etc. I assume the sun was overhead and the B1 to his left?

Pookie is a real pro and I am just a hobbyist who has a very hard time finding subjects. I guess I could practice on statues around town, but they will want me to buy permits for that and won't give me a proper idea of how things look on a real person. If I still had a child at home things would be easier.

By the way, good looking son!

 

[Viggo]

Don't be afraid of harsh shadows, only shadows create shape, not light. And the whole trick is to control the shadows.

 

[Ozarker]

Don't be afraid of harsh shadows, only shadows create shape, not light. And the whole trick is to control the shadows.

Very true.

 

[Jerryrigged]

I sold the 24-70 II to get the 35 L II. I combined it with the 85 L II instead since I don't need the zoom to not miss a shot for a client. Haven't regretted it for 0.5 seconds.

I own both. 24-70 doesn't really get used much. The 35mm f/1.4L II is an amazing lens! Easiest lens I've ever shot with... very fast focus, sharpness perfect across the frame at f/1.4, beautiful bokeh, ability to shoot in almost compete darkness. I'm keeping the 24-70 for now - the focal range is really nice... but as a practical matter, I rarely use it!

 

[Jerryrigged]

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.

Prime example: 50mm f/1.2L. This is certainly not the sharpest lens. It has adequate sharpness in the center wide open, but has beautiful bokeh and creates very beautiful images. It is, however, something of a specialty lens in that regard. If I am shooting group shots or something less arty, I'd use my 35mm f/1.4L II or 70-200 f/2.8L IS II for excellent sharpness across the frame - whether wide open or stopped down.

 

[Ozarker]

Don't understand why anyone would sell an EF 24-70 f/2.8L II to get a 35 f/1.4L II. Save $$$ and have both. They are different enough. I really wish I could have both.

Don't understand that a zoom makes one lazy and inhibits shot planning or forces one to do anything. Crop sensor cameras don't make us lazy do they?

If one must be forced by a lens to do something then one is already lazy. Just set the 24-70 @ 35mm, slap on a piece of gaffers tape, and force oneself to pretend there is a prime 35mm attached. You are a photographer. If one feels forced into having to do something just because one has a zoom or prime attached, one has a personal problem, not a lens problem.

I really don't understand the lazy part (I read that statement a lot in zoom vs prime discussions.). Every shot should be planned. I have no idea how a zoom takes any of that away. No idea at all. We don't plan where to stand or which focal length to use? Please. When one chooses to shoot at 35mm he has chosen a focal length to shoot at. Same with a zoom. Depth of field is affected by focal length, aperture, and distance to the subject. It seems a zoom has a distinct advantage here with its much better variability.

Pro for zoom?
1. Far more versatility.
2. Fewer lens changes.
3. Cost: $1,799 (B&H) (Same price as the single prime.)


Con for zoom?
1. Weight? (24-70 II = 28.4 oz.) (1.68 oz heavier. Non-issue)
2. Smaller aperture: f/2.8
3. No IS.
4. Makes one lazy (Personal problem, not a lens problem.)

Pro for Prime (35mm f/1.4L II)
1. Weight 26.72 oz (1.68 oz lighter. Non-issue)
2. Larger Aperture: f/1.4 Possible benefit for portraits, but not if one is stopping down to f/2.8 anyway. For low light? I don't know. Very thin depth of field may outweigh wide aperture difference. I might have to rent one since I've never used it.
3. Keeps one from being lazy (No it doesn't.)
4. Forces one to plan shots more better (No it doesn't.).
5. I can zoom with my feet. (Not always, you can't.).

Con for Prime
1. Cost: $1,799 (B&H) (Same price as the zoom.) Cost for two primes? About double... close to $3,600.
2. Far less versatile. One will be forced to buy more primes. The weight advantage (1.68 oz), in the long run, is a complete myth. One will have to carry another lens at least sometimes.
3. No IS.
4. "I can zoom with my feet." Not always you can't.
5. More lens changes.

So really the choice is aperture (Valid consideration), and your financial tolerance for buying more primes to fill in the gaps (Another valid consideration). Laziness, weight, and one to one costs are non-issues. Weight becomes a very real issue if you are having to carry more primes. 35mm alone doesn't always cut it.

Cost advantage goes to the zoom for sure.

Laziness? Not being careful planning a shot or the proper focal length for the shot? A lens can't fix that.

Sharpness? It is very hard to beat the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II in the sharpness dept. I'd like to see a real world comparison between the two.

I think that if you want the 35 f/1.4 II you should get it, but don't look at it as a replacement for the 24-70 f/2.8L II. It isn't.

The 35mm isn't going to make you a better photographer, help you lose weight, make you less lazy, or turn your feet into a zoom lens motor. It is a great lens, but your costs for the shorter end of things will at least double and possibly triple.

It is all personal choice. Good luck to you!

 

[Ozarker]

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.

Prime example: 50mm f/1.2L. This is certainly not the sharpest lens. It has adequate sharpness in the center wide open, but has beautiful bokeh and creates very beautiful images. It is, however, something of a specialty lens in that regard. If I am shooting group shots or something less arty, I'd use my 35mm f/1.4L II or 70-200 f/2.8L IS II for excellent sharpness across the frame - whether wide open or stopped down.

My EF 24-70 f/2.8L II is so sharp that when the angle of the sun is just right I have to be very careful pulling it out from the bag. One day its shadow nearly sliced the subject's foot clean off. Blood was everywhere. Surgeons had to be called in. What a mess. Liability insurance is a must.

Only pull some lenses out in the shade. Just sayin'.

 

[StudentOfLight]

If you love shooting at the wider end of the 24-70 range then there is more trouble in trying to replace it with the 35mm prime. The only way I can think of to get wider would be stitching. If you use the wider-end for more static subjects (maybe some sorts of landscape photography) then stitching could be a viable option but if you use the wide-end for more action-oriented shooting then the wider angle of the zoom could be more critical.

If you are comfortable with cropping into images in post-, then you can simulate 35-70mm range of the zoom, assuming you don't need maximum resolution.

For example lets say you are shooting with the 5Ds R... so the 35mm f/1.4 image with 1.4x crop will give you effectively a 50mm f/2 image of roughly 25MP, while 2x crop will effectively result in a 70mm f/2.8 image of roughly 12MP. Conversely, if you are shooting with the more modest 6D resolution, then 1.4x crop gives 10MP and 2x crop gives 5MP. Do those resolutions satisfy your output requirements?

Whether cropping and stitching will work for you is really a personal decision, but ideally you want to be using the 35mm as a 35mm, and only cropping if you really cannot avoid it.

Having shot some events in very low light, I find f/1.4 incredibly valuable especially with a slightly wider angle of view. I personally find that 24mm tends to be too wide for people shots, but 35 seems like a sweet spot. I usually ended up shooting more loosely and cropping my 24mm shots into 35mm in post- (see attached). So for my personal full frame shooting preferences, I can get by without 24-28mm on full frame. Whether you can live without 24-28mm is a question only you can answer.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

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.

Firstly, I have to indicate that I am a hobbyst and I don't get money from photography. I elected to have the best of both and portability (travelling light) was my priority w/o sacrifying much IQ. Hence, I sold my 24-70mm f2.8L II and got the 24-70mm f/4L IS, yes, it isn't that fast in low light or great bokeh but, it has IS that helps with static subjects and bokeh isn't bad either.
I am also a happy owner of the 35mm f/2 IS, which is a terrific lens. My copy is very sharp and IS works also wonders. I was also considering the Sigma 35A and the 35L but these are heavier and the IQ isn't galaxies apart.

 

[SteveM]

Depends what you are using it for. I use the 24-70 Mk ll for weddings, for its versatility - I often couldn't change location fast enough or am not allowed to as in the ceremony, so the 24-70 range is paramount. When you take a lot of photographs cropping in camera as opposed to post is very time saving also. I carry a 35mm f1.4 principally for low light where I can't bounce flash - it doesn't get used much.
This is just my m.o. Others may well work differently. The lens is a tool, it really does boil down to how you propose to use it the most.
Hope this helps.