Tough decision - Should I sell my Canon 35mm 1.4 for 24-70 2.8 II?

I have been wanting the new 24-70 2.8 II for the longest time. In order to purchase it, (And obviously focal length would be redundant) I would have to sell my 35mm 1.4 which I love.


Would love to hear opinions (good or bad) from those who did something similar, or from those who own the 24-70 2.8 II.

Thanks,

Buylongterm wrote in post #17457024
I have been wanting the new 24-70 2.8 II for the longest time. In order to purchase it, (And obviously focal length would be redundant) I would have to sell my 35mm 1.4 which I love.


Would love to hear opinions (good or bad) from those who did something similar, or from those who own the 24-70 2.8 II.

Thanks,

No. I only have a 35 IS (I have other lenses, just not 35L), and I wouldn't trade that for a 24-70 II.

Talking about the same focal lengths and f-stops, but changing the brands:

I have the Sigma 35 f/1.4 and love it; extremely sharp, and well-built. But I very rarely us it.

Later, I got the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC. It's on my 5DIII most of the time as a general-purpose lens. Very sharp past 2.8, and also well-built.

If I had bought a 24-70 first (regardless of brand), I never would have purchased a 35. It's just a much more versatile lens due to the focal range. If you do much no-flash photography in dimly lit places, and like very shallow DoF, then maybe you'd get more use out of a 35 f/1.4 than I do.

Head-shots, landscapes, events, walk-around... I'll take the 24-70 over a 35 any day.

I have never used the 24-70 f2.8 ll & that is the solution to the problem for me
I like the 35mm at 1.4 but sometimes wish I could just grab 24mm so sometimes I do miss that part [of the 24-105 I had] I'm permanently tempted to get a 24-70ll

Rent it first!

Although it is a spectacular lens at what it does, it doesn't have the DOF of a 1.4.

On the other hand, it actually saves you money, as it stops you from buying anything in its range that is not a 1.4

I've had a similar situation, and have had the 24-70vc as well, wonderful lens.

I go back and forth with 50mm and 24-70. You literally cant go wrong with a 24-70, does everything well.

I go through many phases where I shoot 50 primarily, then 24-70 primarily. If I had to pick one, my brain would tell me 24-70, however, I have a lot of heart for a 50. For travel, 24-70 historically has made more impacting photos, since I'm primarily a scenic shooter.

this current moment, I feel like giving up on 50, even though I have some wonderful 50's, FD 50 1.2L, zeiss 55 F1.8, nikon 50mm F1.2...... Unfortunately, the 24-70 I shoot with is an F4 variety, however to offset it, I also carry a fast 100mm prime. I would like to get back shooting with a 24-70 F2.8 again, but I'll settle for F4 for now.

for lowlight, the F1.4 wins out for sure, however F2.8 is quite feasible, especially with a good lowlight body. As background blur goes for portraits, I'de say 70mm F2.8 beats out the look of 35mm F1.4. That is strictly my opinion of course. I favor longer focal lengths heavily for portraits. I would love a 600g 24-70F2.8 for the sony system.

so to recap, if I had only enough to own one, it would probably be the 24-70, but I really hate having to make those choices so I'll own both fast prime and zoom for now .

Buylongterm wrote in post #17457024
I have been wanting the new 24-70 2.8 II for the longest time. In order to purchase it, (And obviously focal length would be redundant) I would have to sell my 35mm 1.4 which I love.


Would love to hear opinions (good or bad) from those who did something similar, or from those who own the 24-70 2.8 II.

Thanks,

I would never get rid of a fast 35mm prime.
35mm is the best overall single focal length lens IMO and if anyone is to have any type of a monster low light lens, it should be the 35mm.

24-70mm is an amazing lens, but I think the 24-70 doesn't make the 35mm redundunt. In fact I think they compliment each other perfectly.

Christian,
Looking at your gear list, you could also sell your 24-105 if you get the 24-70. You've got the 100 f/2.8L. If any lens in your collection becomes redundant, it would be the 24-105, in my opinion. But the money you get from that alone won't get you into the 24-70 II. I say sell both.

Christian,

I spoke before without paying attention to your lens inventory. The EF70-200 MkII in combination with the EF 24-70 MkII makes both the EF24-105 and the EF 100 f2.8L redundant, unless you need the Macro.

Keep the 35 f1.4 or sell all 3 and get the EF 24-70 MkII and the Sigma f1.4 if you don't mind Sigma.

Different strokes. One thing I love about this forum is the different perspectives and opinions.

I would never part with my 100 f/2.8L IS. Not only because I like macro, but because it makes a very nice portrait lens on a FF, where the 35 is a bit too wide for my taste.

That being said, I guess if I wasn't into macro, and had to choose just two lenses to own... a 24-70 and a 70-200 would be my pair. In fact, whenever I go on long hikes and want to only take two lenses in my backpack, those are the two I grab.

depends on your body as well. For instance, you have a 60D listed, and IMO @70mm F2.8 on a strong low iso camera, it can match the high iso. It kinda depends on one's definition of low light. At grandma's house, indoors, I get good exposures with 1.2 glass @ iso 640, so F2.8 would get me to 3200, which is fairly low for something like a 6D. background blur 35 F1.4 vs 70F2.8, I'de say the 70mm generally looks better for portraits.

of course this is all highly subjective. IMO a 35 or 50 often conflicts with a 24-70, and you can certainly own both, but I wont deny they conflict each other.

LV Moose wrote in post #17457570


Different strokes. One thing I love about this forum is the different perspectives and opinions.

I would never part with my 100 f/2.8L IS. Not only because I like macro, but because it makes a very nice portrait lens on a FF, where the 35 is a bit too wide for my taste.

Is the EF 100 f2.8L that much different from the EF 70-200 f2.8 L @ 100mm in portraits?

MakisM1 wrote in post #17457573
Is the EF 100 f2.8L that much different from the EF 70-200 f2.8 L @ 100mm in portraits?

Well, I have the f/4L 70-200, not the 2.8L, but you're right... at 100mm and the same f/... the results are nearly identical between the 70-200 and the 100 prime. I just automatically reach for the 100 if I'm shooting portraits, for some reason.

Depends entirely on your interests of course. If you don't have any specific interests and just like to take photos of 'stuff' as you walk around, then I'm sure you'll be very happy with the zoom.

The 35mm provides 2 additional stops of light and much greater depth of field control, which, combined with its colour saturation and contrast, produces the magical 3d 'pop' for which it's famous. You won't get that with the zoom. With the zoom, all you get is f2.8 and sharpness which is pretty good for a zoom.

24-70 F2.8 is for practicality with good pictures. At long end, close distance, you'd get decent bokeh.
35 F1.4L is for outstanding pictures with absolute control of background bokeh.

You'd enjoy the practicality of the 24-70 for sure but I highly suspect you'd miss the 35L.