# Can 24-70/2.8 II replace 35/1.4?



## CHL (Aug 16, 2013)

I have had the 24-70/2.8 II for a couple of months and I realise now that I have not used the 35/1.4 since. Obviously an f1.4 can do things a f2.8 can't but is DOF really an issue for a wide lens? And I have the 5D MKIII so light/ISO is not that much of a problem either. I was just about to put the 35/1.4 up for sale but I simply can not make up my mind.... Opinions are more than welcome.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 16, 2013)

I can't recall having used my 35mmL since I bought my 24-70L MK II. I love the 35L, but with my 5D MK III, I can bump the ISO a stop or two easily enough.

I may still use it in some cases, but I'm beginning to think of parting with it.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 16, 2013)

I sold my 24 f1.4 L II, my 35 and my 50 when I got the 2470 II, I have honestly not regretted it ONCE. Not once. The AF accuracy and IQ of the 2470 combined with "Always having the right focal" is just the winner for
Me.

In combo with the 70-200 it's fantastic range with fantastic everything .

Ps, and this comes from a worshipper of the 35 L, I used it for 90% of my shots.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 16, 2013)

Unless you running low in cash, I would keep the 35L for extreme low light case. Even with 24-70 II on hand, I still shoot with 50L & 85L II in darkness 

*L* lenses hold value quite well...sell now or later? It's up to you.


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 16, 2013)

I'm having the same experience with my f/2.8 II (and 70-200 f/2.8 II). Those lenses combined with my 5D MkIII have made my f/1.2, 1.4, and 2 (other than the 85 f/1.2 II) collect a lot of dust  I'm seriously considering selling my 24, 35, 50, and 135, which I couldn't even begin to imagine not too long ago. 

Unless you're shooting events (i.e. very low light where you'd be at f/2.8, 1/60s, and ISO 6400+), sports (to stop motion), need _really _shallow DOF, or require lower distortion (only real weakness of the 24-70 f/2.8 II IMHO), the 24-70 f/2.8 II will be your best bet.


----------



## Etienne (Aug 16, 2013)

Close focus, something I really like at wide angles, is apparently a problem for the 24-70 2.8 II.
But close focus is a strength of the 24 and 28 2.8 IS lenses, and probably also with the wide 1.4's


----------



## Viggo (Aug 16, 2013)

Etienne said:


> Close focus, something I really like at wide angles, is apparently a problem for the 24-70 2.8 II.
> But close focus is a strength of the 24 and 28 2.8 IS lenses, and probably also with the wide 1.4's



I also read that before I bought it, it worried me. Haven't even thought about it until you mentioned it. I shoot up close but a non-issue for me. Try the 50 L up close :


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 16, 2013)

Interesting topic, I'll be following this one! I've been considering selling my 24-70 f/2.8 Mk I in favor of a 35mm f/1.4 Sigma, but... can't justify the cost of the Sigma for the use it'll get. My 24-70 has been under heavy pressure by my 24-105 f/4 IS which is simply excellent for general purpose use (and I enjoy the added flexibility of the 70-105mm range). So what to do? I'm for sure my 24-70 has been gathering too much dust to justify keeping it, so it's up for sale - I'm waiting to get a good price. I may end up not replacing it by anything ( I have a Sigma 20 mm f/1.8, Canon 35mm f/2, Sigma 50 mm f/1.4 and Canon 50mm f/1.8 Mk I).

Anyway, still need to make up my mind...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 16, 2013)

The main reason to keep the 35/1.4L is for wide angle shots with shallow DoF - something you can't really do with the 24-70/2.8L II. At least, that's why I've hung onto mine. As a low light lens, after getting the 1D X with it's high ISO performance, f/2.8 is generally sufficient and for many situations the DoF of f/1.4 is too shallow (unless that's the look I'm going for, which it certainly is, sometimes).


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 16, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> The main reason to keep the 35/1.4L is for wide angle shots with shallow DoF - something you can't really do with the 24-70/2.8L II. At least, that's why I've hung onto mine. As a low light lens, after getting the 1D X with it's high ISO performance, f/2.8 is generally sufficient and for many situations the DoF of f/1.4 is too shallow (unless that's the look I'm going for, which it certainly is, sometimes).



That's one consideration... upgrade the lenses or the body. The 1DX is certainly something else, but wish I could chop off the grip on holidays for compactness.


----------



## drjlo (Aug 16, 2013)

Depends on use. Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II surely can replace 35L or other fast primes for shooting landscapes, studio/strobe work, product photography, etc, but for non-studio portraits, shallow DOF photography, and low-light photography, I still prefer to use 35L. My feelings may change if 24-70 could achieve at least f/2 aperture at 70 mm end, which will make for a nicer non-studio people shots for me, which is why hope the rumored Sigma 24-70 f/2 is a good one..


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 16, 2013)

Before the 24-70 II, I covered the range exclusively with primes. In good light, the 24-70 II is the choice. But when the sunlight fades or if I'm indoors, the fast primes come out. It's nice having the additional two stops of aperture to trade for DOF or ISO/shutter speed. For me, it's not the 35L that is the most threatened by the 24-70, but the 24mm prime.


----------



## WhoIreland (Aug 16, 2013)

I had similar situation . 
After buying 70-200mkii my 85Lmkii gathered dust for over a year. I sold the 85 and about a month later had a bad case of buyers remorse

But with 24-70mkii I was never tempted to sell the 35
The 35L just gets a look that the 24-70ii can't achieve.
I sold my 50/1.4 as the optics were in a lower class, but the 35L is my fave prime


----------



## bholliman (Aug 16, 2013)

Since I received my 24-70 2.8 II I don't use my 35 1.4 or 50 1.4 nearly as much on my 6D. I only use the primes when I'm looking for extremely shallow DOF now.

My 50 1.4 gets a fair amount of use these days on my EOS-M as a portrait lens.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 16, 2013)

WhoIreland said:


> I had similar situation .
> After buying 70-200mkii my 85Lmkii gathered dust for over a year. I sold the 85 and about a month later had a bad case of buyers remorse
> But with 24-70mkii I was never tempted to sell the 35
> The 35L just gets a look that the 24-70ii can't achieve.
> I sold my 50/1.4 as the optics were in a lower class, but the 35L is my fave prime



Ouch 

I hate the slow AF on my 85L II....however, everytimes I shoot portrait, 85L II is my 1st choice. The bokeh and sharpness are amazing. I hope newer version will be faster and lighter.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 16, 2013)

Think I have bought and sold and swapped between the 85 L and a 70200 six seven times. But indeed the AF just kills it for me with the 85.

I have bought a great portrait lens with great AF now, arriving tomorrow


----------



## Eldar (Aug 16, 2013)

I use the 24-70II (and the 70-200II) a lot. But I also use the 35 f1.4 (Sigma) and the 85 1.2L II (and a few other primes) a lot also . The zoom is excellent and very practical. The volume production is done with the zooms. But I get this hard-to-describe feeling of being more creative with the primes. I think more, I move more, I spend more time on composition and framing etc. When I look back at a year´s shooting, when I´m going through all the images during Christmas break, it´s almost always pictures shot with the primes that stand out. 

So I will continue to look for improvements in newer versions of the various lenses (I hope a 85mm f1.2L IS III, with improved AF speed is next), but I will always have a combination of primes and zooms. For a zoom to make a prime obsolete would mean a 24-70 f1.4L IS, which I don´t believe I´ll ever see.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 16, 2013)

Etienne said:


> Close focus, something I really like at wide angles, is apparently a problem for the 24-70 2.8 II.
> But close focus is a strength of the 24 and 28 2.8 IS lenses, and probably also with the wide 1.4's


You are right, close focus on the 24-70mmL is poor at best. Its awful. Fortunately, my 100L is good for close focus. My 24-105 which I've kept is also good at close focusing.
There is never a perfect lens.


----------



## cayenne (Aug 16, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I can't recall having used my 35mmL since I bought my 24-70L MK II. I love the 35L, but with my 5D MK III, I can bump the ISO a stop or two easily enough.
> 
> I may still use it in some cases, but I'm beginning to think of parting with it.



Would that 35L on a 5D3 make for a good video lens for the camera?

Cayenne


----------



## Etienne (Aug 16, 2013)

Viggo said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > Close focus, something I really like at wide angles, is apparently a problem for the 24-70 2.8 II.
> ...



I don't use my 50 (1.4) up close, but I really like the perspective of a close subject in a broad environment on 24mm. I may get the 24-70 2.8 II one day, but I am more interested in a 24 1.4 right now


----------



## Etienne (Aug 16, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > Close focus, something I really like at wide angles, is apparently a problem for the 24-70 2.8 II.
> ...



How close can you go at 24 mm on the 24-70? 
It's mostly in the wide that I need to focus close


----------



## Vossie (Aug 16, 2013)

Etienne said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Etienne said:
> ...



The MFD of the 24-70 2.8 ii is 380 mm; at 24mm even a bit longer.
The MFD of the 24 1.4 ii is 210 mm

So close to a 2x difference


----------



## WhoIreland (Aug 16, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> WhoIreland said:
> 
> 
> > I had similar situation .
> ...



I should've said Sellers remorse there but think you got my drift...! 

With a baby in tow I found I was losing shots with the slow focus
On the odd occasion it worked,the results were fabulous...but I was losing too many shots
70-200ii was SO sharp and such fast focus,I loved it


----------



## Vossie (Aug 16, 2013)

WhoIreland said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > WhoIreland said:
> ...



I can imagine your remorse. The 'look' that you can achieve with the 85L is much more special than what you get with the 70-200 ii. I also agree that AF performance are worlds apart between these 2 lenses.


----------



## AudioGlenn (Aug 16, 2013)

CHL said:


> I have had the 24-70/2.8 II for a couple of months and I realise now that I have not used the 35/1.4 since. Obviously an f1.4 can do things a f2.8 can't but is DOF really an issue for a wide lens? And I have the 5D MKIII so light/ISO is not that much of a problem either. I was just about to put the 35/1.4 up for sale but I simply can not make up my mind.... Opinions are more than welcome.



I sold my 35L about 2 weeks ago due to non use. I just couldn't justify keeping it after I purchased my 24-70 II. Combined with a 5d mk3, I just didn't need/use it.


----------



## Etienne (Aug 17, 2013)

Vossie said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



MFD is not the whole story. My understanding is that IQ at MFD is awful, so to get good IQ you have to have a subject some distance further than the MFD.

I wonder how far away the subject needs to be in order to get that excellent IQ the 24-70 2.8 II can deliver?


----------



## iso79 (Aug 17, 2013)

When I got my 24-70mm f/2.8 II I sold all my primes under 85mm. I don't regret it one bit.


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Aug 17, 2013)

Don't want to sell my primes even when they are covered by my zooms.
I love my 35L and 135L, they have their place when light is getting tricky or I want to have that 1.4/2.0- look.
My 2 cents.


----------



## Etienne (Aug 17, 2013)

alexanderferdinand said:


> Don't want to sell my primes even when they are covered by my zooms.
> I love my 35L and 135L, they have their place when light is getting tricky or I want to have that 1.4/2.0- look.
> My 2 cents.



I agree... I have 16-35 2.8 II, 70-200 2.8 IS II, and 24-105 f/4 zooms, and I have the 28 2.8 IS, but I keep wanting bigger aperture. My only large aperture now is the 50 1.4. My 85 1.8 was damaged, and I tried a 24 1.4 several years ago but it didn't focus reliably on my 5DII. Now with the 5DIII I'm going to give the 24 1.4 another try, and I'd like a 50 1.4 IS and an 85 1.4 IS.

Large aperture primes provide opportunities for unique shots that are not possible on the zooms.


----------



## risc32 (Aug 17, 2013)

Viggo said:


> Think I have bought and sold and swapped between the 85 L and a 70200 six seven times. But indeed the AF just kills it for me with the 85.
> 
> I have bought a great portrait lens with great AF now, arriving tomorrow



so what are you going with?


----------



## Viggo (Aug 17, 2013)

risc32 said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Think I have bought and sold and swapped between the 85 L and a 70200 six seven times. But indeed the AF just kills it for me with the 85.
> ...



It's listed below in my signature


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 17, 2013)

Viggo said:


> risc32 said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...


----------



## Viggo (Aug 17, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > risc32 said:
> ...



It's been a dream since it got released, and I even bought the 300 f2.8 instead of it, then the 135, but I just had to have it. Too dark to try here now, but it seems calibrated and good to go tomorrow. Pretty sharp at f2 ;D


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 17, 2013)

Viggo said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



Cool stuff. If anything, the most versatile big prime, and most useful for me to get, would be the 300 f/2.8 IS. But that is a whole lot of money that will also buy new bodies etc...

Anyway, enjoy! You lucky one! 8)


----------



## Viggo (Aug 17, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > mrsfotografie said:
> ...



Thanks, I will! And a used 300 mk1 is getting lower in price these days, and it is also completely insane. I loved it, I just didn't have anything to shoot at the focal.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 17, 2013)

Viggo said:


> risc32 said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



Congrats Viggo on your new toy 

I'm saving up for 400mm f2.8 IS II...otherwise 200mm f2 looks extremely yummy 

Post some pics


----------



## Viggo (Aug 17, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > risc32 said:
> ...



Thanks a lot! Hope I get a chance to do some shots, I have to paint my house before the rain and cold sets in. But I'll post them either in "anything shot with 1dX" or the 200 gallery.


----------



## CHL (Aug 18, 2013)

Thank you all for your input. I have decided to keep the 35/1.4 - for now..... Or let's say that I have postponed the decision


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 18, 2013)

I would say that is one of the few primes it wouldn't replace since 35mm is where you might frequently make use of f/1.4.


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Aug 22, 2013)

The 24-70II I use often, the 35L I love.
Different kind of use and style.
I will keep mine.


----------



## Grumbaki (Aug 23, 2013)

The F difference is still pretty huge to me. Just for random reflexion, DoF at 5m is 1.7m at f1,4 vs 3.8 at f2.8. And that's just the math, the feeling is even stronger when I look at my pictures. Same for ISO. Yeah we can push it but should we?

To extend what alexander said the use, the feeling when shooting and the "creativity by self limitation" are also to take into account.

So +1 to the original post of Dylan, If you don't need the cash don't sell.

24-70+70-200 for efficiency, 35+85 for pleasure.


----------



## fyah5dmarkiii (Aug 23, 2013)

Viggo said:


> I sold my 24 f1.4 L II, my 35 and my 50 when I got the 2470 II, I have honestly not regretted it ONCE. Not once. The AF accuracy and IQ of the 2470 combined with "Always having the right focal" is just the winner for
> Me.
> 
> In combo with the 70-200 it's fantastic range with fantastic everything .
> ...



Indeed! 24-70ii and 70-200ii is a killer combo!


----------



## pwp (Aug 23, 2013)

CHL said:


> I have had the 24-70/2.8 II for a couple of months and I realise now that I have not used the 35/1.4 since. I was just about to put the 35/1.4 up for sale but I simply can not make up my mind....


Mine is sold, and so is the 24 f/1.4II and the Sigma 50 f/1.4. The new zoom is a total knock-out.

-PW


----------



## Murilo_mms (Sep 4, 2013)

Great thread.

I´m thinking to sell my 24-70mm 2.8II, because 50mm 1.2L and 135mm 2L always outperforms the 24-70 II. It is a great lens, but when you compare to 50L and 135L...

What do you prefer:

1) *24mm 2.8 IS* + *35mm 1.4 Art* + 50mm 1.2L + *85mm 1.8* + 135mm 2L

or

2) *24-70mm 2.8 II* + 50mm 1.2L + 135mm 2L


----------



## bholliman (Sep 4, 2013)

pwp said:


> CHL said:
> 
> 
> > I have had the 24-70/2.8 II for a couple of months and I realise now that I have not used the 35/1.4 since. I was just about to put the 35/1.4 up for sale but I simply can not make up my mind....
> ...



+1

I just sold my 35 1.4 (along with my 7D, 24-105 and some other equipment). I hardly used the 35 after receiving my 24-70 2.8 II. I still use my 50 1.4, as I prefer that focal length on a FF camera. The 50 is also useful with my EOS-M.


----------



## curtisnull (Sep 4, 2013)

I'm just realizing after reading this post that I haven't used my 24/1.4 or my 50/1.4 since I got the 24-70/2.8L IS II about 3 months ago. Maybe they will be coming up for sale sometime soon.


----------



## Nishi Drew (Sep 4, 2013)

What I have come to see is that prime users are envious towards the 24-70 users with all their versatility and weight saving. While I see zoom users that envy the prime users for the better image, and of course bokehliciousness of 1.4 and faster. Some girl that spent all she got on a 5D2 and the 24-70L II later wanted to get primes instead LOL, wish I could afford that lens though...


----------



## sandymandy (Sep 4, 2013)

No sense in getting primes if u dont want to use it wide open. Image quality (sharpness) is not a big difference anymore nowadays between zooms and primes.


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 4, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> I'm having the same experience with my f/2.8 II (and 70-200 f/2.8 II). Those lenses combined with my 5D MkIII have made my f/1.2, 1.4, and 2 (other than the 85 f/1.2 II) collect a lot of dust  I'm seriously considering selling my 24, 35, 50, and 135, which I couldn't even begin to imagine not too long ago.
> 
> Unless you're shooting events (i.e. very low light where you'd be at f/2.8, 1/60s, and ISO 6400+), sports (to stop motion), need _really _shallow DOF, or require lower distortion (only real weakness of the 24-70 f/2.8 II IMHO), the 24-70 f/2.8 II will be your best bet.


*I'd like to thank the OP for this one* - you and the people who replied made me realize how little I use my primes. I've decided to sell my 35 f/1.4, 50 f/1.2, 135 f/2, and 400 f/5.6 to fund a 300mm f/2.8. I would love the 200-400, but the price is insane, I have both mkIII teleconverters, and don't shoot in Africa or the desert...

I'm holding onto my 24 f/1.4 - it's my 'desert island' lens - my FAVORITE focal length, and my walkaround lens of lenses. The 24-70 II _may _kill it someday, too...but it hasn't yet...

I'm also keeping my 85 f/1.2. After buying it earlier this year, I realize that they hype around this lens is way understated. It's insanely good and killed the 50 f/1.2 off for me.

Just my personal two cents, many people prefer the 35 to the 24, 50 to the 85, etc., etc.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Sep 4, 2013)

How about this analogy:

Lenses really are only 'tools', and despite the usefulness of an adjustable spanner, there's no arguing with the superiority of a good set of (ring) spanners in fixed sizes. Interestingly, a good ring spanner is also kinder to the subject (nut) and yields less distortion of the corners 

Now if I look at my toolbox, that I built up over the years, I don't own a full set of spanners in all sizes, just only the sizes that I use most often. In other cases the adjustable will do 

Yes I just sold my 24-70 MkI. And I will get myself a 35mm f/1.4 instead to complement my 14, 20 and 50 mm primes. Oh, and my adjustable spanner is there too if I need it - the 24-105 f/4 L 8)

More interestingly, the money I got from selling my 24-70 found its wat to a set of winter tires for my car, also a dedicated tool as I prefer having a summer and winter set vs one set of 4-seasons.

So, for best results always remember to use the right tool for the job at hand ;D


----------



## sdsr (Sep 4, 2013)

Nishi Drew said:


> What I have come to see is that prime users are envious towards the 24-70 users with all their versatility and weight saving. While I see zoom users that envy the prime users for the better image, and of course bokehliciousness of 1.4 and faster. Some girl that spent all she got on a 5D2 and the 24-70L II later wanted to get primes instead LOL, wish I could afford that lens though...



I think I'm with that girl. I'm probably weird, but I don't find 24-70 zooms very appealing. They're nowhere near versatile enough in focal length for me (for versatility my 24-105 is more useful), and within their rather narrow range zooming with your feet makes as much sense. I would rather cover that range via a couple of light primes - a 28 IS or a 35 1.4 plus a 50 1.4, say - and save the zooms for lengths where foot-zooming isn't a good substitute: ultrawide and long. So I would likely be asking the question in reverse....


----------



## Viggo (Sep 4, 2013)

sdsr said:


> Nishi Drew said:
> 
> 
> > What I have come to see is that prime users are envious towards the 24-70 users with all their versatility and weight saving. While I see zoom users that envy the prime users for the better image, and of course bokehliciousness of 1.4 and faster. Some girl that spent all she got on a 5D2 and the 24-70L II later wanted to get primes instead LOL, wish I could afford that lens though...
> ...



Still, it's hard to change the perspective between 24 and 70 with your feet. I don't use the 2470 to get closer, I use it to set my perspective and then footzoom to the crop I want. Plus the AF of the 2470 kills every prime under 200mm.


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 5, 2013)

Viggo said:


> Still, it's hard to change the perspective between 24 and 70 with your feet. I don't use the 2470 to get closer, I use it to set my perspective and then footzoom to the crop I want. Plus the AF of the 2470 kills every prime under 200mm.


Exactly! Using a zoom to get closer is why zooms are lousy for beginners but great for experienced shooters who have learned how to use lens perspective.


----------



## Chosenbydestiny (Sep 5, 2013)

Viggo said:


> sdsr said:
> 
> 
> > Nishi Drew said:
> ...




+1 as much as I love primes, you're right about perspective. That's why I use one body with 24-70 and another body with a 135mm L prime. Sometimes I need to go wide and get some drama into the shot, zoom in and step forward for some normal shots. Can't switch fast enough during a performance to get the shots you need. Having a prime on a second body is nice for when you know it can do things a zoom cannot for creative DOF, higher shutter speed, and low light.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Sep 5, 2013)

+1 on perspective, and +1 on the 24-70 not being versatile enough. For bright days I'll take the 24-105, for low light I'll stick with primes


----------



## sdsr (Sep 5, 2013)

Viggo said:


> sdsr said:
> 
> 
> > I think I'm with that girl. I'm probably weird, but I don't find 24-70 zooms very appealing. They're nowhere near versatile enough in focal length for me (for versatility my 24-105 is more useful), and within their rather narrow range zooming with your feet makes as much sense. I would rather cover that range via a couple of light primes - a 28 IS or a 35 1.4 plus a 50 1.4, say - and save the zooms for lengths where foot-zooming isn't a good substitute: ultrawide and long. So I would likely be asking the question in reverse....
> ...



No, you can't change perspective by foot-zooming; that's why I suggested a couple of primes within that range, not one, and zooms for wider (which will go at least up to 24mm) and longer (which will usually start at 70mm). But the suggestion was for someone who shares my preferences: I was offering a, um, perspective, not a general recommendation (for all I know, no-one shares that particular preference of mine). I simply don't find the 24-70 range very useful most of the time. 

I have no doubt the 24-70 is as good as everyone says, but does its AF really "kill" the AF on the new IS primes? The AF on the 28mm IS I own and the 35mm IS I rented is/was impeccable and very fast, while my second copy of the old 50mm 1.4 (unlike the first one I bought) has been fast and accurate too along with having the obvious advantages of being a faster lens.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 5, 2013)

sdsr said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > sdsr said:
> ...



I have barley tried the 28 IS, but I have had every L prime from 14 to 300 and still consider the 2470
Mk2 to be absolutely spot on in a series of 12 fps with seriously difficult erratic behavior in a way non of those primes could keep up with at all, only matched by the 70200 mk2.


----------



## tron (Sep 5, 2013)

It's like comparing apples to oranges. Granted for 95% or even 99% the 24-70 2.8 II does the job but for the rest very few cases f/1.4 is absolutely necessary.


----------



## TM (Sep 7, 2013)

Interesting reading everyone's perspective. I initially owned the 24-70 f2.8 II, then decided I also wanted the 35mm/1.4 and the 24mm tilt-shift to achieve more unique looks. If I don't need the convenience of the zoom, I'm reaching for the primes. Love having options!


----------



## MLfan3 (Sep 8, 2013)

CHL said:


> I have had the 24-70/2.8 II for a couple of months and I realise now that I have not used the 35/1.4 since. Obviously an f1.4 can do things a f2.8 can't but is DOF really an issue for a wide lens? And I have the 5D MKIII so light/ISO is not that much of a problem either. I was just about to put the 35/1.4 up for sale but I simply can not make up my mind.... Opinions are more than welcome.



it really depends on how fast you want it to be , if you need f1.4 or even f1.8, then the zoom does not work for you.
I have the 24-70Lii and Zeiss 35mm f1.4 and I need both.
but for pure resolution , I don't think the prime is any better , maybe the new 24-70f2.8 markii beats it.
the new 24-70mm f2.8 is an amazing lens, and imho, it is one of the best zooms ever made , I rate it better than my 70-200f2.8Lii or Nikon AFS70-200f2.8VR2.


----------

