The opinion of this photographer is that the 24-70's are a crap lens choice, it's like you have a Swiss army knife in you drawer and a pair of scissors, and you use the Swiff army knife to cut a piece of paper instead of the scissors. So it's not my opinion, it's just a funny article with some heavy discussions
This guy bought a 1.4 prime and he found out why others had such crispy pics, it was like turning on the light
But I know someone who said : midrange zooms are a waste of money. i.e. the 24-70.
Not wide enough to really be a "wide" lens, and not long enough to be a tele.
I rented a 24-70 once, it spent it's entire existence on my camera all the way out at 70.
Someone else said : For the fast lenses to be truly useful they need to be stopped down to F2.8 or more anyway,
so you are almost wasting money with a prime on the wide aperture (IMO)
=> Tomorrow I have an appointment with someone to exchange my 35 1.4 Art (I have the 50 1.4 Art allready) for a Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC.
This makes me doubt again... it's only for 1 wedding, don't know if the 35mm will be wide enough in church, but fast it is in dark circumstances if you can't flash + bokehlicious
On the other hand I can still re-sell it after the wedding if it's too boring