24-70 II vs 35L - A Quick Review

I have had my 24-70 II for about a week now and I have owned my 35L for several months. Prior to buying the 24-70 II, I have found myself in a dilemma where I debated whether or not I even needed the zoom.

Short Review : 24-70 II is an extremely sharp lens, but 35L is just as sharp at 2.8. It is soft at 1.4, but comparing 35L wide open to the zoom wide open is not fair. At short focal lengths, 1.4 aperture makes a massive difference when it comes to subject isolation and after using 35L, the zoom is not satisfying at 2.8 for subject isolation. That being said, while you could take a step forward and backward with the prime, there is the perspective problem. With zoom, you get proper perspective all the way to 70mm. What you can accomplish at 24mm with the zoom is also something you will never be able to with the 35L unless you can fly through the walls. So without going into further details and scientific experimentation, my opinion is that 35L produces far more "magical" shots that most amateurs may be looking for. The zoom is good for wedding photographers who don't want to miss a shot, but the shots will be rarely as magical as 35L's. It produces more standard looking shots unless you are way close and at 70mm shooting for head portraits. At 35mm however, 2.8 vs 1.4 makes a big difference.

If you are shooting indoors, I'd say 35L no question. Zoom's focal range is hardly useful in a small apartment or a medium size house. I can use my 35L for 99% of the shots I deal with. If you are outdoors however, 24-70 II has the upper hand. 24mm makes a big difference, so does the 70mm for body portraits.

Afterall, I'd say if you are a professional, get the 24-70 II, otherwise, you have to be looking to burn cash to get the zoom over prime. I'd say 70-200 is a far more useful zoom than 24-70 will ever be for me.

Thanks for reading.

How do you find color and contrast between the two? I've read the 24-70 II is more akin to the 24L II, which has superb color and contrast, especially compared to the 35L.

shujert wrote in post #15441049
How do you find color and contrast between the two? I've read the 24-70 II is more akin to the 24L II, which has superb color and contrast, especially compared to the 35L.

I honestly cannot see any difference between the two at 2.8. In fact, I just went ahead and took random shots under different lighting conditions using both lenses and I cannot tell the two images apart. I'm sure using some crazy software under some lab conditions 24-70 II will beat the 20 year old 35L, but for an average joe, there is no way to see any difference.

And again, I rarely very very rarely use my 35L anything above 1.4. Primes are meant to be used wide open.

have you compare the extreme corner sharpness between the two @ f2.8? Because I constantly hear that the zoom has corner to corner sharpness whereas the 35L is soft there?

@TheLensGuy
Thanks for starting this thread and writing a review. Very informative.
I look forward to hear some more information from others as well.

kin2son wrote in post #15441426
have you compare the extreme corner sharpness between the two @ f2.8? Because I constantly hear that the zoom has corner to corner sharpness where the 35L is soft there?

I'm not going to deny the fact that the zoom with several years of technology and better glass elements over a quite old prime will have better sharpness. But I just cannot tell them apart. I don't see any softness on my 35L's corners to be honest with you and the style of photography I like (portraits/DOF work) mostly involves blurred corners anyways.

I should have probably clarified that I rarely shoot landscapes (in fact I could say I don't shoot them period). I usually work with kids and family, and my 35L rarely is used above 1.4 and in those cases its a group photo that needs something like 5.6 which doesn't have any softness issues that you mention.

Again, 24-70 II is a sharp lens. After all, if it didn't have any positives, Canon would be out of business. My point was, if you have the 35L OR if you are considering one of these two lenses, I'd pick 35L over the zoom. The only exception is landscape photography. 35L can never do 24mm, its not possible, but other than that, it can do pretty much anything that the zoom does, the 35-70 range is not earth shattering difficult - it is certainly not like the 70-200 range. So for example, a 70-200 has far more use over 85L. It focuses much faster, that focal length has far more use in the zoom category, and it is an extremely sharp lens.

Finally, I guarantee you that there is not a single person on earth who can see the difference between two lenses on a daily basis in the 35-70 range (not perspective wise but rather quality wise).

so the zoom is as sharp as one of canon's best primes. hmmm. not bad .

So basically what your saying is that if you have a 24L, 35L, 50L it's not worth selling unless you want to carry one lens for all?

TheLensGuy wrote in post #15441333
I honestly cannot see any difference between the two at 2.8. In fact, I just went ahead and took random shots under different lighting conditions using both lenses and I cannot tell the two images apart. I'm sure using some crazy software under some lab conditions 24-70 II will beat the 20 year old 35L, but for an average joe, there is no way to see any difference.

And again, I rarely very very rarely use my 35L anything above 1.4. Primes are meant to be used wide open.

naw. they wouldn't be adjustable if that were the case.

TheLensGuy wrote in post #15440933
I have had my 24-70 II for about a week now and I have owned my 35L for several months. Prior to buying the 24-70 II, I have found myself in a dilemma where I debated whether or not I even needed the zoom.

Short Review : 24-70 II is an extremely sharp lens, but 35L is just as sharp at 2.8. It is soft at 1.4, but comparing 35L wide open to the zoom wide open is not fair. At short focal lengths, 1.4 aperture makes a massive difference when it comes to subject isolation and after using 35L, the zoom is not satisfying at 2.8 for subject isolation. That being said, while you could take a step forward and backward with the prime, there is the perspective problem. With zoom, you get proper perspective all the way to 70mm. What you can accomplish at 24mm with the zoom is also something you will never be able to with the 35L unless you can fly through the walls. So without going into further details and scientific experimentation, my opinion is that 35L produces far more "magical" shots that most amateurs may be looking for. The zoom is good for wedding photographers who don't want to miss a shot, but the shots will be rarely as magical as 35L's. It produces more standard looking shots unless you are way close and at 70mm shooting for head portraits. At 35mm however, 2.8 vs 1.4 makes a big difference.

If you are shooting indoors, I'd say 35L no question. Zoom's focal range is hardly useful in a small apartment or a medium size house. I can use my 35L for 99% of the shots I deal with. If you are outdoors however, 24-70 II has the upper hand. 24mm makes a big difference, so does the 70mm for body portraits.

Afterall, I'd say if you are a professional, get the 24-70 II, otherwise, you have to be looking to burn cash to get the zoom over prime. I'd say 70-200 is a far more useful zoom than 24-70 will ever be for me.

Thanks for reading.

"for you". you really like the sweeping generalizations, eh ? i think both zooms are must-have lenses.

Sounds like the 24-70 II does well wide open if it matches the 35L stopped down to f2.8. That actually bodes well for the zoom. Of course you are comparing Apples and Oranges. I don't feel these lenses are interchangeable. The 24-70 II obviously can't do f1.4 and the 35mm can't do 24mm-34mm and 36-70mm.

Having said that, I sold my 24L MKII and ordered the 24-70 II. I never thought I would get a 24-70mm zoom ever again, but after getting the Sigma 35, having a prime at 24mm wasn't all that critical and looking at my usage in the weddings I shot in 2012, again, the 24mm became dispensable.

Looking forward to trying out the 24-70 II.

ed rader wrote in post #15441747
"for you". you really like the sweeping generalizations, eh ? i think both zooms are must-have lenses.

It's not "for me". It's basic "physics". Its a lot harder to manage 85L compared to 70-200 than 35L compared to 24-70 II. 85L has no IS, it focuses extremely slow, and that focal range is prone to camera shake than 24-70 is. Unless you are a super-natural human being with some tricks that I don't know about, I'm sure most people will agree with this.

ed rader wrote in post #15441733
naw. they wouldn't be adjustable if that were the case.

Meant to be != hast to be.

This is like buying a car with a racing engine that revs to 9000 rpm. Most will argue that you should shift gears at 3000 rpm, but the fact of the matter is, the engine is built to be revved high all the way at 8800 rpm.

Anyone who has the 35L but uses it at F4 is wasting a ton of money, 24-105 will do just fine and will cover a lot more focal range.

kouasupra wrote in post #15441730
So basically what your saying is that if you have a 24L, 35L, 50L it's not worth selling unless you want to carry one lens for all?

More like unless you don't need anything faster than f2.8

Personally I rather have the 3 primes anyday. But of course it comes down to what you shoot...

kouasupra wrote in post #15441730
So basically what your saying is that if you have a 24L, 35L, 50L it's not worth selling unless you want to carry one lens for all?

I wouldn't buy 24L (I never do landscapes as I said) and I also wouldn't buy 50L either as I have 85L. So in the 24-70 range, 35L is more than enough for a regular portrait (full body or waist) or group photographer.