Advice needed! 24L/35L or 70-200 2.8mkII?

Just looking for some advice/suggestion. Please have a look at my current gear list. I just sold my 70-200 f4 IS and have been thinking of upgrading. I have 2 options in mind...

1) Sell 135L and buy 70-200 2.8mkII

2) get 24L or 35L

I just can't seem to make up my mind. What would you guys do and why?

I mainly shoot portrait of my family and friends. Tbh i love my primes but I constantly hearing high praise of the 2.8mkII for portrait.....

Any comments/input is much appreciated

You had 70-200 f4. Did you use it much? Worked for you? Was it appropriate to your type of portraiture? If so I think it has some point upgrading to MKII. It's bigger and heavier if you don't mind..
And a long zoom it's always nice.

The reason to opt for a 24/35 is in case of a more enviromental portrait.

Subtas wrote in post #13362702
You had 70-200 f4. Did you use it much? Worked for you? Was it appropriate to your type of portraiture? If so I think it has some point upgrading to MKII. It's bigger and heavier if you don't mind..
And a long zoom it's always nice.

The reason to opt for a 24/35 is in case of a more enviromental portrait.

Honestly I didn't use it much....because it's a f4....I just don't think f4 can produce nice portrait (yes i m a bokeh whoreops I think i can tolerate f2.8 thou. Size might be a factor as well as i personally prefer carrying multiple primes than one big white lens...

Subtas wrote in post #13362702
The reason to opt for a 24/35 is in case of a more enviromental portrait.

That's the main reason i want either one. However, i think 35 might be too close to my 50 and thus i m considering 24...i think i ll end up getting either 24/35 AND 70-200 2.8mkII Unless someone can come up with a reason not to..

These are very different options you are looking at. 24/35 are not portrait lenses. If you're a bokeh whore (not unlike myself), that 135 should feed your appetite in the 70-200 range, if you don't mind using your feet. You sound like a prime guy...good luck.

neilrohrbacker wrote in post #13362980
These are very different options you are looking at. 24/35 are not portrait lenses.

um what are they then? They are mainly used for portrait as i can see in sample photo thread. I guess 24L can sometimes be used for landscape....thou not really wide enough.

neilrohrbacker wrote in post #13362980
If you're a bokeh whore (not unlike myself), that 135 should feed your appetite in the 70-200 range, if you don't mind using your feet. You sound like a prime guy...good luck.

I do prefer my prime more, but there are many recent threads about how good the combo 35L + 70-200 2.8mkII is. Also too many suggestions pointing the 135L is not as versatile and much harder to handheld due to the lack of IS compared to the 2.8mkII and bokeh is virtually the same...

Such a tough decision...

You can never have too much gear, buy all three, BUT, take a look at the 16-35 f2.8L to meet your requirements.

35L works for me...I would like an 85L, or would at least like to try one, but the 35L has been stellar for me so far, hit my flickr for examples.

bcd01 wrote in post #13363093
You can never have too much gear, buy all three, BUT, take a look at the 16-35 f2.8L to meet your requirements.

Thanks for the suggestion. But I am not considering the 16-35. It's simply too slow.

f2.8 works for longer fl for portrait. 16-35 can't really blur the background at such short focal length even when shot wide open.

I have that lens but for what you shoot id stay with primes, i never sure what im going to be shooting so i shoot strictly with zooms, you on the other hand seem to always know what you're shooting.

auto-clicker wrote in post #13363817
I have that lens but for what you shoot id stay with primes, i never sure what im going to be shooting so i shoot strictly with zooms, you on the other hand seem to always know what you're shooting.

thanks for your reply. I just had a look at the 16-35mkII sample photo thread and I really don't see that many portrait samples from that lens.

Given the fact the 24L and 35L struggle with blurring the background at much larger aperture, I don't think 16-35 is what I am looking for.

Just my opinion, but your approach is wrong.

A 24 or 35 might be okay for a loose environmental portrait, but that implies that you'll probably want to stop down to increase DoF. You will have to get very close to your subject if you are planning on shooting tight portraits, meaning you'll suffer from perspective distortion.

24mm is really quite wide - I suggest experimenting with compositions with your 24-105 at 24 and 35 mm, and seeing if you can frame appropriately with those focal lengths for the sorts of shots you like.

took a quick look at your flickr and I see a 24L or 35L as a perfect addition to your gearlist. Alot of the photos I see would work great with a 24L. It has slight distortion but it gives a different perspective compared to a 35L.

You have alot of lenses that can serve as a portrait lens. I would assume the 24Lmk2 would be used alot more than a 70-200 f/2.8IS mk2 if your walking around. I can lug my 24L mk2 and 85 f/1.8 (or 85L depending on what I'm shooting) and have most of my ground covered with one body and 2 primes for casual shoots.

Later purchase the 70-200 mk2 so you have versatility on hand. but in the meantime if you get a 24L or 35L you will experiment and fall in love with a wide to semi wide 35L angle lens on a FF.

I wouldn't drop the idea of owning a UWA lens. You can have alot of fun using such zooms. I'm certain I'll be going 16-35Lmk2 on my next lens quest since its faster than my f/4 17-40L. You must drop the idea of using a 24 or 35mm as a portrait lens...its do able but you have other more suitable lenses for that. Here's a pic of a UWA that is nothing miraculous but gives a different flavor to photos.

HeaTransfer wrote in post #13364185
A 24 or 35 might be okay for a loose environmental portrait, but that implies that you'll probably want to stop down to increase DoF.

I have to disagree.

Most sample photos in the 35L thread are shot below f2.0, a lot of them wide open. I actually want more blur but the 24L or 35L doesn't really excel in that dept, however it does give a different perspective compared to the lenses I own atm.

HeaTransfer wrote in post #13364185
You will have to get very close to your subject if you are planning on shooting tight portraits, meaning you'll suffer from perspective distortion.

That's fine, because I won't get close with either. I have my 50, 85, 100 and 135 for that.

Go with 35L

Unless you don't want your 85s and 135L.

I think 70-200 MK II will replace all your primes except the 100L for macro.

If you still plan to keep the primes, I think you shouldn't add a 70-200 MK II to your line. I think 35L will give you something different, something you won't get from the 24-105L. I am not sure how wide you would prefer, personally I like 35, it's wide enough for indoor and full body environmental portrait, long enough to have no distortion for upper body portrait.

I don't shoot landscape. If I do, I think I would rather get a 17-40L instead of 24L because I will shoot mostly f8 and above.

Just my opinions.

Thanks AlanU! This is the kind of constructive response I am looking for

AlanU wrote in post #13364255
took a quick look at your flickr and I see a 24L or 35L as a perfect addition to your gearlist. Alot of the photos I see would work great with a 24L. It has slight distortion but it gives a different perspective compared to a 35L.

I actually had a couple of full body shots of my friend with the 50mm and it's just not the same. I have to stand quite far back and the subject becomes too small. If I crop it the background will be lost and that loses the original intention.

I totally agree on the different perspective part when comparing the 24L and 35L. Just can't make up my mind ahah

AlanU wrote in post #13364255
You have alot of lenses that can serve as a portrait lens. I would assume the 24Lmk2 would be used alot more than a 70-200 f/2.8IS mk2 if your walking around.

I think you are right on that. The only reason why i sell the F4 IS is it didn't get much use at all. Gotta say i'd rather carry a couple of primes than one big white zoom lens. Guess i always prefer my prime than zoom. It's just that I've been hearing too many good things about the mk2 that made me want to try/like it

AlanU wrote in post #13364255
I wouldn't drop the idea of owning a UWA lens. You can have alot of fun using such zooms. I'm certain I'll be going 16-35Lmk2 on my next lens quest since its faster than my f/4 17-40L.

I am currently not really into landscape and will most certainly purchase the 17-40 when time comes such as holiday etc. I just don't think 16-35mk2 can replace 24L or 35L for pure portrait use.

AlanU wrote in post #13364255
You must drop the idea of using a 24 or 35mm as a portrait lens.

why would you say that? What do you mean?