Do I sell my 35 f2 IS to fund 24-70mm f2.8L MK1?

This is a sort of continuation from another thread I made recently as I considered mixing things up to shooting a wedding in April. My kit is tailored towards what I mostly do -- family portraits and engagement sessions. The lenses I use for these sessions (in order of most used to least) are the 85 1.8, 135L, 35 f2 IS, and the 17-40L. The 6D does all the work and my 650D stays in the bag as a backup.

I intend to give the 6D the bulk of the work at the wedding (if not all) and for that reason, I've purchased a used 24-70 f2.8L (original version). My thinking is that 24-70L will be mounted on the 6D for the ceremony and likely the reception with a flash + some off-camera lighting. I'll pull the primes out for formals and possibly mount the 85/135L on the 650D during the ceremony to get some closeups/extreme DOF shots.

Now my question is, should I sell my 35 f2 IS to help cover the financial damage of this recent purchase? The 35mm only comes out during portrait sessions to get those environmental shots (which I imagine the 24-70L will do a fine job with) or group shots. In both cases, I'm typically stopped down to f4 or greater. The one thing holding me back is that I could see the 35 f2 IS being useful during the reception.

I'm sure the 35 f2 IS is sharper than the 24-70L MK1, but how drastic are we talking? Will I really miss it given my uses of the 35mm focal length? Bonus question: how does the Sigma 24-70 2.8 compare?

chexjc wrote in post #17820840
This is a sort of continuation from another thread I made recently as I considered mixing things up to shooting a wedding in April. My kit is tailored towards what I mostly do -- family portraits and engagement sessions. The lenses I use for these sessions (in order of most used to least) are the 85 1.8, 135L, 35 f2 IS, and the 17-40L. The 6D does all the work and my 650D stays in the bag as a backup.

I intend to give the 6D the bulk of the work at the wedding (if not all) and for that reason, I've purchased a used 24-70 f2.8L (original version). My thinking is that 24-70L will be mounted on the 6D for the ceremony and likely the reception with a flash + some off-camera lighting. I'll pull the primes out for formals and possibly mount the 85/135L on the 650D during the ceremony to get some closeups/extreme DOF shots.

Now my question is, should I sell my 35 f2 IS to help cover the financial damage of this recent purchase? The 35mm only comes out during portrait sessions to get those environmental shots (which I imagine the 24-70L will do a fine job with) or group shots. In both cases, I'm typically stopped down to f4 or greater. The one thing holding me back is that I could see the 35 f2 IS being useful during the reception.

I'm sure the 35 f2 IS is sharper than the 24-70L MK1, but how drastic are we talking? Will I really miss it given my uses of the 35mm focal length? Bonus question: how does the Sigma 24-70 2.8 compare?

As you mention, the 35mm f/2 IS is sharper than the 24-70mm f/2.8 I. While, of course, the 24-70 covers the 35mm focal length, the 35 f/2 IS is a stop faster, has IS, is much lighter and is very compact. I would think you'd want the availability of a good quality 35mm prime in the mix, but only you can determine if it will be used.

Hi. I'd suggest keeping the 35 for a bit and see if you use it or it gathers dust. If you bought the 35 new then you've already lost some money on it, but you're unlikely to lose anymore over the next year so it doesn't really matter when you sell.

I've now got similar to you 35, 85 and the 24-70 ii. The zoom is quite a big bigger so ill keep the 35 for when I want light, discreet, IS, F2, trips abroad etc.

Keep it. You're not going to get that much for it and you'll miss it. I love mine.

I'm having the same struggle. I'm considering selling off all my EFs glass and also the 35 f/2 IS to fund the 24-70 f/2.8 ll. I will probably sell a camera body as well.

UPDATE: Contrary to advice, I went ahead and sold it . Hopefully I won't miss it too much, but it was more of a financial decision than anything else. When you need the cash, you need the cash. On the bright side, I bought it used on these forums, so I only lost about $60 on the sale. If I end up missing it, at least I know that I like it enough to pick up another one.

chexjc wrote in post #17828366
UPDATE: Contrary to advice, I went ahead and sold it . Hopefully I won't miss it too much, but it was more of a financial decision than anything else. When you need the cash, you need the cash. On the bright side, I bought it used on these forums, so I only lost about $60 on the sale. If I end up missing it, at least I know that I like it enough to pick up another one.

If you do miss it, you might also want to consider the new Tamron 35mm f/1.8VC.

chexjc wrote in post #17828366
UPDATE: Contrary to advice, I went ahead and sold it . Hopefully I won't miss it too much, but it was more of a financial decision than anything else. When you need the cash, you need the cash. On the bright side, I bought it used on these forums, so I only lost about $60 on the sale. If I end up missing it, at least I know that I like it enough to pick up another one.

I can't imagine bringing my self to sell mine. Hope it works out for you!

vengence wrote in post #17828414
I can't imagine bringing my self to sell mine. Hope it works out for you!

I feel the same. It's my favorite lens.

How "sharp" you perceive the lens to be will depend on many factors - you already mentioned IS which in my view is very important for handheld work indoors in available light, even at high ISO. Also how big do you print? If no bigger than A4 (for an album, or a mounted print in a frame for display on top of a piano etc), almost any lens will be sharp enough. If you feel the zoom will give you more flexibility, go with that but beware slow shutter speeds. Are you buying a 2.8 for available light reasons? If so, I would suggest that with a 6D you could happily use an f4 lens and use one stop faster ISO without sacrificing IQ for reasonable enlargements (up to A3). The 24-70 f4 has IS and is reasonably priced, also much lighter and more compact. That's what I would use for your purpose.

Far too much fuss is made about having f2.8 in my view!

To me, the overriding reason to get f/2.8 is not the larger aperture per se - it's the increased AF accuracy that modern bodies give with a 2.8 or larger lens. I'd rather have the ability to frame more precisely than any additional light gain you'd get with a prime - but since I shoot sports/events, I can't choose my shooting location or my subject distance for every shot - I'd be changing primes or bodies far too often and missing most opportunities.

Perspective certainly is everything. I'd sell any of the 24-xx(x) lenses to fund a 35 IS. My thoughts read kind of like a Goldilocks story.

This one's too expensive.
This one's too distorted, and too slow.
This one has RSA issues.

Ah, this one is just right.

(In all fairness, I own the 24-105 STM. It is the right choice for me. I can't imagine spending more money to get less of a lens with any of the other choices.)

I've had a 35 f/2 IS for a while now and I've had it on my cameras twice.... Once to check out the AF on the 70D when people were worried about it (mine was fine) and yesterday, trying to decide if I was still missing something since so many of you love it.

This may seem naive and it probably is.... but inside our house, I don't see the purpose of the 35mm focal length. I was making my final decision on which camera to keep, a new 7D2 or my 1D IV so I put on the 35mm. I was taking photos of our cat, Cooper. I needed a lot more than 35mm (even on an APS-H body) to fill the frame. I ended up using my 100L f/2.8 Macro.

So that leaves outdoor photography. I have a very fine 16-35 f/4 IS. Again, I am probably missing something but I don't see the need for a prime in my case. I guess if I'm using a wide lens, I'm either shooting a kitchen or an outdoor scene: sunrise or sunset......... or some swamp scene, on a tripod, stopped down to f/8 or f/11, give or take.

Several of you said it's your most used lens.... what kinds of targets are you photographing? I realize this is an ignorant question but I'm planning on putting mine up for sale tomorrow along with a few EF-S lenses and my 7D2. Help me understand what I'm missing. And I'm being serious, not sarcastic or facetious for once.

I use my 35IS on a full frame 6D. It doesn't surprise me that you're not a great fan if you are shooting it on apsc. It is too long for that. On full frame, it is a good dinner-table lens. Shoot your 16-35 at 21-22mm on your 7DII. The extra 2-stops of light can be really handy. My wide zoom is the 17-40, which gets used mostly outdoors. Indoors, I prefer the f/2 lens.

For the OP, my response would be "Yeah, I'd sell of the 35mm prime." My main thinking is that for an event photographer such as yourself, having a high quality 24-70/2.8 zoom is going to be redundant with just about any prime within that range.

I think there are a couple of ways to approach coverage of the wide-normal range on FF cameras. One approach is what I'm doing now, which is to have one or two fast primes (24mm and 50mm in my case) along with a slow (f/4 in my case) but super handy zoom. I use the zoom most of the time as a walkabout and vacation lens, and I use the primes mostly for when I need faster.

The other approach is to get a reasonably fast zoom (f/2.8) and just skip the primes. For someone shooting events for pay, this seems like the smart way to go. I'd guess that faster than f/2.8 is typically not a good idea for events anyway, and the handiness of the zoom is going to be worth a lot more than just one stop at one focal length.

So then having everything from 24mm to 70mm available at f/2.8, I cannot imagine a busy event photographer swapping out the zoom to the prime just to take a shot at f/2 instead of f/2.8.