confused between 35 1.4 or 24-70...

I am hoping if someone can help me decide and yes I do realize it all depends on what focal length one chooses to shoot in and is comfortable with. I would love to own both and I am looking for something that will focus fast and work well in low light conditions in an event hall or at home and even outdoors and wide enough. I have couple of weddings that I will be shooting alongside another pro this year and so far my gear consists of the following:

Canon 5D MK II
Canon 50 1.8 MK II
Canon 70-200 IS MK II
Canon 580 EX II

I was going to add 24-70 f2.8 to compliment the 70-200 MK II and after reading some more I came across 35 1.4 and people raving about that lens and I would like to know if I should go with 35 1.4 or 24-70 f2.8? I think I like the versatility of having the zoom range from 24-70mm, but with 35mm f1.4, I get a faster lens which will work well in low light and I can use my feet if I need to take wider shots.

Very confused.......

I had the 35L first. Needed the 24-70L for versatility. Bought the 24-70L. Sold the 35L to cover it. I wish I still had the 35L. I think it's a better lens for throwing on the body for a night out with friends to document stuff (aside from a cell phone camera) than a 24-70L (size and weight).

I kind of want to get the 35L again, but I just got the 40mm STM so that will work just fine as far as size, though it's f/2.8, compared to f/1.4. Then again, that's what high ISO is for.

35L. Especially if its gonna be super low light.

35/50/70-200 is a fantastic range and speed for weddings.

I'm using the 24-70 just because I'm planning to be lazy all summer and not take off my lens wherever I go (going 1 body/1 lens), I'll probably revert back to primes only afterwards heh.

Karim1980 wrote in post #14667394
I have couple of weddings that I will be shooting alongside another pro this year

I think your choice comes down to what the other pro photographer uses. Since you are shooting wedding alongside with him/her, you should compliment each other. 24-70 is hard to beat for wedding purely for the versatility, whereas 35L produces wonderful picture both indoor and out. Both have their places.

Thank you guys, I really do want to go with 35mm 1.4, but I think I might rent the lens and decide then. I just don't like the idea of changing lenses on the go, I want to stick to one lens and use that for most of the day and for that 24-70 seems ideal. Still going to give it some more thought today before I buy. Wish if I could just get both and then decide on which to keep or keep both....lol.

35L any day of the week! It's incredibly versatile and my personal pick over the 24-70L

I use two cameras, so if I had a 70-200 mounted, I wouldn't care about 50-70mm because I can just use the 70-200. If I needed wide, I can just switch (wide shots are generally never "urgent"), and between 30-40mm the 35L is fine to cover that range!

All at f/1.4 below:

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

I had a 24-70 which i sold to get the 35L, I love the 35 but i miss the 24-70, not out of laziness but out of necessity. I have second shot a few weddings this summer already in which I have rented the 24-70 to compliment my 35. I miss it more when I shot in a studio setting though, I use my 85 for that but the 24-70 would fill all my needs. From what you have I would say go with the 35, but beg borrow steal your way to a 24-70 also

I'm on the same boat as the OP so I'm highly interested in this post! I'm leaning towards the 24-70 due to its versatility but no retailers seem to carry them at the moment.

I don't have a 35L, but I recently sold a 24-70L which I liked very much. But, it wasn't the best at low light, and it was heavy/bulky. I've switched to primes and I'm really enjoying it. The 85mm alone barely ever comes off my camera. A 35L, would probably be the same way if I could afford it.

35L because it is magical. There's no substitute.

The EF 24-70L can be matched by cheaper alternatives from Tamron & Sigma.

Thank you for the pics smorter. I am debating between 35 or 24 mk II now. I think I would rather have a faster lens which will help in low light situation and I will use my feet to compensate for versatility.

From this thread and other threads that I have read so far, many had 24-70 which they sold to acquire either 24 f1.4 or 35 f1.4. I did have 24-70 a while back which I sold as I couldn't justify the cost of keeping that lens at that time.

mkville wrote in post #14669125
I had a 24-70 which i sold to get the 35L, I love the 35 but i miss the 24-70, not out of laziness but out of necessity. I have second shot a few weddings this summer already in which I have rented the 24-70 to compliment my 35. I miss it more when I shot in a studio setting though, I use my 85 for that but the 24-70 would fill all my needs. From what you have I would say go with the 35, but beg borrow steal your way to a 24-70 also

Would the Tamron fill in those needs for you?

I only have the 100L and nifty fifty (tried 3 Sigmas, were no good so I kept the nifty - which I'm not a massive fan of). I want something to shoot wide open portraits (enviro & maybe some baby/family) and have been eyeing off the 35L for a while now.

But I fear that I would miss a 24-xx zoom for multiple reasons - would like something wider for landcapes, would like something I would use for any event work and also any studio work, once I get further in my studies and start to pick up some work.

I have been awaiting te Canon 24-70 II reviews before purchasing anything, but am looking more and more at the Tamron. I guess the Tamron's failing is the oniony bokeh, but that I would live with if I also had the 35L. So would the Tamron be any good for studio work and for landscapes also? Not too keen on the Canon UWA's, I don't want soft corners and I think 24mm would do me - I kinda got sick of the distortion on my old 10-22 to be honest.

I prefer the 24Lmk2 due to the improved sharpness and micro contrast vs the 35L. Mind you the 35L still produces killer IQ. I find the 24mm prime has a different look unlike the very normal perspective the 35mm gives.

I really want the new canon 24-70Lmk2. If its like the prime like qualities of a 70-200 f/2.8ismk2 I will love to have a MkII zoom. I do think the 24-70L mk1 is a great lens in situations where flash is a must (bounced or studio strobes) and your shoot fast moving baby/toddlers.

There are situations taking photos of 1 yr olds that move so fast and a prime in the studio sucks!!! The 24-70L captures and allows you to frame properly due to fast movers.

If anyone asked if the 35L is magical I'd say NO. Its a normal perspective lens similar to the "look" you get with a 50mm prime. The 24mm gives an entirely different look that is noticeable. I still use my 35L (when I remove the layer of dust) when I want normal safe shots. The 24L is my much prefered lens now with unique marginal distortion effects.

The 24-70L is much too versatile for me to sell. Its an "OK" lens but stellar when it comes to fast events documentation when fill or flash exposure is required. Available light shooting I use primes.

get the 24-70 f2.8 II.

belias1989 wrote in post #14673510
get the 24-70 f2.8 II.

This is a very convincing post!!!!