Which would you choose?

Here's my problem. I have had a serious craving for a 35L. I just want that thing. Here's my other problem- I have no money. I'm talkin NONE. Not a penny. So, I'm wondering if I'd be a damn fool to do this...what if I just traded my 24-70L up for it? I mean I know the 35L is gonna be sharper, probably more contrasty, and most probably going to give me a bit better color reproduction. Plus, it's a 1.4. I've been having times lately when I really wished I had better than 2.8, as fast as that is. Now I'm figuring that I'm probably going to miss having that extra reach, but it's not really that much. I'm sure I could zoom with my feet that little bit. I'm also wondering if it's just not going to be wide enough a lot of the time. As most of you know, I'm pretty much only weddings and portraits. So tell me...


Does that sound stupid to you?


Which would you choose, and why?

Oh, and by the way, I have a 50 1.4 coming, so take that into consideration for...whatever.

i would keep what you have and go for a cheaper wide angle, with the increased dof even a cheap one should be ok ( no MONEY ) RULES OUT what i have just said.

Then it sounds stupid to me.
Rob.

Thanks. That's refreshing.

Don't trade your 24-70L for 35L:
- 24-70L can zoom to 35.
- But 35L can't go wider than 35 nor zoom beyone 35.
- I think 35L is only marginally sharper than 24-70L.
- Only the 1.4 with 35 is better than 24-70L's 2.8.

But above are from my small brain.

Keep your current set up...and save up later for it

I'm not sure you have a lens problem at all ... more a craving problem. Sure you can give in to it but then what's next? Seems you have every toy going. If you think it'll make you happy then keep going and keep buying ... personally, I think consumerism is overrated.

You don't want my opinion.... do you?

I would love the 35L myself... and having released the 24-70 from my lineup, well, I can't give you a fair answer..... however, since you asked... Is there any way to get this line-up within your budget: 17-40 f/4L, 35L and maybe the Sigma 24-70EX? Having not tried the 24-70EX as yet, this isn't a real answer.... but it remains a possibility. I will be trying the 24-70EX on Monday....if I like it, I'll let you know. That 35 f/1.4 is really awesome.... that's a tough choice. A lot more flexible in terms of what conditions you can shoot in. And, if you are mainly in reception halls, etc, you should be able to zoom on your feet. Portraits, no-brainer... 35L will win hands-down anytime. As will the 50 f/1.4, but you have that already. And since you have the 50, which will do really nice portraits, then, maybe it's better not to get the 35 until you can do so comfortably. Hmmmm this is a toughy to answer..... are you happy with the 24-70L in your wedding work? I guess this is the main question to answer first. If so, then let it be for now especially since you'll have the 50 f/1.4 If you aren't absolutely pleased, then you have something to think about.

OK... sorry, none of that helped.... I was more or less working out my own issues I guess!

Rotten timing. I don't think I would use the 50mm if I had the 35L in my hands. I would have thought the 24-70 is the most useful of all lenses for weddings (although you could get a tamron/sigma and use the cash).

Shoot another wedding soonest is a good plan.

Graham

What a predicament to be in, to say the least. And it's a tough choice. I have the 35 f/1.4 mounted on my 10D and the 24-70 f/2.8 on the 1D2. As convenient as it has been having the 35 on the 10D due to the combined smaller size and weight, there have been times when I've had my 10D with the 35 and needed more reach. I then just went into my backpack and pulled out my 1D2 with the 24-70. However, when I've had my 1D2 out and the 10D sitting on my bookshelf, I've never really had a need to reach for my 35 f/1.4 except the one time I was doing a test on very low lighting and f/2.8 wasn't fast enough. But then, it wasn't the 35 I needed but just something faster than the f/2.8 so my 85 f/1.8 would have worked just as well.

Like I said, it's a really tough call and I'm just glad it's not me having to make it.

I am doing quite a lot of weeding yearly. At weddings I use my 17-40 - 70% time of the wedd, then 70-200/4 - 15% - 50/1,4 and 85/1,8 - 10 % ....... but 28-75/2,8 Tamron less then 5 % .....

I do not think you need 28-70 for weddings ... or 35/1,4 on 20D ...


You might use it as a allround lens when you travel ...

I dream about 35/1,4 L but not for wedding but for theatre shooting because it is damn fast ... for my wedding type of shoots is to short .... and to often I may losse picture due to lens swapping ....

For me it is better to have a good shoot with my 17-40 then nothing ...

Keep the 24-70 and save for the 35

I sure as hell don't want a 17-40L, because not only does it not have enough length, but I just can't do f/4. 2.8 is hard enough at a lot of my receptions. Even then I have to pump up the ISO. I guess I was figuring eventually that I'd have a 35L and an 85L. I hardly ever use my 70-200, so I wouldn't miss that range at all. Speaking of that, I've been thinking of selling my L IS. If I did that, I could have the 35L, my 24-70L, AND the 85L. Seems like I'd be all set then. For weddings, anyway. I'd have four lenses, all super sharp, and 3 out of 4 at 1.4 or faster.

EH. I mean I'm fine with my 24-70L, and I could do weddings with only that...but do I want to?

I'd go for the 35L and buy a Tamron 28-75/2.8 when you have another $350 saved up, or maybe even just an 85/1.8 for the same price instead. Or, you could get the 50/1.4 and Tamron 28-75/2.8 which will actually leave you with some cash. The Tamron doesn't give up much if anything to the Canon except for build quality, and the 35/1.4L or 50/1.4 will give you 4 times the shutter speed at f/1.4, and better DOF control.

There is always a chance of getting a bad copy of the Tamron, but if you deal with a reputable place you should be able to exchange it if you are not happy.