Will 24-70 II outresolve a 35L on 5D Mark III?

There some shots I take with ISO 6400 that look no different than ISO 1600, which is when I tell myself to get the 24-70 and not bother with this low light BS and primes, but then there are shots where ISO 6400 looks so bad compared to ISO 1600. It's all about background (dark vs bright). I also have some shots I am able to take with my 35L wide open, mostly outdoors, unbelievable - there is no way a 2.8 would give me that. It's really a hard decision. It's not a matter of money really, but more of waste of it. I don't want to buy a lens and then realize the other one never sees the day light (or vice versa).

TheLensGuy, I agree with you.

I'm weighing the new 24-70 with the 35L because I have the 70-200 2.8 II and the 16-35 II, and there is a bit of a hole there in the middle. If I pick up the new 24-70, it'll A) Cost me a lot of money, 2) Give me a bit of overlap, and 3) Not solve my low-light situations. I have a real good high ISO camera (5D Mk III) and yes, ISO 6400 can look pretty darned good when you don't under-expose. But I shoot a fair amount of real low-light stuff where I'm oscilating between 6400 and 12800, which, even with the new 5D, does not look that great. The 24-70 won't help that.

Truth is, with the zooms I have now, I don't think I've yet to feel the need for another one from 24-70, particularly at that price. I've made a pact with myself to buy just one more lens in that range, and, again, for me personally, I'm leaning to the low-light prime. And unlike others in this thread, I'm most definitely not over razor-thin DOF.

gordholio wrote in post #14988111
TheLensGuy, I agree with you.

I'm weighing the new 24-70 with the 35L because I have the 70-200 2.8 II and the 16-35 II, and there is a bit of a hole there in the middle. If I pick up the new 24-70, it'll A) Cost me a lot of money, 2) Give me a bit of overlap, and 3) Not solve my low-light situations. I have a real good high ISO camera (5D Mk III) and yes, ISO 6400 can look pretty darned good when you don't under-expose. But I shoot a fair amount of real low-light stuff where I'm oscilating between 6400 and 12800, which, even with the new 5D, does not look that great. The 24-70 won't help that.

Truth is, with the zooms I have now, I don't think I've yet to feel the need for another one from 24-70, particularly at that price. I've made a pact with myself to buy just one more lens in that range, and, again, for me personally, I'm leaning to the low-light prime. And unlike others in this thread, I'm most definitely not over razor-thin DOF.

If I would have 16-35 / 70-200 in my kit, I'd never get a 24-70. Who cares how sharp it is. Get a 35L instead, duh!

kin2son wrote in post #14987257
It most likely will. But if you need low light capability and thin dof a f2.8 zoom will never ever become a f1.4

Personally my 35L is going up for sale. I don't shoot in low light that often, and I'm over razor thin dof.

I am fairly confident that the zoom is sharper than the prime @f2.8.

me too and i wouldn't call the 35L sharp until f2.

ed rader wrote in post #14988144
me too and i wouldn't call the 35L sharp until f2.

There are some shots that I take with 35L outdoors, wide open, extremely sharp, if I took a crop, you'd think its 70-200 IS II. Not everything is about MTF charts.

Same here, actually ^

The 35L can deliver amazing sharpness wide open. Here is one just from today:

interesting discussion.
no one seems to compare the dof of the 35L at 1.4 vs the dof that can be achieve with 24-70II at 2.8.
i got the 35L and the 24-70v1. i will only compare 27-70LI to 24-70LII. love to upgrade my 27-70 one day but its not about replacing my 35L for sure, unless a 35LII is better than 35L

Yeah, not sure why people compare the 35L with the 24-70 II... Two totally different lenses.

TheLensGuy wrote in post #14988225
There are some shots that I take with 35L outdoors, wide open, extremely sharp, if I took a crop, you'd think its 70-200 IS II. Not everything is about MTF charts.

i owned the 35L. i don't know the first thing about MTF charts. the 50 1.4 is capable of sharp shots wide open in excellent lighting too but the lens is generally not considered sharp until f2.2.

Invertalon wrote in post #14988272
Same here, actually ^

The 35L can deliver amazing sharpness wide open. Here is one just from today:

How people can think that is not usable is beyond me... Why would you have to stop this lens down at all? It is perfectly usable wide open, no doubt about it.

more DOF and, yes, improved IQ. that's pretty good for wide open but the lighting helps quite a bit. still a risk shooting wide open when it's not really needed.

It really is apples and oranges.

Invertalon wrote in post #14988272
Same here, actually ^

The 35L can deliver amazing sharpness wide open. Here is one just from today:

How people can think that is not usable is beyond me... Why would you have to stop this lens down at all? It is perfectly usable wide open, no doubt about it.

this is the internet,


of course that's not usable

I kid I kid

Good good, everyone sell off their 35Ls nice and cheap. I'll take one

http://www.the-digital-picture.com ….4-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

The Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 L USM Lens is slightly soft at f/1.4, but useable in my opinion. There is a noticeable improvement by f/2.0 (quite sharp).

TheLensGuy wrote in post #14987343
ISO 1600 can be printed, ISO 6400 pictures usually will stay in your PC.

And If I wanted to use flash, I'd use the 24-105

iLvision wrote in post #14987354
Ah then use... Noise Reduction no seriously, I think 5D3's ISO 6400 is printable... maybe not 5D2 but I've seen some images at 6400 taken with 5D3.

I'm lazy these days.. So if I had the 5D3, I wouldn't even bother getting a 35L. I like the zoom

Maybe you two are talking landscapes, maybe it's because i print a lot of indoor sports shots, I print out to 24x36 files shot at iso6400 from the 1DmkIII often. There's some grain evident, but the saturation, color and contrast is there.

If we're talking fine art landscapes I understand the hesitation to print anything at that high an iso, but really, you guys wouldn't be likely to print something from the 5DII @ iso6400?