# Should I sell 35L f/1.4 to get 24-70II?



## Briand (Sep 14, 2012)

I am mostly doing weddings and engagement sessions and usually just use 70-200 2.8II on 5D3 and I use 35L on 5D2. I am on the fence about selling 35 to buy the new 24-70? I am not in love with having to be spot on to get perfect sharp image with 35 with aperature below 3.2 when doing a pressure shoot like a wedding. I know these lens are different beasts, but wondering if anyone who has experience with both lens can tell me why I should make the switch.

Beside the obvious more reach or the 35 have ability for lower aperature below 2.8.


----------



## kennykodak (Sep 14, 2012)

just received my 24-70 II, amazing. it will be at a wedding tomorrow.


----------



## LostArk (Sep 14, 2012)

Unequivocally, yes. The 35mm is so close to 50mm in fov that I don't see the point in a 35mm prime costing 13x more. 24-70 is a much better choice.


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 14, 2012)

LostArk said:


> Unequivocally, yes. The 35mm is so close to 50mm in fov that I don't see the point in a 35mm prime costing 13x more. 24-70 is a much better choice.



You are wise beyond your years.


----------



## chabotc (Sep 14, 2012)

I'd say go for the 24-70 II if you usually work in decently lit venues - the 5Dmk2 is just not the low light monster the mk3 is, so you'll notice missing that bit of extra light.


----------



## papa-razzi (Sep 14, 2012)

Another vote for selling the 35 f/1.4 for the new 24-70 f/2.8 II
So much more versatility. You could always pick up a 50 f/1.4 in case you got in a situation requiring the wider aperture.


----------



## Briand (Sep 14, 2012)

Papa-razzi excellent point!


----------



## drjlo (Sep 15, 2012)

Briand said:


> I am not in love with having to be spot on to get perfect sharp image with 35 with aperature below 3.2 when doing a pressure shoot like a wedding.



Hmm, I've never felt I needed to be "spot on" to get 35L to produce sharp images, even at much wider than f/3.2. Maybe it's the 5D MkII AF issue? I used to feel similar pressure with 85L at f/1.2 to f/1.4, but it got much easier after I bought 5D MkIII and its AF. Have you tried the 35L much on your 5D III instead of II, especially with using the double cross-type AF points?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 15, 2012)

I love my 35mm L on my 5D MK II, as well as my other cameras. I seems to be the right focal length for much of my uses.
However, if you do not use faster than f/2.8, and the extra cost is not a big deal, the 24-70mm f/2.8 sounds supurb. I'm glad it is, I might even get one after haveing five of the version 1 lenses that did not impress me.


----------



## dirtcastle (Sep 15, 2012)

This is a great question. And I would say it is very similar to the following question:

"If you can have only ONE lens in the "standard" range, what would it be?"

Obviously, the answer needs to be matched to sensor size. 

For me, the answers comes down to bokeh and night shooting. With a 5D3, both of these lenses are capable of getting a proper exposure in almost any circumstance. But the minimum DOF of an f/2.8 simply doesn't come close to an f/1.4.

I've been considering a 35mm f/1.4 L, but I'll definitely be curious to see just how soft it is at f/1.4. Hopefully this 24-70mm will cause people to dump their 35s and lower the price!


----------



## glb2012 (Sep 15, 2012)

> Hmm, I've never felt I needed to be "spot on" to get 35L to produce sharp images, even at much wider than f/3.2. Maybe it's the 5D MkII AF issue? I used to feel similar pressure with 85L at f/1.2 to f/1.4, but it got much easier after I bought 5D MkIII and its AF. Have you tried the 35L much on your 5D III instead of II, especially with using the double cross-type AF points?




I've never had problems with the 35L on my 5D2 (it's one of my favorites actually). I shoot it at f/1.4 to f/2.0 (f/1.6 most of the time...it's very sharp). When I need to AF I use the centre point. But most of the cases I shoot MF (with EG-S focus screen). Maybe you are trying to focus and recompose ?

If you want to frame your subject of centre, I recommend you to MF on the 35L. (I have much less problems focus and recomposing with my Siggy 85mm f/1.4 than with the L prime...35mm is "too wide", you will have to move too much and that will throw your focus way off).

PS: In good light the outer AF points of the 5D2 is OK, but I usually use the centre point or go manual focus.
Cheers


----------



## photogaz (Sep 15, 2012)

No way!

What is it with everyone saying yes? I bought my 35L not because I wanted to shoot in low light but because I adore the photography you can get with a shallow depth of field.

Yes the 24-70 II will offer you great versatility, but you can't touch the 35L for the depth of field. They are two completely different lenses. If a lens offered 24-200 f5.6 and sharp does that mean I should ditch my other lenses? No!

You may not like shooting below 3.2 but what about the shots where you get time to position people and retake?


----------



## TeenTog (Sep 15, 2012)

I agree with papa razzi. You should definatley sell the 35 and get the 24-70 II, but it may be necessary to get the 50mm f/1.4 or even the f/1.8 for those low light wedding situaitions when you absolutley need the f/1.4. However,the 5D III and its lowlight capabilities may be perfect with the f/2.8......... you just need to decide what you need.


----------



## Caleb Luke (Sep 16, 2012)

I received my 24-70 II yesterday, and honestly I don't think I would give up my 35L for it. Granted, the only other zoom lens I have is the 70-200 2.8L II so I am admittedly partial to primes. Anyhow, I brought my 1DX with only the 24-70 II on my wife and I's wedding anniversary and I can't say I'm as thrilled with it as I thought I would be. Perhaps I was a bit too hyped up over what I read on the internet. I think a lot of it is that I've never even used the original 24-70, so I have nothing to base it off of. I certainly don't think it delivers the IQ and sharpness of my 70-200 though....

Great versatility is a big plus, which is huge in wedding photography no doubt.


----------



## clicstudio (Sep 16, 2012)

Yes yes yes! 
I just had the last for one day, but it took me five minutes to realize it is the best lens ever. I have had a 24-70 2.8 L for the past six years. It was the only lens I had. I didn't need anything else. I just do studio and outdoors modeling photos, and this lens was always perfectly versatile for me... Until today. 
I was expecting a little improvement over the old one, but I was actually blown away.
This really is the best zoom Canon is ever made. It is so sharp and so fast that It will never leave your camera. 
The better news is that I found it to be about 10% brighter than the old lens. That means you won't have to pump up your ISO too high. I believe it is almost 2 stops brighter. It actually feels like an F2.0 lens. 
I guess the new glass let's more light into the sensor and it is probably engineered specifically for the new full frame cameras like the 5D III and 1D X. 
I know the price is a little steep, but if you can afford it, I assure you you will not be disappointed. It is worth every dollar. 
Check out my two posts on the forum. There is a comparison between the old and the new lenses. You will be very impressed. 
Good luck


----------



## Jotho (Sep 16, 2012)

photogaz said:


> No way!
> 
> What is it with everyone saying yes? I bought my 35L not because I wanted to shoot in low light but because I adore the photography you can get with a shallow depth of field.
> 
> ...


I gotta agree with you. I love my 35 on my 5D3, although I am the first to admit that I have yet to fully explore its potential. I still mostly bring the 24-105. But if my business depended on having a broader zoom range then I don't know. I guess it depends on the exact needs.

Is that the only option for the OP?


----------



## sheedoe (Sep 16, 2012)

Haven't used the 24-70mm II yet, but here's what I can tell you. The only time I will sell my 35mm 1.4 is when its replaced by the mark II. I absolutely love that lens!


----------



## clicstudio (Sep 16, 2012)

I have never shot a wedding but I assume that a fixed lens will limit your mobility. 
In a studio you can control the "zoom" of a prime lens by moving back and forth. 
How can you do that in a place full of people? The
35mm is either too short or too tight. Composing shots must be difficult if you can't or are not allowed to move around. A zoom lens let's you move in and out from a static
Position. I think it Makes more sense...
Forgive my ignorance on the subject. I know nothing about wedding photography. I just think a
Zoom has the advantage. 
Cheers
Pat


----------



## ecka (Sep 16, 2012)

clicstudio said:


> Yes yes yes!
> I just had the last for one day, but it took me five minutes to realize it is the best lens ever. I have had a 24-70 2.8 L for the past six years. It was the only lens I had. I didn't need anything else. I just do studio and outdoors modeling photos, and this lens was always perfectly versatile for me... Until today.
> I was expecting a little improvement over the old one, but I was actually blown away.
> This really is the best zoom Canon is ever made. It is so sharp and so fast that It will never leave your camera.
> ...



Do you realize that 10% is not even close to 2 stops? . 2 Stops is like 400%, that means 4 times brighter.

The new 24-70L2 must be an excellent lens, no doubt. However, it is incomparable with 35L. If you don't need f/1.4-2.5 aperture then don't buy it (sell it). It's that simple. What's the point of using f/1.4 prime only at f/3.2+ apertures. My 40STM can do pretty much the same thing and it is 7 times cheaper than 35L.


----------



## faif (Sep 16, 2012)

I got the 24-70 L II on thursday here in Germany and tested it today against my Canon 85L, the new Tamron 24-70 with IS and the Canon 35L.

The 24-70 L II is sharper than any of that lenses at f/2,8. Only the bokeh of the 35L and 85L at f/2,8 looks for me nicer (especially at f1,4 / f1,2 of course, but also at f/2,8).

But consider that the 35L costs only about the half of the Canon 24-70 L II and the 24-70 L II is sharper, but not that much, that I would pay 1.000 € for this little more sharpness in comparsion. On the other side the Tamron costs also 1.000 € less than the 24-70 L II, but is only sharp in the center at f/2,8 and very unsharp in the corners. This is so extremely that I am willed pay 1.000 € more for that 24-70 L II.

The value of 35L for me is the low-light-capability im combination with my 5D3. But since today I love also the new 24-70 L II and will sell my Tamron as soon as possible.

Frank


----------



## brianleighty (Sep 16, 2012)

TeenTog said:


> I agree with papa razzi. You should definatley sell the 35 and get the 24-70 II, but it may be necessary to get the 50mm f/1.4 or even the f/1.8 for those low light wedding situaitions when you absolutley need the f/1.4. However,the 5D III and its lowlight capabilities may be perfect with the f/2.8......... you just need to decide what you need.



Really? I guess it's just me but I find the 50 1.8 to be a good lens for the price but trying to use that as alternative to the 35 1.4 is a bit crazy in my head. Take a look at some charts and you'll immediately see these lenses, or for that matter any of Canon's 50mm lenses, are no where near what you can get with the 35 1.4. Not only is it sharper but I wouldn't trust just having the 50 1.8 as my low light lens for a wedding. Perhaps something else that it doesn't matter if you miss focus but a wedding. People pay good money for a reason, they expect you to be able to get the shot.

Now regarding whether to get the zoom or not, everybody so far seems to have only good things to say about it. Here's my thought though. Unless you really NEED the lens right now you're much better off waiting. The 5D mark iii launched only like six months ago at $3500. I just saw it the other day from Adorama for $2750. With these products, I think Canon realizes there is a pent up demand and that people are willing to pay the high prices to be first to get it. If you're willing to wait, at the very least they'll be having rebates on it and most likely a combination of that and a slight reduction in price could easily save $200-$400. That's just my thought. One alternative that would be much cheaper is to keep the 35 and get a 24-105 instead. Sure it's not quite as sharp but if you look at Roger's numbers from the comments section of his post on the new lenses resolution you'll see it's not that bad (835 / 820). This would give IS as the wide end which is great for a shots of the venue or anything else that's not moving. Plus add more reach at the long end. This lens has been out for a while so you're paying the premium that users of the new lens are. Sure it might not give you euphoric high of getting to play with the latest and greatest, but I think it would serve you well. I routinely see it for $800 and that's about what it's going for used as well so if you find you don't like it after 6 months to a year, then sell it and perhaps the 35 and go buy the 24 70. Chances are you'll have a better idea of what you're looking for as well after you've had a chance to try image stabilization on the wide end.

[CORRECTION]
WHOOPS just looked at your signature. You already have the 24 105. My bad. In that case my same logic remains of waiting. But of course it's your money and your equipment.


----------

