Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 11 May 2018 (Friday) 10:45
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

35L, 85L, 24-70?

 
dmead516
Member
177 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 8
Joined Mar 2009
     
May 11, 2018 10:45 |  #1

Ok, so I sold both my 85 1.8 and 24-70 V1 in order to upgrade both lenses. However, I am now rethinking the move and wondering if any of you have used the 35L and 35Lii? Is there that big of a difference between the two? I am definitely planning on the new 85 1.4, but am up in the air over the 24-70 vs. the 35L. Not trying to compare the two head to head, just wondering if I am going the prime route would the 35L (either version-and yes I have seen numerous threads on the f2 model) be a good fit. I could see using this lens for seniors and portraits. I have the 16-35 f4 and on a recent Europe trip the lens seemed to be at 35mm a good portion of the time.

Not sure if I want to entertain any third party lenses, as I had a bad run with Sigma back in the film days and just decided to stick with canon even though most of the time there is a great cost difference.


1DMK3, 1DMK4, 1NRS, 5DMK4, 16-35 4.0, 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8 II, 70-300 4-5.6L, , 17-85, 50 1.8, 18-200, 135L, Mamyia 645AF, Metz 60-Ct-1, Metz 58

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
kmilo
Senior Member
Avatar
265 posts
Likes: 275
Joined Nov 2009
Location: Albany, NY
     
May 11, 2018 11:36 |  #2

It's hard to talk a prime lover into zooms, and equally hard to talk a zoom guy into primes. Which are you?

Do you think you'll benefit from the increased aperture of the 35L? That's the big selling point for it over the 24-70.


Kris
Insulting critiques always welcomed. flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tapeman
Sliced Bread
Avatar
3,715 posts
Likes: 120
Joined Jan 2004
Location: Twin Cities
     
May 11, 2018 11:52 |  #3

I am a zoom guy and with today's newer bodies am quite happy with f/2.8 for my photography.


Canon G1X II, 1D MKIV, 5DSR, 5DIV, 5D MKII, 16-35/2.8L II, 24-70/2.8L II, 70-200/2.8L IS II, IS, 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS II, 500/4 L IS II, 24-105/4 IS, 50/2.5 macro, 1.4x MKII, 1.4X MKIII, 2X MKIII,580EX II, 550EXs(2), ST-E2.
Gitzo 1228, 1275, 1558, Lensbaby 3G. Epson 3880, Bags that match my shoes.:)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dmead516
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
177 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 8
Joined Mar 2009
     
May 11, 2018 12:19 as a reply to  @ kmilo's post |  #4

Actually I was very happy with the 24-70 I had, just wanted the newer model, and just keeping my options open. I guess my only real issue would be the fact that I would have to keep changing lenses if I wanted a close up shot as I believe the 35 would allow a lot of distortion, but I have nothing to back that up.


1DMK3, 1DMK4, 1NRS, 5DMK4, 16-35 4.0, 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8 II, 70-300 4-5.6L, , 17-85, 50 1.8, 18-200, 135L, Mamyia 645AF, Metz 60-Ct-1, Metz 58

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
James ­ P
Goldmember
Avatar
1,874 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 120
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Chatham, Ontario, Canada
     
May 12, 2018 06:00 |  #5

dmead516 wrote in post #18623900 (external link)
Actually I was very happy with the 24-70 I had, just wanted the newer model, and just keeping my options open. I guess my only real issue would be the fact that I would have to keep changing lenses if I wanted a close up shot as I believe the 35 would allow a lot of distortion, but I have nothing to back that up.

I have the Canon 24-70II and I couldn't be happier with it. It is the best zoom lens I've ever owned. Just my two cents worth.


1Dx - 5DIII - 40D - Canon 24-70LII, 100L macro, 135L, 16-35L, 70-200 f4 and 100-400L lenses

- "Very good" is the enemy of "great." Sometimes we confuse the two.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tcphoto1
Goldmember
Avatar
1,107 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 518
Joined Sep 2005
Location: Madison, Ga
     
May 14, 2018 07:34 |  #6

I owned the 35L for a couple of years and recently sold it with the intention of buying the 35L II. The vII that I rented was sharper and had a little more contrast. I've tried the fast zooms but I guess that I like the brighter viewfinder and lighter weight of the primes. I recently purchased the 85/1.4 and will probably wait on a used 35L II later in the summer.


www.tonyclarkphoto.com (external link)
www.tcphoto.org (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Thorsten
Member
Avatar
181 posts
Gallery: 15 photos
Likes: 41
Joined Feb 2014
Location: Santa Cruz, California
     
May 29, 2018 22:48 |  #7

I think it's really a question if you need the convenience of the zoom or not. I've had the 24-70 II for a couple years and used it mostly for taking pictures in my kids' class room and their school events and such, where changing primes would have been impractical. It's a very good lens of course, flawless really, but to me it's just an "utility" lens if you know what I mean. Now that my kids are out of elementary school and I no longer do this kind of "work", I reverted back to primes (35L and now 85 IS) which I find more enjoyable to use, for the special look they provide. As it's just a hobby use for me, it does not matter if I lose a picture because I have the "wrong" prime on it. In fact when I go out to shoot I might just take one of the primes and take images that "work" with it.

Now in your case, if you do formal portraits in a studio or controlled setting where you have the time to change lenses, then I think the primes would be fine and give you more artistic control. But if you like to go out and shoot them in the park or "on location" where you move around a lot, then I'd probably still go with the zoom.

I can't comment on the 35L vs L2, I haven't used the latter. I've found the original L is plenty good enough for me.


Thorsten (external link)
Canon 5D3, 80D, 24 IS, 35L, 50/1.8 STM, 85/1.4L, 100L, 135L, 400/5.6L, 16-35/4L, 70-200/4L IS, Rokinon 12/2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kmilo
Senior Member
Avatar
265 posts
Likes: 275
Joined Nov 2009
Location: Albany, NY
     
May 30, 2018 07:10 |  #8

This is how i feel as well. It might not be true in real life, but in my mind ... I get better shots if I put limits on myself.

Thorsten wrote in post #18635514 (external link)
As it's just a hobby use for me, it does not matter if I lose a picture because I have the "wrong" prime on it. In fact when I go out to shoot I might just take one of the primes and take images that "work" with it.


Kris
Insulting critiques always welcomed. flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
UnhandledException
Hatchling
7 posts
Joined Dec 2017
     
Jun 01, 2018 12:33 |  #9

I have both 35i and 35ii and there is a substantial difference between the two. 35i needs to be stepped down 3-4 stops to be as sharp.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MaxImage
Member
54 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Hawaii
     
Jun 05, 2018 17:19 |  #10

Though I have no experience with the 35L Mark I, the Mark II version is extremely sharp. It is perhaps my most used lens on my M3 as a walk around, and gets a good amount of use on full frame as well. IHMO it was well worth the purchase and have had it for (maybe) a couple of years now, with extensive use as a travel lens. For general portraiture, I can't say that I love it as I like the more compressed background of longer lenses (85L, 135L, 70-200, etc), and because it gets much more use at shorter distance to my subject (read: I often don't have the luxury to back up far enough to frame for a portrait correctly when this lens is being used), it doesn't suit my purposes of a "great" portraiture lens. That said, it doesn't mean in any way that it can't be used as one. For controlled environments, I think you'd be very pleased with the results.

Having both the 24-70 2.8 Mark I and II, my II is sharper and the dynamic range appears greater.

But seeing as your use is mainly for seniors and portraits, if the 35L fits into your shooting style, my vote would be for it over the 24-70 2.8 in either version. To reiterate what Thorsten above, said, I too believe it comes down to Clarity (35) vs Convenience (24-70).




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ronny
Member
Avatar
62 posts
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Jakarta
     
Jul 04, 2018 23:43 |  #11

I'm a prime guy, so take my word as a grain of salt. I have the 35II and original 35L. I sold the original 35L because the mkII significantly better at 1.4 both sharpness and bokeh quality. AF acurracy also improved with my 5d3. If you planed to buy 85mm 1,4 IS, its better have 35II than 24-70II. 35mm 1.4 prime have that "unique" look. I used to have 24-70mm, its good performer. But since i bought 35L, the 24-70 rarely used and at the end I sold it.


EOS 5D Mark II| EOS 7D |580EX | EF 35mm f/1.4L USM | EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM | TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II | EF 50mm f/1.2L USM | EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ah-keong
Senior Member
Avatar
658 posts
Gallery: 35 photos
Likes: 504
Joined Apr 2016
     
Jul 05, 2018 05:04 |  #12

I would recommend both the 35L mark II and the 85mm f/1,4L IS....

But the 85mm f/1,2L mark II is magical....


Canon 7D Mark II | BG-E16 | Canon EF-S 10-18mm | Sigma DC 18-35mm ART | Canon EF 70-200mm f/2,8L IS II | Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/100mm ZE | Zeiss Distagon T* 2/35mm ZE
Canon Speedlite 430EX III-RT | 600EX-RT
Olympus E-PL3 | M.Zuiko ED 7-14mm PRO
Manfrotto BeFree Travel Tripod |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Patrick ­ H
Member
124 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 22
Joined Aug 2013
     
Jul 10, 2018 18:04 |  #13

Ah-keong wrote in post #18656694 (external link)
I would recommend both the 35L mark II and the 85mm f/1,4L IS....

My sentiment exactly.

I found the i sharp but the ii has better contrast whch comes in handy if you end up cropping. And portraits are just gorgeous.

I have a 16-35f4 as well. At first I liked the short end, but I get as good results with the prime and stitching. And with a turn of the dial I have 1.4....


5D mkIV | 35Lii | 135L | + some zooms.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ah-keong
Senior Member
Avatar
658 posts
Gallery: 35 photos
Likes: 504
Joined Apr 2016
Post edited 1 month ago by Ah-keong. (3 edits in all)
     
Jul 11, 2018 04:02 |  #14

Patrick H wrote in post #18660128 (external link)
My sentiment exactly.

I found the i sharp but the ii has better contrast whch comes in handy if you end up cropping. And portraits are just gorgeous.

I have a 16-35f4 as well. At first I liked the short end, but I get as good results with the prime and stitching. And with a turn of the dial I have 1.4....

I "feel" that the 35mm mark i and the 85mm f/1,2L has a more 3 dimensional render output.
or a better "local-contrast" or "micro-contrast"

My preference maybe, but I like those low element count prime lens ....

Canon 50mm f/1,2L; 85mm f/1,2L; 35mm f/1,4L mark I; 135mm f/2L; 24mm f/1,4L mark II

:p


Canon 7D Mark II | BG-E16 | Canon EF-S 10-18mm | Sigma DC 18-35mm ART | Canon EF 70-200mm f/2,8L IS II | Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/100mm ZE | Zeiss Distagon T* 2/35mm ZE
Canon Speedlite 430EX III-RT | 600EX-RT
Olympus E-PL3 | M.Zuiko ED 7-14mm PRO
Manfrotto BeFree Travel Tripod |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
daisan
Member
Avatar
37 posts
Gallery: 23 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 235
Joined Jun 2018
Location: Norwich, UK
     
Jul 11, 2018 05:02 |  #15

You might want to consider the Sigma Art lenses instead - I've owned the 35L (mark i) and all the Canon 50's before (1.2, 1.4, 1.8) and the Sigma versions beat them all in terms of sharpness and focus accuracy. And they're much cheaper of course. I can't speak for the 85's.


Duncan Kerridge
Norfolk Wedding Photographer (external link)
My Facebook (external link)
500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1,995 views & 4 likes for this thread
35L, 85L, 24-70?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Bill_NY
743 guests, 336 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.