Anyone "neglected" their 50/1.4 and/or 35/2 after getting 24-70L?

dear ALL,
i'm using only a 35/2 for the time being. No other EF lenses. Looking to get a 50/1.4 to do portraits (environmental, loose-cropping outdoor). But i'm hoping the 24-70L at f2.8 can do better than the 35/2 (with the option of a 50/70mm to boot) at the same aperture.

Another advantage is not having to change lens out in the field, so dust deposits may be kept to the minimum.

Any user have the same lenses, please kindly advise. Thank you.

hoe wrote in post #2055899
Another advantage is not having to change lens out in the field, so dust deposits may be kept to the minimum.

erm, you may get less dust on your sensor, but you will get dust in the zoom lens. so its a either or.

and the zoom and primes kind of do different jobs. the zoom will be good if you're always shooting with good lighting. but for depth-of-field or low light work, the primes will do better. not to forget that the primes will be sharper @ f/2.8 than the zoom will be.

but if you know what you're doing, then there's no harm getting the 24-70L.

Thanks for the advise.

Any other user experience? Thanks in advance.

My lenses are all equally ignored...since I can only use one at a time anyway. Seriously though, my 50 is the least used. Too long inside, too short most of the time outside. Too fast to sell.

I have the 50/1.4, and is a so good lens. I use it very often, as long as I can step forward or backward a few to cover the 24-70 range ... I know it is not always possible, though ...
but then, I need a walkaround lens, and the 24-70L is the lens I would like to have, but for now I can't afford it

I don't use my 50 as often as the 24-70L, it got something to do with I am focusing on lighting lately. But the 50 is always with me, at f2.8, the 50 is quite sharper than the L.

Lotto wrote in post #2083872
I don't use my 50 as often as the 24-70L, it got something to do with I am focusing on lighting lately. But the 50 is always with me, at f2.8, the 50 is quite sharper than the L.

Nice to hear from an owner of the fantastic 24-70L !!!

I have both too and they compliment each other well, especially on the 5D. The 24-70 is a really nice walkaround lens for when you feel lazy, the 50 is a really nice lens though, i generally use it when i want better results than my zoom and will have space to move, also in low light of course. I also use the 50 when i want to just challenge myself as being restricted to one focal length makes you think a lot more

Col_M wrote in post #2083962
I have both too and they compliment each other well, especially on the 5D. The 24-70 is a really nice walkaround lens for when you feel lazy, the 50 is a really nice lens though, i generally use it when i want better results than my zoom and will have space to move, also in low light of course. I also use the 50 when i want to just challenge myself as being restricted to one focal length makes you think a lot more

Thinking is way overrated.

I think if you compare shots between the 30 f2 @ F2.8 and the 24-70 @ f2.8, you'll be disappointed with the 24-70. At least, I was. The 24-70 is meant for flexibility. It's sharpness isn't AMAZING like a prime.

Another often overlooked factor is that the 35mm f2 is a very small and light lens, making it really easy to carry around at times when you just couldn't be bothered with a much heavier zoom (say you are out walking or whatever). I really like this lens and think it can produce sharper shots than most zooms, L or otherwise.

Thanks for all advise and contribution.

Even though I love my 24-70L, I feel much better if the small 50 f1.4 (or 35 f1.4L) is also in my bag.

Primes and zooms complement each other very well. You will always need a good prime for low light work, bokeh, etc., or simply for sheer quality.

The 35mm f/2.0 was practically glued to my camera for nearly six years. When I got around to getting the 24-70mm I definitely didn't pick up the ol' 35mm much at all anymore.

But the 24-70mm has a maximum aperture of f/2.8. The 35mm is a little better at f/2.0. I still wanted something really bright for available light photography... So I sprang for the 35mm f/1.4L. Now I use the 35mm prime a lot more, almost like I used to.

Depends on what you shoot and where you shoot. If you're in an unknown crime area or just want to travel light - you can't beat the awesome little 35mm f/2.0 lens.

I keep it on the D30 now (stripped of the grip) for ultra-portability.

hoe wrote in post #2055899
dear ALL,
i'm using only a 35/2 for the time being. No other EF lenses. Looking to get a 50/1.4 to do portraits (environmental, loose-cropping outdoor). But i'm hoping the 24-70L at f2.8 can do better than the 35/2 (with the option of a 50/70mm to boot) at the same aperture.

Another advantage is not having to change lens out in the field, so dust deposits may be kept to the minimum.

Any user have the same lenses, please kindly advise. Thank you.

i have the 28 1.8 and 85 1.8 and both get used less since i bought the 24-70L.

ed rader