Exchange my 35 Art for a 28-70 2.8L (wedding) or sell for Tamron/Canon 24-70 2.8 MKI ?

As I have no f2.8 zoom I would like to rebuy one for a wedding (also seen that I have the 50 1.4 Art, the 35 Art is close)

In past I allready had all 3 :
-Canon 28-70 2.8L (great old zoom, oop, sharp wide open, only 28mm)
-Tamron 24-70 2.8 (awkward zoom, but almost as sharp as the 24-70 2.8LII) some say bokey more busy, but didn't notice this.
-Canon 24-70 2.8 (not sharp @ f2.8)

I guess the 28mm vs 24mm will be a big difference again as it's on the wide part.
http://canonlensblog.c​om …ng-angles-difference1.jpg

Which one would you chose and why ?

I voted for the Tamron since it's new and optically sharp. Tamron does make good value lenses that are sharp. I was considering one, but the contrast and colors of the 24-70 2.8L II won out for me (for others, the price wouldn't be worth it).

For one wedding? Just rent a mark II....

vengence wrote in post #17724133
For one wedding? Just rent a mark II....

yup.

I'd keep the the 35A and add a 24A. You will miss the aperture. Well, I would, anyway.

vengence wrote in post #17724133
For one wedding? Just rent a mark II....

I personally have a very hard time renting. For the cost of renting you can purchase a used lens and own it for months and turn around and sell it for the same amount of loss that the rental cost was. Rent for one weekend or have for several months? but for some it doesn't matter they just need it as a tool to get the job done and move one.

I really do disagree with buying a lens if it is indeed in fact for ONE wedding and then you will not likely use it again so renting does have it's purpose. I personally like to use lenses for a longer duration to get a better feel for their true performance or lack of.

Either way you really can't go wrong with a 24-70 for a wedding to get the job done... some people prefer primes but I would highly suggest each prime having it's own body to minimize lens swaps. I could see me doing a wedding with a three camera setup each having a 24, 50 and a 70-200.

Gotta agree with Talley on this rental stuff. I 'rented' my first 135L for about a year. Counting the cost of shipping and handling, it cost me about $5 for the whole year.

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17726976
Gotta agree with Talley on this rental stuff. I 'rented' my first 135L for about a year. Counting the cost of shipping and handling, it cost me about $5 for the whole year.

Yeah, renting doesn't make sense for hobbyists or pros if they have the capital and know it's a lens they'll get regular use out of. The rental business caters primarily to professionals who do a variety of jobs that need different specialized gear on a per-assignment basis; like a 11-24mm this week for a real estate client, 500/4L next weekend for a sporting event, then a tilt-shift for a product session, etc. When you need a variety of expensive specialty gear, infrequently, renting makes sense.

sharpness often isn't the problem with third party lenses. AF is.

I used to own a 28-70 f/2.8L and it was extremely sharp, however getting to 24mm is very important in my view.

Talley wrote in post #17726439
I personally have a very hard time renting. For the cost of renting you can purchase a used lens and own it for months and turn around and sell it for the same amount of loss that the rental cost was. Rent for one weekend or have for several months? but for some it doesn't matter they just need it as a tool to get the job done and move one.

I really do disagree with buying a lens if it is indeed in fact for ONE wedding and then you will not likely use it again so renting does have it's purpose. I personally like to use lenses for a longer duration to get a better feel for their true performance or lack of.

Either way you really can't go wrong with a 24-70 for a wedding to get the job done... some people prefer primes but I would highly suggest each prime having it's own body to minimize lens swaps. I could see me doing a wedding with a three camera setup each having a 24, 50 and a 70-200.

absplastic wrote in post #17727057
Yeah, renting doesn't make sense for hobbyists or pros if they have the capital and know it's a lens they'll get regular use out of. The rental business caters primarily to professionals who do a variety of jobs that need different specialized gear on a per-assignment basis; like a 11-24mm this week for a real estate client, 500/4L next weekend for a sporting event, then a tilt-shift for a product session, etc. When you need a variety of expensive specialty gear, infrequently, renting makes sense.

I tend to rent for stuff like vacations. I am more than willing to pay the money to get exactly what I need at a moments notice and then not have to worry about it afterwards. I do agree I could save some money if I bought and resold used, but as infrequently as I need to rent something, I'm willing to pay the money to avoid the hassle.

Pmed

The 28-70 suffers from haze, and there are no spare parts anymore for that lens.
So that is not an option.

I would get a Canon 24-70 used.
But I recommend you do not sell the 35mm.

I have never once noticed any "haze" in either of my copies. in fact, they are far better than any 24-70 MK I that I have used.

Lichter21c wrote in post #17736160
I have never once noticed any "haze" in either of my copies. in fact, they are far better than any 24-70 MK I that I have used.

I had one, and it developed over a few months.
Up to a point, where the pictures lacked a lot of contract, and any bright light coming thrugh the lens caused heavy "foging".

My 24-70 is about as sharp as the 28-70 was, but without this issue.