# Canon 24-70 2.8 ii or 35mm 1.4 ii



## Ryan85 (Mar 10, 2016)

I find I really shoot a lot at 35mm. I like having the zoom range but really thinking about going with the 35mm ii for the 2 extra stops. I'd probably have to sell the 24-70 to justify the cost. Any thoughts?


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 10, 2016)

Get the 35 f2 IS instead, only one stop more speed, but the IS helps a lot and in most situations will give you a 'better' image than another stop less dof.

The size and weight advantage of the f2 IS is substantial and you won't have to sell the 24-70 to get it.

This is what I did and couldn't be happier.


----------



## Ryan85 (Mar 10, 2016)

Thanks for the advice. On the f2 how's the image quality wide open and does it focus fast?


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 10, 2016)

Ryan85 said:


> Thanks for the advice. On the f2 how's the image quality wide open and does it focus fast?



All these things are subjective, but yes it is plenty sharp enough and plenty fast enough to focus.


----------



## Ryan85 (Mar 10, 2016)

Thank you.


----------



## Larsskv (Mar 10, 2016)

I have the same dilemma. I consider selling the 24-70f/2.8 LII to fund the 35mm f1.4LII. I have the 35 f/2. It is a very good lens, but I miss the color and contrast that many L-lenses have. I find that when needing that f/2.8 aperture, I always wish for an even larger aperture, such as f/1.4. For daytime use, when there is enough light, the 24-70f/4L IS is 97 percent as good as the f/2.8, but in a smaller and lighter package. 

At the same time, that 24-70 f/2.8 LII is too good to be parted with... I will probably end up saving for the 35LII...


----------



## wallstreetoneil (Mar 10, 2016)

i own the 35L II it is amazing - but so is the 24-70 F2.8 II - i would never sell one to buy the other

there a few big differences between the 35L ii and the 35F2
- weight is a huge difference
- weather sealing
- 35L II is tack sharp almost across the entire frame at F1.4 (it is stunning)
- the 35F2 is not tack sharp at F2 but is at F2.2 - but it is acceptably sharp at F2
- the 35F2 is not sharp across the frame at F2 like the 35L II is at 1.4 so you get the traditional center sharp rendering effect
- the IS on the 35F2 is excellent

If you use the 24-70 F2.8 II don't sell it - you will regret it.

The Sigma 1.4, the Tamron 1.8 or the Canon F2 are all good cheaper alternatives.


----------



## Viggo (Mar 10, 2016)

I sold the 24-70 II to get the 35 L II. I combined it with the 85 L II instead since I don't need the zoom to not miss a shot for a client. Haven't regretted it for 0.5 seconds.


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 10, 2016)

Should I trade my minivan for a sedan? 8)


----------



## takesome1 (Mar 10, 2016)

This really is a decision only you can make. In my world this is a "do I add" question, not a "do I replace" question.

I sold the 35mm L f/1.4 not long ago and bought the version II. It is an awesome lens.
I have owned the 24-70 II since release. 

The 35mm original I used when I wanted that special feel that you can only get with the 35mm at f/1.8 or wider.
I use the new version exactly the same way. I can tell you it doesn't get used often. In my toolbox I see it as a specialty lens.

The 24-70mm II stays on my camera and goes everywhere. 

If you are looking at specializing at 35mm then it would be a no contest, go for the 35mm. For all else, stick with the 24-70 II.


----------



## NancyP (Mar 11, 2016)

I like the Sigma Art 35, but then again, I have had decent AF results, and I also use it a lot for MF. 

It all depends on your work style. Currently I work with primes. Occasionally I wish I had a zoom, mostly for situations where I don't want to change lenses or don't want to haul a lot of gear.


----------



## JohnUSA (Mar 11, 2016)

Another super happy 35mm f2 IS user. Sharp wide open, focus is accurate and fast. IS is excellent. Also it's 25% the price of the 35mm f1.4 II.


----------



## gary samples (Mar 11, 2016)

my two cents 
24-70 II if you need the last 5% of image quality go for the 35
if not its a no brainer!!


----------



## Larsskv (Apr 13, 2016)

Today I sold my 24-70 f/2.8LII and bought a 35mm f/1.4 LII. I got a good price on a barely used one. I will get it friday. I can´t wait!!


----------



## Cheekysascha (Apr 13, 2016)

Been struggling with this problem as well, I own both the 35mm 1.4 II and the 24-70 2.8 II the main advantage to the prime for me is the 1.4 aperture and the way it forces me to plan my shot more and walk around more with it versus the 24-70 making me lazy? in a way as I can just zoom thus not really moving around and checking if theres a better place to get the shot from.

However the convenience of a zoom with the 24-70mm is also a great thing as I tend to take my gear in very rough conditions where the sensor/mirror box get very dirty very fast so not having to switch lenses that much is a real blessing at times.

My advice go for the 35mm 1.4 ii if you're looking to do something different with your photography as the look you get from it is something truly magical and it's sharpness at f1.4 is incredible, but if you don't need that then the 24-70 2.8 ii is the best option as it is one of the best lenses Canon has ever made IMO.


----------



## Larsskv (Apr 13, 2016)

Cheekysascha said:


> Been struggling with this problem as well, I own both the 35mm 1.4 II and the 24-70 2.8 II the main advantage to the prime for me is the 1.4 aperture and the way it forces me to plan my shot more and walk around more with it versus the 24-70 making me lazy? in a way as I can just zoom thus not really moving around and checking if theres a better place to get the shot from.
> 
> However the convenience of a zoom with the 24-70mm is also a great thing as I tend to take my gear in very rough conditions where the sensor/mirror box get very dirty very fast so not having to switch lenses that much is a real blessing at times.
> 
> My advice go for the 35mm 1.4 ii if you're looking to do something different with your photography as the look you get from it is something truly magical and it's sharpness at f1.4 is incredible, but if you don't need that then the 24-70 2.8 ii is the best option as it is one of the best lenses Canon has ever made IMO.



I found that I rarely used the 24-70 at f/2.8. When shooting in low light I want a prime. When shooting in daylight I usually pick the 16-35 f/4 L IS, or the 24-70 f/4 L IS. When stopped down the difference in performance between the two 24-70s is negligible, in my opinion. Therefore, the 24-70 f/2.8 didn't see that much use, but I was always impressed with it's results. I may have to get another when finances allows it.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 13, 2016)

I've never understood this particular argument. If you need or want both then you need to save and buy both. But they are completely different lenses and have very little over lap in abilities. If you go down the fast prime route...then you will need a 24IIL, a 35IIL and a 85IIL to cover a similar focal range to the 24-70 II L. You will gain several stops and it's way easier to melt a background or isolate a subject when working with such slim DOF...which is really tricky too. BUT juggling three primes is a) heavy b) expensive C) inconvenient. The zoom (if you can make it work for you) is a lot lighter, cheaper and far more versatile. I have both and there's a need for both.


----------



## d (Apr 14, 2016)

I would only sell off the 24-70 if you're not really taking many shots with it around both 24mm and 70mm i.e. most shots are falling into the 30mm - 50mm range. Both are stellar lenses, but the 35mm 1.4L II, while amazing at what it does, only does that one thing - you'd be giving up a lot of versatility in losing the 24-70. 

Perhaps try this for a day or two of shoot - use a thick rubber band or a couple of pieces of gaffer tape to hold the zoom ring at 35mm on the 24-70, and just see how you like shooting at that one focal length for a while.

I love my 35L II, and have never owned Canon's 24-70L II (though I've used plenty of copies in studios and on location a few times), but as others have said, it's probably only worth the switch if you need or really want that last 5% of performance.

Cheers,
d.


----------



## Pookie (Apr 14, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I've never understood this particular argument. If you need or want both then you need to save and buy both. But they are completely different lenses and have very little over lap in abilities. If you go down the fast prime route...then you will need a 24IIL, a 35IIL and a 85IIL to cover a similar focal range to the 24-70 II L. You will gain several stops and it's way easier to melt a background or isolate a subject when working with such slim DOF...which is really tricky too. BUT juggling three primes is a) heavy b) expensive C) inconvenient. The zoom (if you can make it work for you) is a lot lighter, cheaper and far more versatile. I have both and there's a need for both.



Exactly !!! One does not replace the other. Never understood this line of thinking unless cost is a huge problem and if that's the case maybe you shouldn't be buying these types of lenses when other perfectly fine options are available...


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Apr 14, 2016)

I'm with Pookie and GMC.

I've owned both. As time goes on, I'm getting a bit more frugal and common sense. I sold the 35 f/1.4L a long time ago after I got the 24-70 f/2.8L II. If you get a good copy of the 24-70, it will replace most of your other lenses for most needs. OTOH, if you have a _specific_ subject or need that only a high end prime will satisfy, by all means, get the prime!

If you're not sure, RENT IT FIRST! Don't sell, buy or commit until you're sure after using it.

Keep in mind also that as camera bodies get better and better, esp with respect to High ISO, the need for a expensive general purpose f/2.8 zoom decreases unless it's the finer DOF isolation that you are after. And if that's the case, the extra fast prime may be the better way to go if you're not primarily compensating for low light. See? Two different situations, two different lenses.

If you are seeking a less expensive but highest L quality kit that will provide the most flexibility... Get a 5D3, 24-70 f/2.8 II and a 70-200 f/2.8 II and call it a day. Add a specialty EF lens or two to the mix for fun and you're good to go. Something like the 40 pancake, 35 f/2 or 50 f/1.4. Or even the 85 f/1.8. I love my EF 15mm f/2.8 FishEye too!

In fact, as good as L lenses are, you will be hard pressed to tell a practical difference in the quality of most EF lenses when compared to L. Sure it's there but will anyone else see it? Part of the reason I own mostly L lenses is due to my outdoor use and the fact that L lenses hold their value very well so when I want to sell one, I will probably get 70-90% of my investment back. (Esp if I buy it used to start with.) Heck, I've even made profit on a couple of lenses I bought used and sold after a couple years.

Of course, if you're just in it for the fun like me, maybe buying L lenses is just what you want to do. I get it. I love L lenses but I'm not kidding myself. I could make do with mostly EF lenses. I'm not a big time pro. I'm just an addicted enthusiast that shoots tens of thousands of images a year for free and most pros probably love to hate. LOL! 8)


----------



## AlanF (Apr 14, 2016)

wallstreetoneil said:


> i own the 35L II it is amazing - but so is the 24-70 F2.8 II - i would never sell one to buy the other
> 
> there a few big differences between the 35L ii and the 35F2
> - weight is a huge difference
> ...



Bought a 35f/2 IS for my current trip. Tested it on a group photo. Faces in centre tack sharp, on the right edge soft, and on the left appalling. Tested against charts showed bad decentering. Sent back and travelling with M and 22mm f/2.


----------



## Larsskv (Apr 14, 2016)

Pookie said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > I've never understood this particular argument. If you need or want both then you need to save and buy both. But they are completely different lenses and have very little over lap in abilities. If you go down the fast prime route...then you will need a 24IIL, a 35IIL and a 85IIL to cover a similar focal range to the 24-70 II L. You will gain several stops and it's way easier to melt a background or isolate a subject when working with such slim DOF...which is really tricky too. BUT juggling three primes is a) heavy b) expensive C) inconvenient. The zoom (if you can make it work for you) is a lot lighter, cheaper and far more versatile. I have both and there's a need for both.
> ...



I think I explained my decision perfectly. I have the 24-70 f/4 L IS which is 97 percent as good as the f/2.8, when stopped down. I often prefer the f4 for it smaller size and weight. 

I found myself not shooting the 24-70 f/2.8 at f2.8 very much. I mainly used smaller apertures, and prefer a prime for low light or shallow DOF, and therefore MY need for it wasn't big enough.

I believe that if I were a professional, and especially if I shot weddings, I would see the 24-70 f2.8 as a must have lens.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 16, 2016)

wallstreetoneil said:


> i own the 35L II it is amazing - but so is the 24-70 F2.8 II - i would never sell one to buy the other
> 
> there a few big differences between the 35L ii and the 35F2
> - weight is a huge difference
> ...



For some, insane sharpness isn't the be all and end all of a useful lens. I have a sterling copies of the 24-70L and 35L. I've never found them lacking sharpness and I've been using both for well over 9 years in a professional capacity.


----------



## bholliman (Apr 21, 2016)

AlanF said:


> wallstreetoneil said:
> 
> 
> > i own the 35L II it is amazing - but so is the 24-70 F2.8 II - i would never sell one to buy the other
> ...



Sorry for your bad experience with a bad copy. I'm sure this put a damper on your trip.

I really love my 35 f/2 IS and am very happy with the results. The center is very sharp wide open and the corners by f/2.2 are really good. I know there are better 35's optically, but the small size, excellent IS and very good IQ at a reasonable price make the 35 f2 IS one of Canon's best lenses for the money IMHO.


----------



## j-nord (Apr 21, 2016)

Larsskv said:


> Pookie said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...



I agree the 24-70 f4 is "good enough" in a lot of scenarios. However, I picked up the f4 over the f2.8 for just about every reason other than IQ (IS, 0.70x macro, price, 77mm filter, size, weight, etc). I think the 2.8 is still noticeably sharper even at f8 or f11. I'll definitely part with the f4 for a 24-70 2.8 IS or a 24-105ii. For me, for this type of lens, IS is #1 priority and sharpness is #2. I may even consider the 24 IS + another prime but there is no 50-85 IS yet.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 21, 2016)

Here's an example of why I sold the 24-70 and have the 35. These kind of shots is a snapshot at 2.8 or smaller, and with the great pop and 3D feel at 1.4. Shot with the Profoto B1 camera left and sun high right.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 22, 2016)

Well, I intentionally chose the zoom route for my lenses... because of total cost. I can say I am not disappointed at all. Canon's EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II is just so sharp. If I ever get the money, then I might add the primes. I now own only one prime... Canon's EF 135mm F/2L and it is wonderful, but too long for confined areas where I wouldn't use it anyway.

I do understand wanting short primes in restricted environments, but I cannot find any reason to choose such a short prime for outdoors during the day at that wide aperture. I know nobody is shooting at F/1.4 in the midday sun (Or, I wouldn't think so.) so I don't see the point as far as shooting outdoors. The again, I still have much to learn.

One would probably have to stop down, distance to background is probably huge... I just cannot see the advantage of the 35 over the 24-70 outdoors during the day. I may be wrong, but I don't see it. I would happily accept suggestions as to why the 35 would be an advantage outdoors during the day. If somebody could tell me the advantage I would be happy to learn. There are many pros here, so I'm willing to listen to any instruction at all.

I would think the 35mm is more an indoor lens when used at wide apertures below f/2.8. If outdoors at night... maybe I can see the advantage, but if flash is used at all I cannot.

I'm just a dumb rookie though. 

Please, nobody take this as a hit on your own opinions. This is just what I have determined for myself. I do not do a lot of indoor photography at all. If I did, I would use flash. I have a lot of flash.

Canon EF 24-70mm II below. I'm just a hobbyist so don't be too harsh. I will never sell the 24-70. It is a fantastic lens. The photo may look a little "cooked" because of my post work, but I am extremely happy with the sharpness. I can't imagine it being sharper. I couldn't be happier and the depth of field is fine with me. This was at f/7.1 @ 1/200th sec so I could have really opened up the aperture and run HSS. The background is far enough away that there is plenty of separation so no need to open so wide.

This is focusing in near darkness (The subject is silhouetted by the impending sunrise) with no focus assist, but with AF, not manual focus. Flashpoint Streaklight 360ws with Cells II trigger, so HSS was possible.(Shoulda got three of these instead of so many 600EXs).

It doesn't show well unless you click on it. Not on my end anyway.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 22, 2016)

CanonFanBoy: I just in the post before yours demonstrated a wide open shot in midday sun, which I do A LOT, almost always with flash.

My son and I went to the zoo day, same story there I isolate him in the surroundings with the fast apertures while keeping a lot of the surroundings with the wide angle. 

I don't use 1.4 for low light, I use it for shallow dof.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 22, 2016)

Viggo said:


> CanonFanBoy: I just in the post before yours demonstrated a wide open shot in midday sun, which I do A LOT, almost always with flash.
> 
> My son and I went to the zoo day, same story there I isolate him in the surroundings with the fast apertures while keeping a lot of the surroundings with the wide angle.
> 
> I don't use 1.4 for low light, I use it for shallow dof.



Nice shot, and I understand.


----------



## d (Apr 22, 2016)

Both nice shots, Viggo and CFB!

Viggo...you took a B1 to the Zoo?! Is it on a stand or do you hand-hold?

d.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 22, 2016)

d said:


> Both nice shots, Viggo and CFB!
> 
> Viggo...you took a B1 to the Zoo?! Is it on a stand or do you hand-hold?
> 
> d.



No B1 to the zoo, but o thought long and hard about it. Have thought about buying the standard reflector and bring it even more with without a stand, since the Magnum is a bit large.


----------



## Pookie (Apr 23, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I do understand wanting short primes in restricted environments, but I cannot find any reason to choose such a short prime for outdoors during the day at that wide aperture. I know nobody is shooting at F/1.4 in the midday sun (Or, I wouldn't think so.) so I don't see the point as far as shooting outdoors. The again, I still have much to learn.



Come on CFB... you know nobody shooting wide open ( or near) primes in mid-day sun 

This is how I make money everyday... using both B1's and Eli's. I don't have the new 35 but use the old one quite often. I now stick to the 50 as my shortest FL for portraiture because I love the look of the 50 better than the 35 FL. For enviro portraiture the 35 is a good choice if you have interesting bg but want to isolate your subject. If you don't have enough stuff to fill the foreground/bg it looks a little too empty for my tastes.

On a side note... the old 35 was considered one of the sharpest prime out and is still no slouch. Love it when people go all doe-eyed for the latest and greatest. I bought a near new 35L for under 500 a few months ago because someone absolutely had to have the new version.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 23, 2016)

Pookie said:


> On a side note... the old 35 was considered one of the sharpest prime out and is still no slouch. Love it when people go all doe-eyed for the latest and greatest. I bought a near new 35L for under 500 a few months ago because someone absolutely had to have the new version.



Don't think anybody in their right mind ever considered the 35L MkI to be _"one of the sharpest prime out"_ http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=121&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=994&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0 and the CA from it was very noticeable too.

The MkII lens is a quantum jump in image quality over the MkI, not saying a good image can't be shot with the MkI, but from a technical point of view the MkII is considerably 'better' and vastly more capable of delivering much higher image quality.


----------



## Pookie (Apr 23, 2016)

Viggo said:


> d said:
> 
> 
> > Both nice shots, Viggo and CFB!
> ...



That would be interesting... in SF you'd get the boot quickly for flash photography of that type at the zoo. Speedlites maybe but a B1 or Eli would get you into real trouble. I've done event work at the zoo a few times (both after and during business hours) in SF and Oakland... it was expressly forbidden to protect the animals. Also most places like that have a rules specifically for "professional gear" and you'd need a release to even get through the doors. At least in California, not sure where you live. It has become especially prevalent in the last few years in many places where it used to be "ok". The biggest one I can think of is Filoli Estates here in NorCal. Great site where you used to be able to take your family or clients for photos with all kinds of gear... not anymore, you get pounced on immediately as you get out of your car in the parking lot. A real shame but also understandable as many times you had to swim through photogs just to see the gardens. 

Can't do this anymore... 2012 it was cool, 2013 negative


----------



## Pookie (Apr 23, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> Pookie said:
> 
> 
> > On a side note... the old 35 was considered one of the sharpest prime out and is still no slouch. Love it when people go all doe-eyed for the latest and greatest. I bought a near new 35L for under 500 a few months ago because someone absolutely had to have the new version.
> ...



I'm sure it is but the original is quite good. In 2005 when I bought my first one it was considered one of the sharpest primes out and a staple of every wedding photographers kit.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 23, 2016)

I used a few MkI's and was never impressed, ended up with the 35 f2 IS which has considerably higher IQ than the MkI 35L and is cheaper, lighter and has IS, but it is that one stop slower. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=121&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=824&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## Pookie (Apr 23, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> I used a few MkI's and was never impressed, ended up with the 35 f2 IS which has considerably higher IQ than the MkI 35L and is cheaper, lighter and has IS, but it is that one stop slower. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=121&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=824&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0



I've had 3 over the years and was never let down by it. Had a second shooter destroy one, sold the older ones but this last one is practically new. Too good a deal to pass up.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 23, 2016)

Pookie said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I used a few MkI's and was never impressed, ended up with the 35 f2 IS which has considerably higher IQ than the MkI 35L and is cheaper, lighter and has IS, but it is that one stop slower. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=121&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=824&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
> ...



I have had 8-10 35 L's for a shorter or longer periods, and my take on it is that you're both right, even with MF and live view and careful calibration some 35 L's are VERY soft, like the 50 f1.4 or worse, and others are very sharp wide open. The copy variations are strong with that one 8)


----------



## Viggo (Apr 23, 2016)

Just a sidenote: I never planned or never have shot the animals with flash, it was meant for my son on some of the other activities or just with the surroundings. We live 7 minutes from the most popular zoo in Norway. 

No limit to gear I can bring either. Both my 300 f2.8 IS and 200 f2 have been with me and the only reaction I get from staff or other visitors are comments are on the funa and friendly side.


----------



## d (Apr 23, 2016)

Viggo said:


> Just a sidenote: I never planned or never have shot the animals with flash, it was meant for my son on some of the other activities or just with the surroundings. We live 7 minutes from the most popular zoo in Norway.
> 
> No limit to gear I can bring either. Both my 300 f2.8 IS and 200 f2 have been with me and the only reaction I get from staff or other visitors are comments are on the funa and friendly side.



Last time I took a 300mm 2.8 to the zoo I was tracking zebras and tripped over a bench seat I hadn't noticed. Lens took a hit to the MF ring, knocking it out of round and making MF difficult.  I was heartbroken.


----------



## Maiaibing (Apr 25, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> The zoom (if you can make it work for you) is a lot lighter, cheaper and far more versatile.



Zooms are not more versatile. You gain flexible framing - but you loose out out two key dimensions:

1) as you note your self - with a fast prime you can create a wider range of photographic visual impressions than with the zoom. And visual impact is certainly what most photography is about.

2) you gain more time - each and every single day - to shoot when you use a fast prime. Where I live around 11/2 to 2 1/2 hours per day (depending on the season) between a f/2.8 and f/1.4 lens. In addition there are all the times you cannot substitute for lack of light with a flash such as in a museum. I do not know about others, but for me lack of time is the most limiting factor for my photography. 

So primes and zooms are versatile in different ways. 

Most people will thus gain much more photographic options and impact by adding a fast cheap prime to their kit such as the 50mm f/1.8 (if not already there) than by spending $$$ upgrading to the next camera body generation.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 25, 2016)

d said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Just a sidenote: I never planned or never have shot the animals with flash, it was meant for my son on some of the other activities or just with the surroundings. We live 7 minutes from the most popular zoo in Norway.
> ...



Ouch! That sucks! At least you didn't knock your teeth out...


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 25, 2016)

Pookie said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > I do understand wanting short primes in restricted environments, but I cannot find any reason to choose such a short prime for outdoors during the day at that wide aperture. I know nobody is shooting at F/1.4 in the midday sun (Or, I wouldn't think so.) so I don't see the point as far as shooting outdoors. The again, I still have much to learn.
> ...



I didn't realize that Pookie. I'm usually hunting for shade at midday and using the flash in the shade.  I don't have those powerful strobes either. 

So, I guess you are the guy I know. I may have to rethink my thinking. I have the 135 f/2L, but I have not used it in the bright sun at f/2. ND filter and lots of flash might be what I'll have to try. Looking at the Flashpoint 600ws flash. Never should have bought so many 600 EX-RT. Just too cumbersome to gang together and still not much power against the sun. I thought I was buying the right stuff at the time.

I had forgotten you use the 85mm, and was not aware of your 35mm. Good to know.

See! I told y'all I needed instruction!  Always willing to listen.

I just don't get out much. I've not used my 6 stop ND at all yet. Keep forgetting. That and I live in a tiny town with scant few volunteers. 

Some photos I have seen shot that way have very harsh shadows. (Not yours Pookie. You know I admire your work.) I don't like harsh shadows. I'll just have to keep experimenting

I don't know. To me, I would have thought a 35mm too short for portraits. At least a 50? Again, I have much to learn. 

Viggo, I know you use the lens wide open because you showed it in your post and the exif says you are at f/1.4 and 1/8000th of a second. The shadow just looks harsh to me. I am not knocking the photo at all. I just like a softer look at the dividing line between the light and the shadow. Is the B1 to your son's left or right? I'm just trying to get an idea of the setup, whether an ND filter was used, where the sun was, etc. I assume the sun was overhead and the B1 to his left?

Pookie is a real pro and I am just a hobbyist who has a very hard time finding subjects. I guess I could practice on statues around town, but they will want me to buy permits for that and won't give me a proper idea of how things look on a real person. If I still had a child at home things would be easier.

By the way, good looking son!


----------



## Viggo (Apr 25, 2016)

Don't be afraid of harsh shadows, only shadows create shape, not light. And the whole trick is to control the shadows.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 25, 2016)

Viggo said:


> Don't be afraid of harsh shadows, only shadows create shape, not light. And the whole trick is to control the shadows.



Very true.


----------



## Jerryrigged (Jul 16, 2016)

Viggo said:


> I sold the 24-70 II to get the 35 L II. I combined it with the 85 L II instead since I don't need the zoom to not miss a shot for a client. Haven't regretted it for 0.5 seconds.



I own both. 24-70 doesn't really get used much. The 35mm f/1.4L II is an amazing lens! Easiest lens I've ever shot with... very fast focus, sharpness perfect across the frame at f/1.4, beautiful bokeh, ability to shoot in almost compete darkness. I'm keeping the 24-70 for now - the focal range is really nice... but as a practical matter, I rarely use it!


----------



## Jerryrigged (Jul 17, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> wallstreetoneil said:
> 
> 
> > i own the 35L II it is amazing - but so is the 24-70 F2.8 II - i would never sell one to buy the other
> ...



Prime example: 50mm f/1.2L. This is certainly not the sharpest lens. It has adequate sharpness in the center wide open, but has beautiful bokeh and creates very beautiful images. It is, however, something of a specialty lens in that regard. If I am shooting group shots or something less arty, I'd use my 35mm f/1.4L II or 70-200 f/2.8L IS II for excellent sharpness across the frame - whether wide open or stopped down.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 18, 2016)

Don't understand why anyone would sell an EF 24-70 f/2.8L II to get a 35 f/1.4L II. Save $$$ and have both. They are different enough. I really wish I could have both.

Don't understand that a zoom makes one lazy and inhibits shot planning or forces one to do anything. Crop sensor cameras don't make us lazy do they?

If one must be forced by a lens to do something then one is already lazy. Just set the 24-70 @ 35mm, slap on a piece of gaffers tape, and force oneself to pretend there is a prime 35mm attached. You are a photographer. If one feels forced into having to do something just because one has a zoom or prime attached, one has a personal problem, not a lens problem.

I really don't understand the lazy part (I read that statement a lot in zoom vs prime discussions.). Every shot should be planned. I have no idea how a zoom takes any of that away. No idea at all. We don't plan where to stand or which focal length to use? Please. When one chooses to shoot at 35mm he has chosen a focal length to shoot at. Same with a zoom. Depth of field is affected by focal length, aperture, and distance to the subject. It seems a zoom has a distinct advantage here with its much better variability.

Pro for zoom? 
1. Far more versatility. 
2. Fewer lens changes.
3. Cost: $1,799 (B&H) (Same price as the single prime.)


Con for zoom?
1. Weight? (24-70 II = 28.4 oz.) (1.68 oz heavier. Non-issue)
2. Smaller aperture: f/2.8
3. No IS.
4. Makes one lazy (Personal problem, not a lens problem.)

Pro for Prime (35mm f/1.4L II)
1. Weight 26.72 oz (1.68 oz lighter. Non-issue)
2. Larger Aperture: f/1.4 Possible benefit for portraits, but not if one is stopping down to f/2.8 anyway. For low light? I don't know. Very thin depth of field may outweigh wide aperture difference. I might have to rent one since I've never used it.
3. Keeps one from being lazy (No it doesn't.)
4. Forces one to plan shots more better (No it doesn't.).
5. I can zoom with my feet. (Not always, you can't.).

Con for Prime
1. Cost: $1,799 (B&H) (Same price as the zoom.) Cost for two primes? About double... close to $3,600.
2. Far less versatile. One will be forced to buy more primes. The weight advantage (1.68 oz), in the long run, is a complete myth. One will have to carry another lens at least sometimes.
3. No IS.
4. "I can zoom with my feet." Not always you can't.
5. More lens changes.

So really the choice is aperture (Valid consideration), and your financial tolerance for buying more primes to fill in the gaps (Another valid consideration). Laziness, weight, and one to one costs are non-issues. Weight becomes a very real issue if you are having to carry more primes. 35mm alone doesn't always cut it. 

Cost advantage goes to the zoom for sure. 

Laziness? Not being careful planning a shot or the proper focal length for the shot? A lens can't fix that.

Sharpness? It is very hard to beat the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II in the sharpness dept. I'd like to see a real world comparison between the two.

I think that if you want the 35 f/1.4 II you should get it, but don't look at it as a replacement for the 24-70 f/2.8L II. It isn't. 

The 35mm isn't going to make you a better photographer, help you lose weight, make you less lazy, or turn your feet into a zoom lens motor. It is a great lens, but your costs for the shorter end of things will at least double and possibly triple.

It is all personal choice. Good luck to you!


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 18, 2016)

Jerryrigged said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > wallstreetoneil said:
> ...



My EF 24-70 f/2.8L II is so sharp that when the angle of the sun is just right I have to be very careful pulling it out from the bag. One day its shadow nearly sliced the subject's foot clean off. Blood was everywhere. Surgeons had to be called in. What a mess. Liability insurance is a must.

Only pull some lenses out in the shade. Just sayin'.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jul 18, 2016)

If you love shooting at the wider end of the 24-70 range then there is more trouble in trying to replace it with the 35mm prime. The only way I can think of to get wider would be stitching. If you use the wider-end for more static subjects (maybe some sorts of landscape photography) then stitching could be a viable option but if you use the wide-end for more action-oriented shooting then the wider angle of the zoom could be more critical.

If you are comfortable with cropping into images in post-, then you can simulate 35-70mm range of the zoom, assuming you don't need maximum resolution.

For example lets say you are shooting with the 5Ds R... so the 35mm f/1.4 image with 1.4x crop will give you effectively a 50mm f/2 image of roughly 25MP, while 2x crop will effectively result in a 70mm f/2.8 image of roughly 12MP. Conversely, if you are shooting with the more modest 6D resolution, then 1.4x crop gives 10MP and 2x crop gives 5MP. Do those resolutions satisfy your output requirements?

Whether cropping and stitching will work for you is really a personal decision, but ideally you want to be using the 35mm as a 35mm, and only cropping if you really cannot avoid it. 

Having shot some events in very low light, I find f/1.4 incredibly valuable especially with a slightly wider angle of view. I personally find that 24mm tends to be too wide for people shots, but 35 seems like a sweet spot. I usually ended up shooting more loosely and cropping my 24mm shots into 35mm in post- (see attached). So for my personal full frame shooting preferences, I can get by without 24-28mm on full frame. Whether you can live without 24-28mm is a question only you can answer.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Jul 19, 2016)

wallstreetoneil said:


> i own the 35L II it is amazing - but so is the 24-70 F2.8 II - i would never sell one to buy the other
> 
> there a few big differences between the 35L ii and the 35F2
> - weight is a huge difference
> ...


Firstly, I have to indicate that I am a hobbyst and I don't get money from photography. I elected to have the best of both and portability (travelling light) was my priority w/o sacrifying much IQ. Hence, I sold my 24-70mm f2.8L II and got the 24-70mm f/4L IS, yes, it isn't that fast in low light or great bokeh but, it has IS that helps with static subjects and bokeh isn't bad either. 
I am also a happy owner of the 35mm f/2 IS, which is a terrific lens. My copy is very sharp and IS works also wonders. I was also considering the Sigma 35A and the 35L but these are heavier and the IQ isn't galaxies apart.


----------



## SteveM (Jul 19, 2016)

Depends what you are using it for. I use the 24-70 Mk ll for weddings, for its versatility - I often couldn't change location fast enough or am not allowed to as in the ceremony, so the 24-70 range is paramount. When you take a lot of photographs cropping in camera as opposed to post is very time saving also. I carry a 35mm f1.4 principally for low light where I can't bounce flash - it doesn't get used much. 
This is just my m.o. Others may well work differently. The lens is a tool, it really does boil down to how you propose to use it the most.
Hope this helps.


----------

