Decision: Canon 35f/2 or 24-70/2.8

[munkey]

Hi all, just need some opinions from pros or those who have experienced similar situations. Well basically im using a Canon 40d with a 35f/2 and i love it, for its compactness and its ability to produce such stunning images. Recently I had shot at a wedding with a 10-22 and a 85 1.8, managed to get some decent shots although i feel that i definitely need the range, which leads me to the 24-70, which is a stunner no doubt, just a little costly and heavy.

Now the issue is that I am confundled as the 35 will overlap this range, so either I will have to sell it to replace with the 24-70 for its usability, or stick to the 35 for its fun but lose out the range. Anyone with similar experiences? 35 1.4 also do share!

[Mystix]

Originally Posted by munkey Hi all, just need some opinions from pros or those who have experienced similar situations. Well basically im using a Canon 40d with a 35f/2 and i love it, for its compactness and its ability to produce such stunning images. Recently I had shot at a wedding with a 10-22 and a 85 1.8, managed to get some decent shots although i feel that i definitely need the range, which leads me to the 24-70, which is a stunner no doubt, just a little costly and heavy. Now the issue is that I am confundled as the 35 will overlap this range, so either I will have to sell it to replace with the 24-70 for its usability, or stick to the 35 for its fun but lose out the range. Anyone with similar experiences? 35 1.4 also do share!

y not just keep the 35mm?
Its a good walkaround lens for bodies with crop factor. I don't think u wanna lug around the 24-70 all the time do u?

[munkey]

Yar Ive covered 10-22, and 70-200, so the 24-70 would fit in just nicely, but i'll either replace my 35/f2 with a 24-70 or a 35L/1.4. Does anyone here own either of these lenses and share their usability? Thankss.

[antonioshabirto]

get the 24-70.....at all time the best compared to 35mmf2

[spartacus.ret]

the 35/2 is very compact, and i suspect that you'll miss its portability as compared to the hefty 24-70L.

[antonioshabirto]

Originally Posted by spartacus.ret the 35/2 is very compact, and i suspect that you'll miss its portability as compared to the hefty 24-70L.

I rather get a 35f1.4

[Kit]

Originally Posted by munkey Hi all, just need some opinions from pros or those who have experienced similar situations. Well basically im using a Canon 40d with a 35f/2 and i love it, for its compactness and its ability to produce such stunning images. Recently I had shot at a wedding with a 10-22 and a 85 1.8, managed to get some decent shots although i feel that i definitely need the range, which leads me to the 24-70, which is a stunner no doubt, just a little costly and heavy. Now the issue is that I am confundled as the 35 will overlap this range, so either I will have to sell it to replace with the 24-70 for its usability, or stick to the 35 for its fun but lose out the range. Anyone with similar experiences? 35 1.4 also do share!

Its for you to answer the question really. Is the 35 hindering you in any way? You want compactness and versatility? Get the 24-70 and keep the 35. You said you like the 35 f2 for its compactness and you're looking at the 35 f1.4?? Its a straight forward situation but somehow, it became complex. Just assess your shooting habits and decide on the lens to keep.

[Garion]

Both have their uses. I would second Kit's suggestion. The compactness and lightness of the 35/2 is what makes it great...especially for times when u wanna be discreet. If u sell, you might regret your choice later on.

[munkey]

Ok here's a possibility i have deliberated with myself. I'll most probably keep the 35/f2 since its so cheap (relatively) and get the 24-70 for its usability and the range. What I would like to know is the diff between the 35/2 and the 35L, IQ wise. Will the photos/bokeh/whatever will be considerately better on the 35L? or will the difference be negligable ie. 85/1.8 and 85L for comparisons sake?

Questions.. choices.. no answers!

[myloplex]

Originally Posted by munkey Ok here's a possibility i have deliberated with myself. I'll most probably keep the 35/f2 since its so cheap (relatively) and get the 24-70 for its usability and the range. What I would like to know is the diff between the 35/2 and the 35L, IQ wise. Will the photos/bokeh/whatever will be considerately better on the 35L? or will the difference be negligable ie. 85/1.8 and 85L for comparisons sake? Questions.. choices.. no answers!

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=10821018

[Prince]

24-70 would be a better choice!

If weight and IS is a problem, get the 24-105. But, 24-105 and 24-70 are not substitutes to each other though.

[spartacus.ret]

Originally Posted by munkey What I would like to know is the diff between the 35/2 and the 35L, IQ wise. Will the photos/bokeh/whatever will be considerately better on the 35L? or will the difference be negligable ie. 85/1.8 and 85L for comparisons sake?

i upgraded from the 35/2 to the 35L, and the 35L is so much more of a lens than the 35/2. the 35/2's AFD motor is not only loud, but is okay in normal conditions, and horribly slow and unusable in low light. the poor focusing was one of the main reasons that pushed me to upgrade. and the larger f/1.4 aperture is brilliant too for low light. since i've upgraded, i can use the 35L for really dim conditions (outdoors with only street lights) that i know would never be possible with the 35/2 due to both is poor focusing and slower aperture.

however, if you're using it in good light, or studio work, the 35/2 is still a good performing lens. i guess it depends on your application for the lens

[spartacus.ret]

oh yeah, don't forget the sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX HSM too. it is a cost effective alternative to the 35L for aps-c cameras (and to some extent, aps-h too). this too is another lens that beats the 35/2 at IQ. watch out for focusing issues though (a easily fixable problem if you have the new 50D/5D II).

here's a comparison:
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/image/62468514/original

[spartacus.ret]

here, found an old review which i used:
http://www.pbase.com/gummiebear/cano...14_vs_35mm_f20

[calebk]

Originally Posted by antonioshabirto I rather get a 35f1.4

We did talk about the compactness aspect of the 35 f/2 before...remember? That's one of the pull-factors of the f/2 version.

Originally Posted by spartacus.ret the 35/2 is very compact, and i suspect that you'll miss its portability as compared to the hefty 24-70L.

[antonioshabirto]

Originally Posted by calebk We did talk about the compactness aspect of the 35 f/2 before...remember? That's one of the pull-factors of the f/2 version.

yes ur rite, we did discuss these before in my thread, TS might not visit my thread though.

Well however, my preference is still f1.4.....