Should I sell my Sigma 35 1.4 Art for a Canon 24-70 2.8L MKI (wedding) ?

I don't have a budget for the 24-70 II at the moment, is the Canon 24-70 2.8L so bad concerning sharpness as in this review here ?
http://www.juzaphoto.c​om/article.php?l=en&ar​ticle=38

Would you do a weddingshoot with 35 Art + 70-200 2.8L II or 24-70 2.8 MKI + 70-200 2.8L II ?

CanonYouCan wrote in post #17726873
I don't have a budget for the 24-70 II at the moment, is the Canon 24-70 2.8L so bad concerning sharpness as in this review here ?
http://www.juzaphoto.c​om/article.php?l=en&ar​ticle=38

Would you do a weddingshoot with 35 Art + 70-200 2.8L II or 24-70 2.8 MKI + 70-200 2.8L II ?

Depends on what your goals are.

I would want the 35 F1.4 if I'm shooting a lot of low light in-chapel stuff, or in tight rooms, and wanted the dreamy depth of field. I would want it especially if not in a situation where flash was an option to avoid using higher ISO's when you can avoid it just for cleanliness of images in case you have to push shadows. It's wide enough for almost every situation (almost). Fast as it gets. Crazy sharp.

If you get a 24-70 and you end up living at 24mm and 35mm basically, and rarely use it at 70mm, then you just lost 2 stops of light and considerable sharpness moving to the MKI 24-70 coming from the 35A.

So it's your call in that regard. It will matter if you're using lighting or not too.

Very best,

Keep the Σ35. You bought it for the aperture, remember?

Keep the 35!

I sold the 24-70L to afford the 35 Art, and I am happy that I made this swap. Sure the zoom could be really practical in a lot of situations, but the 35 is such great FL in my opinion.
I was not so happy with the wide open performance of the 24-70L, it just was not so sharp at 2.8.

The 35 is my personal favorite lens for a wedding. I use two body's and the 35 is almost all the time on one of them. Combined with a 85 or 70-200 is just great for weddings.
I can see my self using a 24-70, but I would never re-buy the v1 L ever again.

I use my Sigma 35 Art almost always at f/2.0.

Thanks, I asked the seller 2 pics at 24mm f2.8 & 70mm f2.8 to check the (un) sharpness.
On this link it seems horrible : http://www.juzaphoto.c​om/article.php?l=en&ar​ticle=38

He bought a 24-70 2.8L II (I hope he wont send me pics of this one, as I noticed in past that you can't see in the exif if this concerns a version 1 or 2 of a lens).
And if you could chose between the Sigma 35 Art and the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC for a wedding, would you chose the 35 Art (in combination with 70-200 2.8L II) ?

I do (or did) quite a bit of event photography. When I first got my brand new 24-70L v1 a few years ago I was never really impressed with the sharpness of the pictures. Then I sent it to Canon for a tune-up. WOW, you can't believe how razor tack sharp this lens is when it came back, even wide open. This lens was built for the wedding industry, you could shoot an entire wedding with it. Nice to have the 35 fast prime also.

CanonYouCan wrote in post #17727660
Thanks, I asked the seller 2 pics at 24mm f2.8 & 70mm f2.8 to check the (un) sharpness.
On this link it seems horrible : http://www.juzaphoto.c​om/article.php?l=en&ar​ticle=38

He bought a 24-70 2.8L II (I hope he wont send me pics of this one, as I noticed in past that you can't see in the exif if this concerns a version 1 or 2 of a lens).
And if you could chose between the Sigma 35 Art and the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC for a wedding, would you chose the 35 Art (in combination with 70-200 2.8L II) ?

I can see in my Exifs the MkII

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER. Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries. Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page. http://i37.photobucket​.com …_zps3b0d4ffa.jp​g~original

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.