Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 30 May 2012 (Wednesday) 18:34
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Canon 24-70 f2.8 vs Canon 35mm 1.4

 
JoshuaRoss
Member
107 posts
Joined Mar 2012
     
May 30, 2012 18:34 |  #1

I finally wrapped my mind around spending a thousand plus dollars on a single lens and now I'm trying to figure out my options. I have a Canon 5D Mark 1 and currently use and 85mm 1.8. I want something wider because I like to do landscapes and street photography.

My budget is a little over a 1,000 and I will probably buy used. I need an every day lens and I narrowed it down to these too. I have never used them before so your exeriences with both of them could be something you could comment. In terms of sharpness and usuability, which will fit me best? And where would be a good place to buy used? Thanks!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
elader
Goldmember
Avatar
2,374 posts
Joined Nov 2005
Location: Maryland
     
May 30, 2012 18:45 |  #2

cant imagine living life with only the 35 and 85 - I mean they are beautiful lenses, but sometimes you just want a walk about.

I'd buy a minty 24-105 used from someone ditching it from a 5DmkIII kit and a 50mm f/1,4 -should cost you about as the 24-70 used. The 24-70 is pretty heavy for a walk around lens.


Eric
FJR1300 rider
5D mkIII and 1D MkIII

16-35L | 24-105L | 70-200L f/2.8IS | 85 f/1.8 / 50 f.1,4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cfvisuals
Senior Member
866 posts
Joined Mar 2011
Location: San Diego
     
May 30, 2012 18:54 |  #3

can't imagine living with a mediocre zoom (24-70mm) which is "standard good" at doing everything but excels at nothing.
That's just my 2 cents. If I were to have only one lens, I would rather want something that would surprise me in performance.

I am quite sure 24-70L is very useful for event photographers who make a living out of it. It covers a wide range, it's reliable and durable. It's handy but heavy.
For me, photography isn't what keeps me alive, i can afford to have no zooms. I rather have a complete set of good primes before I spend money on buying a zoom for convenience.

It's always a trade-off, it's either convenience/versatilit​y or image quality. 35L offers better image quality but the trade off is its versatility.

I've been living with 2 primes, Zeiss 35mm and 85mm 1.4. 35mm is just good enough for everyday walk around, it's wide enough for landscape and not too wide for distortion. I get to capture more of a happening with a wide angle than a long focal length. I use 85mm for portrait mainly because 35mm doesn't produce enough bokeh. Each of these focal lengths excels at their purpose.


flickr (external link)
5∞ portfolio (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ClassicJ
Member
155 posts
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
May 30, 2012 19:01 |  #4

I had both and ended up parting with 24-70L. The 24-70 is versatile but nothing that a few steps forward or backward with a 35L cant fix. 35L on my 5diii is very sharp.


Canon 5D MarkIII | 135L | 70-200L IS II
Canon G16

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ENto. ­ Abyss
Member
96 posts
Joined Sep 2011
Location: socali
     
May 30, 2012 19:30 |  #5

I have both these lenses.. It serve me very well.. Still digging my 35l prime...I was planning to add my next lens which would be the 135L or the 200mm 2.8 L.. Hehe and my recent bad boy would be the great white whale.. Thanks to my girlfriend who surprise me with this gift.. But once again I still have my 35mm L on most of the time... Just something about the prime you. Ant resist ..
But as of my 24-70mm I hardly being used by it does cover my walk around.. Little from wide to zoom...


Not to mention the great white whale is a lot more heavier then the brick *sigh.. Just a heavy weight champion..


Canon 5D Mark II & Canon 5d Mark III
[COLOR="Black"]Lens : EF 35mm f/1.4L USM - EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM - EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II
FD 50mm f/1.4 S.S.C

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JoshuaRoss
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
107 posts
Joined Mar 2012
     
May 30, 2012 23:41 as a reply to  @ ENto. Abyss's post |  #6

Thanks for the advice guys. I agree, zooms are really for convenience, but taking the extra time to frame your shot with primes makes a huge difference. Them again I don't think it would be a bad idea to have both lenses.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
URLphotographer
Member
143 posts
Joined Apr 2012
     
May 30, 2012 23:48 as a reply to  @ JoshuaRoss's post |  #7

The short end of the 24-70 will be beneficial, but it is heavy. The 70mm end is a bit short for me. Never had the 35 L. I agree with previous post about 24-105 plus another prime.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cfvisuals
Senior Member
866 posts
Joined Mar 2011
Location: San Diego
     
May 31, 2012 00:26 |  #8

JoshuaRoss wrote in post #14509569 (external link)
Then again I don't think it would be a bad idea to have both lenses.

It's the best idea to have all the lenses in the world.


flickr (external link)
5∞ portfolio (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hieu1004
Goldmember
Avatar
3,579 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jul 2010
Location: Seattle
     
May 31, 2012 01:29 |  #9

35L, IMO, but I am biased. :)


-Hieu
Gear | Blog (external link) | flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sol95
Senior Member
661 posts
Joined Jul 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
May 31, 2012 01:59 |  #10

I know it's a totally different lens suggestion to the ones you're considering, but I think the 17-40L + 50/1.4 would work well for you.

Honestly, the 24-70L can be a bit hit-or-miss. some people have wonderful copies that are sharp across the zoom range, but there's enough people complaining about disappointing results with the lens to not be worth the lottery, imo.

And for the price of the 24-70L, you can pick up a 17-40L, which would be great as a general walk-around and landscape lens, and a 50/1.4 lens for low light. And the bonus is that it's not very heavy, meaning you can probably carry the 50/1.4 with you all the time, which you can use for low-light and also a fixed length walk-around lens.

I had the 24-70L (and also the 24-105L), and sold them as I use my 50L most of the time as a walk-around lens.


Bodies: 5D mk III
Lenses: 50 f/1.2L | 85 f/1.2L II | 100 f/2.8L IS Macro | 17-40 f/4.0L | 24-70 f/2.8L II | 70-200 f/2.8L IS II
Accessories: 430EX II | TC-80N3 M43: Olympus E-PM1 | Olympus m.Zuiko 14-42 II R | Panasonic 14 f/2.5 | Panasonic 20 f/1.8 | Olympus m.Zuiko 45 f/1.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lvph2
Goldmember
1,881 posts
Likes: 159
Joined Jul 2005
     
Jun 12, 2012 11:08 |  #11

I'm in the same boat, but currently own a 24-70mm. I find myself never using it at it's widest. and almost never at it's longest. Thinking about going with a couple primes to take it's place. I get nice results with cars with the 24-70mm, but I'm not getting a wow from anything else I've been shooting. Especially portraits.



- Nikon D3300
- Nikon 35mm F/1.8
- Sigma 17-70mm F/2.8-4 Cont.
- Tokina 100mm F/2.8 MACRO

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mashimaro
Senior Member
Avatar
816 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Vancouver
     
Jun 12, 2012 12:41 |  #12

i thought about ditching my 24-70 for the 35L as well before but as others have said, it's nice for its convenience of being a zoom lens.

24 is pretty wide for most usage on FF and the 70mm is decent for some reach.

my lens is not super sharp at 2.8 but is great at 3.2 onwards.

you get used to the weight of it pretty fast unless you hiking it for more than an hour on your shoulder.

i think it boils down to having a fast prime (great IQ and speed) vs. a fast-for-a-zoom lens (convenience).

i'm thinking the new 24-70II will make it a tougher choice if it's anything like the 70-200II for IQ/sharpness...other than the price of course.


Canon 5D4 / Sony A7R2 / Leica M240

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tommydigi
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,531 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Likes: 373
Joined May 2010
Location: Chicago
     
Jun 12, 2012 12:56 |  #13

ClassicJ wrote in post #14508396 (external link)
I had both and ended up parting with 24-70L. The 24-70 is versatile but nothing that a few steps forward or backward with a 35L cant fix. 35L on my 5diii is very sharp.

I never really understand this advice, this is just not always possible. 35 is 35 it will not be 70 or 24 by moving. Anyway, I have used both lenses and both are excellent but I would not want 35 as my widest lens So I would vote in favor of a used 24-105 that you can probably get for between $700 or $800 now and a 35 2.0 or some other affordable wider prime since it seems budget is an issue.

Many differences between he 24-70/105 is really splitting hairs and right now the 24-70 is at a premium while the 24-105 can always be picked up rather cheaply. I do feel the 24-70 is a bit better but after having both I got tired of using it because it was heavy and cumbersome.

-Edit as mentioned above when I had the 24-70 my experience was the same, it was really sharp at 3.2.


Website (external link) | Flickr (external link)
Canon 5DII • 7DII • G15 • 24LII • 50L • 100L • 135L • 40 STM • 16-35L F4 IS • 24-70L F4 IS • 100-400L II • 1.4x • 600EX II • 270 EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tommyboyazn
Member
65 posts
Joined Dec 2008
     
Jun 12, 2012 13:22 as a reply to  @ Tommydigi's post |  #14

I only have a crop camera and the 17-55. Sold the 17-55 for the 35L and never looked back. It is only 2 steps forward for "55" and a few more steps back for "17".

Ultimately, it came down to: I can work to make a 35L be at 24 or 70, but I can never work to make a 24-70 be a 35.


Canon 50D | 35L | 85 1.8 |580EX


  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
delhi
Goldmember
Avatar
2,483 posts
Joined Feb 2005
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun
     
Jun 12, 2012 13:39 as a reply to  @ tommyboyazn's post |  #15

You can always play it safe and get a 35L + a Tammy 28-75 f2.8. :cool: Apparently the Tamron is on par with the Canon 24-70L optically but lacks the robust build.

Personally I just dig the 35L images.


Vancouver Portrait Photographer (external link)
No toys. Just tools. (external link) :lol:

5d3/1dx AF Guidebook | What AF Points to use for my 5d3/1dx?! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

10,126 views & 0 likes for this thread
Canon 24-70 f2.8 vs Canon 35mm 1.4
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.0forum software
version 2.0 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Formentor75
625 guests, 380 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.