The toughest decission, 24-70 2.8L MKI vs 35 Art, allround, had them both simultaneously :)

I started with the 35 1.4L MKI, which I replaced with the 35 Art.
I sold the Art for events to have the 24mm, the telerange of 70mm is nothing shocking.

In difficult situations sometimes the 24-70 focusses on people in the background after recomposing strange enough.
I read once there could be some sort of problem with the construction of those older lenses.

Now that I have the 24-70 MKI, I miss the 35 1.4 bokeh & sharpness of the prime.
On the other had, I did a Miss election shoot once with about 20 girls, with my 24mm I had the whole group in the picture, a friend photographer had only 28mm and didn't have the group in the picture and couldn't back up. Also for fashionshows the 24-70 is my widedst.

But I think I will quit those events and concentrate more on modelshoots.
For this I have allready a 50 Art (close to the 35Art), also a reason why I sold it

The 24-70 2.8LII will probably be the best for me, although it doesn't have the 1.4 bokeh... time that this one drops in price secondhand will be long...

Ive used 35 for years and its nothing like a 50, I use the 35 when I want to make people look taller a bit without distorting too much, and for little space

This decision was not though for me.

I've had the 24-70L before and never really liked it. It just wasn't as sharp as I wanted. I sold it and bought the Sigma 35/1.4 Art.

The 35/1.4 combined with a wide-angle (16-35/4.0L IS (17-40/4.0L before)) and some longer lenses (85 and 70-200 in my case) makes the 24-70 completely redundant for me.

I have this setup for over 2 years now and I don't need anything else.
Sure I would like to add a nice Sigma 20, 24 or 50 prime, or maybe change my 85 for the Sigma Art version. But that doesn't make my work a lot better.
I absolutely like and love to play with new lenses, but that is more GAS than real need.

I see you posting quite often with such questions. Think about what you really (REALLY) need.
With a well thought lens collection (2-5 lenses) you can shoot everything you do without needing anything else.
I see a lot of people posting in this section of the forum where people are asking which lens to buy to photograph something they never photographed before. In 99% of the cases they don't NEED anything else because their current lenses can do that just as well. But they just WANT some new fancy gear.

Well I sold the 16-35 f4L IS recently as I still got a good price for it, just before the reductions.
I like to work with speciality lenses, my plan is to buy the Laowa Venus Optics 12 2.8 (and maybe the 35 Art again).
But till this 12 2.8 will be on the market, it will take ages

You probably find that my 135L is redundant (as I have the 70-200 2.8L II also),
but I like to have a compact black prime for casual occasions, like a school performance of my daughter or for a walk and take some portraits in the weekend.
The 70-200 II is a beast to big for this, I only use it for modelshoots & events.

Not even close for me. I have avoided a 24-70 for years. Earlier this year I bought one, Tammy's VC. It took me a week to figure out I have no use for such a lens.

Maybe its just me, 24-70 is a very uninspiring focal range for me. Not wide enough for landscapes, not long enough to pull in or create that flat look, both of which i love to shoot. Tried it, will never own it again.

I understand studio guys make their living off the 24-70. I'd take the 35 any day.

Even with the 24-70II the corners are soft. I prefer the prime overall look. Makes it hard for birthdays though to quickly switch around. I just mount a lens and get the shots. For events I would own the 24-70II though.

I have battled this decision for a while and still haven't went away from my 24-70. Any thought about a sigma 24-35mm F2 art since you already have the 50mm art?

Damn, you switch lenses like I change underwear.

The 24-70 II will be more versatile but if you need 1.4 you need 1.4.
So, do you need 1.4? Easy decision.

FarmerTed1971 wrote in post #18183975
Damn, you switch lenses like I change underwear.

The 24-70 II will be more versatile but if you need 1.4 you need 1.4.
So, do you need 1.4? Easy decision.

With the ISO capabilities 1.4 is less of a need for shutter requirements. It's more of a DOF and thats not a need... just a want to get the look your wanting to get. Need is the ability to cover multiple focal lengths quickly because you HAVE to get the shot regardless and to me that means change lenses less.

I still vote 24-70II.

If you were a studio guy... I could say primes because of the predictability, hobbyist... primes are good.... events of any kind... shoot 2.8 zooms because thats all media outlets NEED.

Agreed. I'd probably opt for the 24-70... although I rarely ever used my 28-70 when I had it instead opting towards the 16-35 and the 35 f2 IS.
I agree with dochollidayda as well... totally an uninspiring focal range for me too.

I suppose if I had the new 24-70 II I'd use it more. Maybe. The price has so far scared me away and my current lineup is doing really great for me.

If the 24-105mm F 4.0 replacement is noticeably optically better than the Mark 1 version, the extra length to me makes it far more attractive than the 24-70mm F 4.0 IS-you get 85mm and 105mm "portrait" focal length tossed in for a 150 .00 price premium. Seems like a better option to me.