Which 35mm? Advice needed please...

Owenmorris wrote:

Thanks again for your reply.

Yeah....the 35 f2 is is definitely on my mind. I honestly don't think I can justify the expense of the 1.4 mk ii.

So the f2 is, might well satisfy my 35mm cravings.

My only possible concern is, that because I have a 24-70 mk ii.......will the difference from f2.8 to f2 be noticeable enough? I'm thinking not just in the amount of light entering (man....my technical terminology just gets worse)....but the shape/perspective thing (again, rotten terminology!).....One of the things I really liked when I was trying out the 1.4 mk i was the different (less flat) shape an image had when compared to using my 24-70 at 35mm (but obviously at 2.8).

Am I making any sense?

24-70 2.8 II is a fantastic lens! Interestingly I bought 35 f2 IS when I had 24-105 f/4 IS. At that time, I was not happy with sharpness I got from 24-105. So I thought of complementing it with a faster (aperture wise) lens like 35 f2 IS. Btw, 35 f2 IS also focuses very fast! Later at some point I bought 24-70 2.8 II. But you can tell 35 f2 IS is so good that I haven't yet sold it Here are some points to consider based on my experience with these two lenses.

24-70 2.8 II

-excellent zoom, very versatile, razor sharp especially for a zoom.

-accurate focus, fast focus, outstanding build quality, outstanding flare performance,

-consistent hit rate, shall give you a very high rate of keepers

-extremely ideal for events, weddings etc where accuracy matters and you don't have another chance!

-its heavy and not as inconspicuous as a lighter prime like 35 f2. this can make it not so appealing if you just want to carry camera and a lens for casual shooting and a walk some place

-does not have image stabilization so not ideal for video

-indeed very expensive though I think that price is really fine for the quality of this zoom

35 f2 IS

-super sharp, I think its tar sharper than 24-70, relatively lightweight, very good build quality probably on par with L lenses

-excellent IS and very handy for video

-f2 is really nice for low light and bokeh. agreed 1.4 and 1.2 lenses shall give you even more bokeh but bokeh from this lens has been very pleasing in my opinion and not that different from 1.4 lenses

-image quality from 35 f2 IS is a different class and each photo is unique and beautiful. IQ from sigma 35 f/1.4 is really really nice and sharp but does look a little clinical in the sense that you can tell hey this is the image from Sigma 35

-35 f2 IS has manual override whereby you can be in AF and yet use MF to override in the middle of your video. Sigma 35 does not have that. you either do AF or MF and in the middle of video you will have to stop and flip the switch and do manual focus if the need be.

-very likely you would pick this one over 24-70 for casual shoots

-excellent price compared to any other 35mm for the quality+features this lens offers

Having said all of this, yes, many will find keeping both redundant so its not like if you have one you are going to miss another. In terms of usability, versatility etc I guess 24-70 has more uses and offers almost similar image quality except the bokeh + video part that 35 f2 can do much better. What I mean is I have known a few folks who sold 35 f2 after they bought 24-70 because they found themselves not using 35 f2 as much. But each person is different. I find myself using 24-70 for events or so. But use 35 f2 exclusively for many casual occasions and totally enjoy its being lightweight and yet offering outstanding IQ not to mention IS with it.