Canon 24-70L or Sigma 35

As you can see in my gearlist I have three L lenses (I have a nifty fifty too).

My lenses are:
17-40L
24-70L (version 1)
50F1.8
85LII

The Canon 24-70L was my first L lens. I have got this lens for 15 months now. I have had a love/hate relation ship with it a long time. I really love the look of the lens itself. The lenshood looks just cool and professional. The image quality is fine if you stop it down. The range is nice to have in many situations. It can do closeups really well. But there is at least one really anoying thing about the lens. It is really soft wide open. I can't see a real sharpness point when I use this lens wide open.

I do have a 85L and 17-40L now. I am truly in love with the 85L. The sharpness and blur is just awesome. I use this lens almost all the time. I puchased a 17-40L a couple of months back for just 300 euro. It never amazed me since then. The 85L just blows all my other lenses away. But Architecture is one of my main photography subjects so I think I will keep the 17-40 for sure. When I went on a holiday I took my 17-40L and 85L with me and I really loved the combo. But I saw myself using the 85L way more and could't see an advantage by taking a 24-70 ov er the 17-40.

I often think I can miss the 24-70L because I use the 17-40L combo alot more. But sometimes when I think about the future I think I can really use the 24-70L more. Previous week I started my own photography business and I want to shoot Architecture, portraits and Weddings. But I will probably shoot everything where I am asked for. I already have a couple ofclients now so I am happy with that. I have two portrait sessions on my planning, two babyshoots and I have got a big list of buildings I can take paid photo’s of.

Because I am a gear-o-holic like most of the people who hang on this part on the forum I created my perfect lens kit a while ago which look something like this:

14-24L
35LII
24-70L
85LII
70-200LII

I would like a wide TSE lens too...

But lets go to my main question. I love my 85LII (and fast sharp primes) so much I really can see myself walking around with just a 35 and 85 combo. The 17-40 and 85L makes the 24-70 range almost reduant. When I purchase a 70-200LII in the future the gap will be even smaller. In most cases I leave the 24-70L at home now. But I am afraid that I can miss the 24-70L. Especially when I am doing more portrait work in the future. The short focussing distance is also great for product photography and the 24-70 range is still pretty versatile. And if I sell it I can’t shoot on 2.8 in a specific range. It would be a comfortable lens with party’s and weddings too.
The 70-200LII is high on my wishlist too. But it is really expensive and I can live without it for now with my 85L.

So there are a couple of real options now. What do you think what would be the best for me? I am going back and forth with this question in my mind for quite a while now.
- Keep the 24-70L and wait a year or so to add a nice 35 prime.
- Sell the 24-70L and buy the Sigma 35 right now.
- Sell the 24-70L and buy a 70-200LII first.. (will take at least a year though)
- Keep the 24-70L and buy a 70-200LII first.. (will take even longer)

Please don’t give me some fanboy advice like buy the new 24-70LII or never buy a third party Sigma. I don’t want a 24-70LII or something totally different. Please read the tekst above and be realistic.

Thanks alot! I hope I can make my final decision thanks to your comments.

Keep the 24-70, and buy a 70-200 f/2.8 non IS, and then later if need be, upgrade it to 70-200 IS II, and sell the 70-200 non IS

35 and 85.

I had the Canon 24-70mm version 1 which was very sharp wide open. I felt the focal length to be kinda boring. 70 @f/2.8 never gave me the separation i longed for and 24mm was decent. I sold that when I got the sigma 85mm f/1.4 as it provides a much more interesting focal length and is sharp wide open and adds the separation I was looking for. then I added the Canon 35mm f/1.4 L for something wider. This was a great lens but then the sigma 35mm f/1.4 came out and was crazy sharp and better in almost every which way. So I sold the Canon 35mm and never looked back. i really like the combo (35mm and 85mm) over the canon 24-70mm.

Consider selling the 24-70 and replace it with the 24-70 II, which is very sharp right from f/2.8.

EDIT: Sorry, didn't see the OP's fanboy reference to the 24-70 II, but my recommendation still stands, especially if you are starting a business. Paired with the 85 L II, you would have a great set of lenses. Later pick up the 70-200 II and you have events / weddings covered.

ya I dont think the 24-70mm recommendation is fanboyism. It actually sounds like it would be a good lens for you. Other than that it sounds like you have your heart set on the 35, but you might just be well off enough to not change anything right now and wait.

I had 24-70 first, but sold it also as i found the range boring.

But I did a model workshop and there it was very usefull, more than 35L.
So I re-bought it, it has been the reference lens for many years for wedding photographers also, so I don't see why it would suddenly not be good anymore.

I don't know if there are comparison tests with version II allready, but probably the difference wouldn't be so big compared to the price difference

I had the 24-70L and loved the lens. Used it for quite a few years, but then a few months ago, decided that changing to an all prime lens line up, may help my creative juices flowing again. So, I bought the Sigma 35, and have never looked back at the 24-70L. I ended up selling it a few weeks ago, and have no regrets. Shot a wedding with the Sigma 35/85 combo, and had no regrets about selling the 24-70.

I may eventually add the 24-70 back into my line up for event shooting, but aside from that, I absolutely love the sigma!

if the 24-70 is soft, I dont know why you would exclude the 24-70 mk2... You're already looking to buy the 70-200 mk2 which is nearly the same price, and the 24-70 is a lot more useful IMO.

it sounds the the 24-70 mk2 is the right lens for you.

in either case, I think both 35 and 24-70 compliment the 85 well, but for events, 24mm is really valueable, more than 1.4 of the 35 IMO.

Your projected set is close to what I have, except I haven't gotten around to replacing my 17-40 for a 16-35. A friend of mine owns a TSE; very nice, but, very specialized --- I don't shoot on tripods as much as I should and I really want the AF option when I hand hold.

Personally, my standard zoom lens gets the most use, because there's plenty of times I'm using my 5D3 to take snapshots and I am not in the mood to keep swapping lens. I've foundn a UWA like the 17-40 isn't long enough to sever as a main lens --- unless I'm in big, vibrant cities like New York.

So in short, I would keep the 24-70 mk I or replace it with another standard zoom. I don't think getting the 35L makes that much sense.

I've talked to a lot of people that started with a 24-70 (because it is f/2.8) and ended up using a 24-105L instead. As much as I wish there was a 24-105 mk II, I can live with the mk I. It has IS and a decent focal range. It also is sharp enough when you stop down.

Before buying a 35L and 85L, I tried used 35/2 and 100/2. The 35/2 got me the most of the way there to a 35L, so if you can get a used one in good condition, that might keep GAS at bay long enough to save serious money.

Charlie wrote in post #15732293
if the 24-70 is soft, I dont know why you would exclude the 24-70 mk2... You're already looking to buy the 70-200 mk2 which is nearly the same price, and the 24-70 is a lot more useful IMO.

it sounds the the 24-70 mk2 is the right lens for you.

in either case, I think both 35 and 24-70 compliment the 85 well, but for events, 24mm is really valueable, more than 1.4 of the 35 IMO.

I truly believe the 24-70LII is a phenomanal lens. But I have many reasons for it that it is not on my shortlist of buying. Probably on the longer end..

- I don't want to buy something that expensive right now.
- I cover almost all the lengths of the 24-70 already (17-40| 50| 85)
- That is the main reason of choosing the 70-200II over the 24-70II
- I almost never use my 24-70L now. I prefer to go with the 17-40 and 85.

A 35mm prime gives me:
- A nice fast kit (17-40 | 35 | 50 | 85)
- I can get a Sigma 35 for the money I get from my 24-70, so it cost me almost nothing this moment.
- I really really really love the ability of shooting with a shallower depth of field. A lens with a big range of aperture makes it really versatile for me.
- In most situations I can use my feet.
- Much better sharpness

Reasons to stay with my 24-70:
- Safe for weddings and stuff where you can't walk that much.
- The minimum focus distance was great for product and food shoots.
- Impressive lens look. People think you are a professional right away.
- This lens is nice for indoor shoots. It could happen that indoor shoots comes more frequently

But... maybe a nice 35 prime could do that too...

It is litteraly a 50/50% choice for me at this moment. I almost never use the 24-70 now. So I really don't know if I will really miss it if I let it go.

Thanks for all the advice btw.

I was in a similar situation to you. I had the 17-55 on crop and it never really wowed me. So when I switched to full frame I went for a prime combo of sig 35 and 135L, and I couldn't be happier. I personally don't miss the flexibility of the zoom at all.

But then I don't shoot weddings. If you are going to shoot paid weddings you should really consider a second body. If your main camera fails mid-wedding you must have a backup. If you rented a second 5d2 for weddings you could stick the 85 on one body an the 35 on another and you could probably shoot the whole wedding with that combo

here's another thought: since you like the 17-40 + 85 combo, would a 16-35 F2.8 work? That would compliment the 85, and the 16-35 is well suited for event photography and can double as your landscape lens.

Carrying a 35/85 combo is a different kind of shooting situation than having a 24-70. Do you have the time to switch lens? If you do, the 35/85 is quite a nice pair. Low light situation, low DOF, beautiful bokeh.
If not, and you want a sharper zoom lens, then the 24-70 mkii will give you that. You will end up only using the 17-40 at 17 only. Because the 24-70 mkii is so sharp, the bokeh at f2.8 is fine for me. There is a distinct subject isolation there. Review the lens picture blog in this web site to get the quality of the isolation. The 24-70 is my landscape lens of choice. It is sharp corner to corner at f8. Nothing touches it except the 24 TSE or the nikon lens. Same for architecture.

For me, if I carry the 24-70, I carry the 50 1.4. Otherwise if I know I have time to switch lens, I just carry the 35/85 combo.