Replace my 24-70f/2.8L II with a faster 35f/1.4L II? Prime speed and IQ vs zoom versatility

Hi,

I shoot kids, family and friends indoors and outdoors. My family love to travel, documenting our trips is a big part om my hobby photography.

• I use a Canon 6D and 3 lenses:
• 50% usage 24-70f/2.8L II used at: First 35mm, secondly 24mm, thirdly 70mm.
• 40% usage 70-200f/4L IS used at: First 200mm, secondly 70mm, thirdly 85mm.
• 10% usage 16-35f/4L IS used at: First 16mm, secondly 20mm, thirdly 24mm.

I use my 24-70f/2.8L II a lot, often wide open and mostly at 35mm or longer for people photography. I often wish for a faster 35mm lens for stopping kids aktion, even better IQ, bokeh and for low light outdoors.

I have already decided to upgrade my 70-200f/4L IS to the faster 70-200f/2.8L IS II. As 35mm is my most used focal length, replacing my 24-70f/2.8L II with a faster 35mm is what I plan to do before our next trip to Amsterdam this fall.

1. To all here that own 35f/2 IS and 35f/1.4L II or have used both. Comparing image quality, resolution, contrast, ca, coma, rendering and bokeh. How do you rate 35f/2 IS vs 35f/1.4L II on FF used wide open?
2. If you also own or have used a 24-70f/2.8L II. How do 35f/2 IS and 35f/1.4L II compare to 24-70f/2.8L II used wide open at 35mm?

Best regards

did you do a search?

arty H wrote:

I don't have the 24-70F2.8II, but I do use primes and zooms. I like the 35F2IS for indoor, low light shooting. It works fine wide open, and is also versatile for general use. Recently, I have also been happy with the results I get from the 85F1.8 on full frame for tight portraits, street photos, and low light.

i use primes more than zooms, but I wouldn't get rid of the zoom. Zooms are useful when you know you will need a variety of focal lengths, as for travel and events outdoors. I like fast primes for low light. The two types of lenses compliment each other. When I am likely to bring a fast prime for indoors and a zoom when I know that I am doing most of my photos outside....and need a wide to narrow range of views.

Thanks Arty H,

Glad to hear 35f/2 IS works fine wide open. IS and one stop faster than my 24-70f/2.8L II. Perhaps this is the best lens to complement my 24-70f/2.8L II.

35+85 is a great combo for people photography. Is the EF 85f/1.8 also sharp on a 6D wide open? Some report CA on this lens used wide open, is this a problem in real life?

/Pierre

Tapeman wrote:

Zooms are clearly a better choice for travel, IMO.

Unless you are going to focus on photography while traveling and want to foot zoom and have your companion wait for you to putz around, then some primes may be advantageous.

Don't give up the zooms, add a prime if you like. The latest zooms are excellent and newer bodies allow decent high ISOs.

Thanks Tapeman,

Yes, zooms are great for travel, but they are also bigger and heavier. If I choose the 35f/1.4 II it is nearly as big and heavy as my 24-70f/2.8L II. I gain 2 stops and some more IQ at 35mm. If I choose the 35f/1.4 II I am not sure that I can justify keeping the 24-70f/2.8L II.

If I choose the 35f/2 IS I gain 1 stop, IS, half the size and more than half the weight. I can keep my 24-70f/2.8L II. But how often will I use the smaller and lighter 35mm lens for gaining only one stop and IS? Today, If I really need IS I use my 16-35f/4L IS or my 70-200f/4 IS.

/Pierre

Pierre from Sweden wrote:

Hi,

I shoot kids, family and friends indoors and outdoors. My family love to travel, documenting our trips is a big part om my hobby photography.

• I use a Canon 6D and 3 lenses:
• 50% usage 24-70f/2.8L II used at: First 35mm, secondly 24mm, thirdly 70mm.
• 40% usage 70-200f/4L IS used at: First 200mm, secondly 70mm, thirdly 85mm.
• 10% usage 16-35f/4L IS used at: First 16mm, secondly 20mm, thirdly 24mm.

I use my 24-70f/2.8L II a lot, often wide open and mostly at 35mm or longer for people photography. I often wish for a faster 35mm lens for stopping kids aktion, even better IQ, bokeh and for low light outdoors.

I have already decided to upgrade my 70-200f/4L IS to the faster 70-200f/2.8L IS II. As 35mm is my most used focal length, replacing my 24-70f/2.8L II with a faster 35mm is what I plan to do before our next trip to Amsterdam this fall.

1. To all here that own 35f/2 IS and 35f/1.4L II or have used both. Comparing image quality, resolution, contrast, ca, coma, rendering and bokeh. How do you rate 35f/2 IS vs 35f/1.4L II on FF used wide open?
2. If you also own or have used a 24-70f/2.8L II. How do 35f/2 IS and 35f/1.4L II compare to 24-70f/2.8L II used wide open at 35mm?

Best regards

I have a 24-105 f/4 L IS and a Sigma Art 35mm 1.4, not exactly the same lenses but I would argue that the same logic would apply.

35mm is one of my favorite focal lens and I find it perfect for documentary, family staff and general purpose. 1.4 aperture has its unique look and IMO the fundamental reason to go prime. IQ should not be the reason to go one way or the other imo, given the quality of the zooms nowadays.

In my last travels I carried the 35 prime and left the 24-105 at home. No regrets whatsoever. Ideally both would complement each other very well since there are occasion when the zoom is necessary. IF I had to chose only one I would pick the prime just because:

- I don't get money from photography hence if I miss a shot who cares

- 35mm 1.4 is a lot more fun to shoot with

- on the negative, you need to always carry at least two lenses (+85mm or 100mm). If you have a second body then the switch is less cumbersome.

Note: since you use your 70-200 mostly at 200mm I reckon you may want to consider the 100-400 ii.

Kaso wrote:

Pierre from Sweden wrote:

As 35mm is my most used focal length, replacing my 24-70f/2.8L II with a faster 35mm is what I plan to do before our next trip to Amsterdam this fall.

1. To all here that own 35f/2 IS and 35f/1.4L II or have used both. Comparing image quality, resolution, contrast, ca, coma, rendering and bokeh. How do you rate 35f/2 IS vs 35f/1.4L II on FF used wide open?
2. If you also own or have used a 24-70f/2.8L II. How do 35f/2 IS and 35f/1.4L II compare to 24-70f/2.8L II used wide open at 35mm?

35/1.4L II > 35/2 IS > 24-70/2.8L II @ 35 @ 2.8

The new 35/1.4L II is superb, a lens to own if you appreciate images at that angle of view and have the budget for it.

I had considered the 35/2 IS a hidden gem, and then got really impressed by the Sigma Art 35/1.4. (For convenience in certain contexts, I still mount my 35/2.) To those who can afford it (and don't mind the weight ), I readily recommend the 35/1.4L II.

FWIW, I believe an excellent prime -- in particular 35mm in this case -- steers one to the creative side by removing the flexibility of random choices. It takes guts to spend most of one's trip using a single prime lens.

Good luck!

Thanks, you are really spot on Kaso.

Hmm, you really got me thinking! I have used Hasselblad, Yashica, Contax, Leica but mostly Nikon and Canon for more than 40 years. Canon DSLR since 2004.

I really like my 24-70f/2.8L II but I do not like the size and weight. I miss shooting wide open at f/1.4 or f/2 for stoppning action, low light indoors, separation and bokeh.

I prefer not having to many lenses, quality always trumps quantity and to many choices only steals valuable time. My family and I have made several 3-5 weeks long trips with a single 35mm or 50mm and loved it but I prefer bringing 3 lenses: 21mm, 35mm and a 70-200f/4 IS.

My best experience I have had so far was on a 5 week family trip to Hawaii. I used a Leica M9P 21f/3.4, 35f/1.4, 50f/1.4 and Canon 20D + 70-200f/4L IS. This was near perfect.

Perhaps it is better to complement my Canon FF system like I did with my Leica+Canon but this time with a Fujifilm X-Pro 2 and 2-3 small and fast f/1.4 primes. No anti-aliasing filter is a big plus for IQ! I have never had a problem with aliasing on my Leica M9P.

FF vs APS-C Gives that I will get 1 stop less bokeh and 1 stop less usable high ISO. I will gain some DR. Well, well so many choices, nothing is perfect, but most things keeps getting better and better.

/Pierre

My 24-70mm lens is a Nikon 24-70/2.8G, and my 35/1.4 is a Nikkor 35/1.4G. One does not replace the other. Either one can be a wonderful choice, as the only lens for the day, or for a trip, but sometimes, "zooming with one's feet" is simply not practicable.

On the Canon side, I love my EF 35mm f/2 IS, a compact lens that is easy to carry on travels, which has already been mentioned in the above replies, for good reason. I do plan to add the EF 35mm f/1.4L II, eventually, but its size and mass mean it will not displace the smaller EF 35/2 IS, but complement it. The EF 35/2 IS is perfectly capable on my high-resolution 5Ds R, and its close-focus ability very useful. (I have used mine with my Macro Ringlite, for wide-angle close-range shots; the sharpness of very small details is amazing.)

ed rader wrote:

did you do a search?

Hello, yes many for many, many years now, I really never stop looking for new ever better digicams. I worked at IBM 1997-1999 when I made my first visit here at dpreview, it happend to be the very first days this site was up, then called photo.askey.net I was serching to upgrade to my second digicam.

And I have found many reviews here, at Fred Miranda, youtube and at other places, but none really comparing 35f/2IS vs 35Lf/1.4 II vs 24-70f/2.8L II.

Some of the many reviews I liked:

35 Days of 35mm: A Real World Canon 35mm f/2 IS USM Lens Review http://www.calebkeiter.com/canon-35mm-f2-is-usm-lens-review/

Best 35mm Canon Lens? The SLR Lounge Canon Lens Wars Series Episode 5

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRTahhDyAY4

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM lens review with samples (full frame and APS-C) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbWlacRVgWQ&list=PLtJIwPiOPe4VULfU7zp2xfj_c7nXp2Ath&index=44

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM Review - Canon's Hidden Gem

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sU2CGLEJOK0

35mm Shootout! Episode #2: Resolution

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cla1AETO7B8

/Pierre

ed rader wrote:

did you do a search?

Fresh discussion is a good thing. This is a discussion forum. I have enjoyed reading the reply posts, and enjoyed typing my other reply, that I posted a moment ago.

Plus, the OP asked about very specific lenses, but with very-common focal lengths, that would probably cause a search to yield too many hits.

Bluerio wrote:

Pierre from Sweden wrote:

Hi,

I shoot kids, family and friends indoors and outdoors. My family love to travel, documenting our trips is a big part om my hobby photography.

• I use a Canon 6D and 3 lenses:
• 50% usage 24-70f/2.8L II used at: First 35mm, secondly 24mm, thirdly 70mm.
• 40% usage 70-200f/4L IS used at: First 200mm, secondly 70mm, thirdly 85mm.
• 10% usage 16-35f/4L IS used at: First 16mm, secondly 20mm, thirdly 24mm.

I use my 24-70f/2.8L II a lot, often wide open and mostly at 35mm or longer for people photography. I often wish for a faster 35mm lens for stopping kids aktion, even better IQ, bokeh and for low light outdoors.

I have already decided to upgrade my 70-200f/4L IS to the faster 70-200f/2.8L IS II. As 35mm is my most used focal length, replacing my 24-70f/2.8L II with a faster 35mm is what I plan to do before our next trip to Amsterdam this fall.

1. To all here that own 35f/2 IS and 35f/1.4L II or have used both. Comparing image quality, resolution, contrast, ca, coma, rendering and bokeh. How do you rate 35f/2 IS vs 35f/1.4L II on FF used wide open?
2. If you also own or have used a 24-70f/2.8L II. How do 35f/2 IS and 35f/1.4L II compare to 24-70f/2.8L II used wide open at 35mm?

Best regards

I have a 24-105 f/4 L IS and a Sigma Art 35mm 1.4, not exactly the same lenses but I would argue that the same logic would apply.

35mm is one of my favorite focal lens and I find it perfect for documentary, family staff and general purpose. 1.4 aperture has its unique look and IMO the fundamental reason to go prime. IQ should not be the reason to go one way or the other imo, given the quality of the zooms nowadays.

In my last travels I carried the 35 prime and left the 24-105 at home. No regrets whatsoever. Ideally both would complement each other very well since there are occasion when the zoom is necessary. IF I had to chose only one I would pick the prime just because:

- I don't get money from photography hence if I miss a shot who cares

- 35mm 1.4 is a lot more fun to shoot with

- on the negative, you need to always carry at least two lenses (+85mm or 100mm). If you have a second body then the switch is less cumbersome.

Note: since you use your 70-200 mostly at 200mm I reckon you may want to consider the 100-400 ii.

Thanks Bluerio,

I agree with what you write, and yes the 100-400f/4.5-5.6L II is on my wishlist.

/Pierre

Pierre from Sweden wrote:

Hi,

I shoot kids, family and friends indoors and outdoors. My family love to travel, documenting our trips is a big part om my hobby photography.

• I use a Canon 6D and 3 lenses:
• 50% usage 24-70f/2.8L II used at: First 35mm, secondly 24mm, thirdly 70mm.
• 40% usage 70-200f/4L IS used at: First 200mm, secondly 70mm, thirdly 85mm.
• 10% usage 16-35f/4L IS used at: First 16mm, secondly 20mm, thirdly 24mm.

I use my 24-70f/2.8L II a lot, often wide open and mostly at 35mm or longer for people photography. I often wish for a faster 35mm lens for stopping kids aktion, even better IQ, bokeh and for low light outdoors.

I have already decided to upgrade my 70-200f/4L IS to the faster 70-200f/2.8L IS II. As 35mm is my most used focal length, replacing my 24-70f/2.8L II with a faster 35mm is what I plan to do before our next trip to Amsterdam this fall.

1. To all here that own 35f/2 IS and 35f/1.4L II or have used both. Comparing image quality, resolution, contrast, ca, coma, rendering and bokeh. How do you rate 35f/2 IS vs 35f/1.4L II on FF used wide open?
2. If you also own or have used a 24-70f/2.8L II. How do 35f/2 IS and 35f/1.4L II compare to 24-70f/2.8L II used wide open at 35mm?

Best regards

Another option: Keep the 24-70, upgrade your 70-200 to the f/2.8L IS II, and buy the 35mm f/1.4L II. This would mean selling your least used lens (16-35). Just my $0.02, but I rarely shoot wider than 24mm.

I can't compare the 35mm f/1.4L II to the f/2, since I've never used the f/2. However, I own the new f/1.4L II, and that has some next level quality! Awesome environmental portrait lens. The 24-70 is an amazing lens (as you know), and is probably the the most versitile lens I own. If I drive to the mountains with my kids, or into the city, I can take the 24-70 ONLY and get great images all day long. It is for the more specialty stuff (portraits, weddings, etc.) where the 35mm and 70-200 really shine (though the 24-70 is no slouch there either)! The only other lens I still want is the 50mm f/1.2L, and I'll be set!!

Thanks JerryriggedTECH, Phil and Ran.

For me the advantages complementing my zooms with a 35f/2 IS is that it is one stop faster, have IS, much lighter and much smaller than my 24-70f/2.8L II. From most user testimonials and many reviews the IQ is more or less the same at f/2.8 and at f/4 to f/8 the prime is even sharper than my excellent 24-70f/2.8L II. Sadly the 35f/2 IS have vert visible coma at f/2 and f/2.8 in the FF borders and corners. The 24-70f/2.8L II is near perfectly free from coma, it is pin sharp even wide open. The 24-70f/2.8L II also have better contrast wide open.

6D(770g) + 24-70f/2.8L II(805g) = 1575g

6D(770g) + 35f/2 IS(335g) = 1105g Thats 470g nearly 1/3 less.

The 35f/1.4 is not so small and it weighs 760g. This is nearly as much as my 24-70f/2.8L II and the current price for this prime 35mm Canon lens is IMHO exorbitant, way overpriced!

At less than half the price the Sigma 35f/1.4 Art is 99% as god optically. If Sigma can make the AF just a little more reliable, Canon will have to lower its price considerably.

Another solution is to complement my 6D and three excellent but also somewhat big and heavy Canon L zooms with a Fujifilm X-Pro2 or X-T2 and one smaller 35mm FF equivalent 23mm f/2,0 or f/1,4 lens.

Fujifilm X-Pro2 (496g) + 23f/2 (180g) = total only 676g

Fujifilm X-Pro2 (496g) + 23f/1.4 (300g) = total only 796g

This is very tempting for me, yes this is FF vs APS-C but also a lot smaller and half the total weight of my current 6D and 24-70f/2.8L II. I also love the direct manual controls with a traditional aperture ring on the lens, shutter and ISO on the Fujifilm cameras. With this setup I will get one stop more depth of field, a little less bokeh and lose one stop of usable ISO using a APS-C camera.

The X-Pro2 is like my Leica M9P but with AF. The X-T2 Is more like my old Canon F1 and many more film SLRs but digital and with AF. Why did Canon and Nikon stop making cameras like this? Why did they skip the vastly better, faster and simpler traditional manual controls on the cameras and the aperture ring on the lenses?

Other than size and weight, I am really happy with what I have today. I am only missing 35mm and 85mm really fast primes and some times i regret selling my 400f/5.6L and 135f/2L.

I have to think this over but for now I will keep what I have and put off any new investment in new canon lenses until I know more on the pros and cons of Fujifilm cameras and lenses. Winter is coming soon, days are quickly getting a lot shorter. Any new purchase is now on hold until the light returns next spring 5 months from now.

If anyone here use or have used Fujifilms newer X-T1, X-Pro2 and X-T2 cameras and fast prime lenses please share your experiences, how do they compare to Canon FF?

Is a combination of my current 6D and 1-2 L zooms + one small Fuji X-T2 camera and 3 small and fast primes a good solution?

Example of one possible combination: Canon 6D + 24-70f/2.8L II, 100-400f/4.5-5.6L IS II and Fujifilm X-T2 + 14f/2.8, 23f/1.4, 56f/1.2 (FF 21/35/85mm.)

Thanks to you all, for valuable inputs!

/Pierre