If only owning 1 L lens, which one: 35mm 1.4 ii, 24-70 2.8 ii, or 50mm 1.2?

I re-entered FF DSLR world with 6D2 and 24-105 STM and 50mm 1.8 STM.  I wanted to keep my initial lens investment small, and with those 2 lenses I can actually shoot anything I want/need.  I'm a hobbyist and primarily shoot people.

I've always wanted to add 1 high quality L lens to the lineup, and just one, due to cost and wanting to avoid GAS.  So the 3 I am choosing from is the 35mm, 24-70 f/2.8, or 50mm.  I have used the 24-70 before so aware of it's quality, have not used the other 2 before.

IF I was only limited to carrying 1 lens, then the 35mm focal length is the one I prefer and most versatile.  But if I have any kind of zoom available, I prefer a 50mm.  So it's a tough choice, I could see any 1 of these 3 getting a lot of use from me.

So, if I could only have 1 of the 3, which would be the best choice?

Och Elo wrote:

I re-entered FF DSLR world with 6D2 and 24-105 STM and 50mm 1.8 STM. I wanted to keep my initial lens investment small, and with those 2 lenses I can actually shoot anything I want/need. I'm a hobbyist and primarily shoot people.

I've always wanted to add 1 high quality L lens to the lineup, and just one, due to cost and wanting to avoid GAS. So the 3 I am choosing from is the 35mm, 24-70 f/2.8, or 50mm. I have used the 24-70 before so aware of it's quality, have not used the other 2 before.

IF I was only limited to carrying 1 lens, then the 35mm focal length is the one I prefer and most versatile. But if I have any kind of zoom available, I prefer a 50mm. So it's a tough choice, I could see any 1 of these 3 getting a lot of use from me.

So, if I could only have 1 of the 3, which would be the best choice?

So tough to say because they are all different.   If you get one of the primes, will you keep the 24-105 stm?

The 35mm f1.4L II seems to be an absolute stunner in performance.   In sheer image quality, it's the best of the three.

If you want a really good all-in-one lens, then the 24-70 f2.8L ii is the way I would go.

If you like primes and like the 35mm focal length (I personally do and I think it's the easiest focal length to just put on your camera as a prime and keep it on for awhile), then the 35 is amazing.

Between these three, the 50mm has the worst IQ and I personally wouldn't choose it, but some like it.

Och Elo wrote:

I re-entered FF DSLR world with 6D2 and 24-105 STM and 50mm 1.8 STM. I wanted to keep my initial lens investment small, and with those 2 lenses I can actually shoot anything I want/need. I'm a hobbyist and primarily shoot people.

I've always wanted to add 1 high quality L lens to the lineup, and just one, due to cost and wanting to avoid GAS. So the 3 I am choosing from is the 35mm, 24-70 f/2.8, or 50mm. I have used the 24-70 before so aware of it's quality, have not used the other 2 before.

IF I was only limited to carrying 1 lens, then the 35mm focal length is the one I prefer and most versatile. But if I have any kind of zoom available, I prefer a 50mm. So it's a tough choice, I could see any 1 of these 3 getting a lot of use from me.

So, if I could only have 1 of the 3, which would be the best choice?

Sell the 24-105 STM and get a 24-70 II instead. Shoot for a while with the 24-70 and 50 1.8 and see if you'd rather be shooting with a prime or a zoom. If you decide on zoom, you already have the best one in the form of your 24-70. If you decide on prime, get the 35 1.4 II (or the 85 1.4L IS, depending on whether you shoot wide or telephoto more). For me, I'd always pick the 24-70 as my first choice especially if it's a case where I get to carry only one lens. If I got the option of a second one, I'd probably pick the 85 1.4 for tighter portraits, given how everything else is covered by 24-70, and 35 is a bit too wide for tighter shots.

50 1.2 is a big no-no for me because of two reasons - extreme focus hunting/missed focus, and lack of sharpness. I'm getting a 35 1.4 II to replace my 50 1.2 because that extra fraction stop of light is not worth the missed shots and lack of sharpness. And from what I've seen on YouTube, the shallowness of the DoF is next to none between 1.4 and 1.2. The dreamy quality of the bokeh on the 1.2L is a different story altogether and changes things if that's what you're into.

I'm a hobbyist and primarily shoot people as well, and the 24-70 almost never comes off my camera. Never got used to the lack of zooming capability and how it made me miss a lot of candid shots. I find that 2.8 provides a nice balance of shallow DoF and ease of focusing when using AF. With f1.4, I'd probably have to ensure placing the focus point on the eye to get perfect focus, whereas with f2.8 anywhere on the face is perfectly fine. And the 24-70 focuses almost instantaneously, which is also amazing for shooting candids.

Hope this helps.

IQ - 35mm f1.4 L II (Vignettes. But nothing comes closer to its optical performance)

IQ + Versatility - 24-70mm f2.8L II

If I only had one choice it would be the 24-70 II. But you already own a 24-105, so for me. I would go with the 35 L 1.4 II.

I have the 25-105 IS F4 and its a great walk around lens (daylight). I just purchased the 35 L and it’s an amazing lens. I’m finding more uses for it than I originally thought. I can’t believe how sharp it is at 1.4!

Just go for it....

casey

Och Elo wrote:

I re-entered FF DSLR world with 6D2 and 24-105 STM and 50mm 1.8 STM. I wanted to keep my initial lens investment small, and with those 2 lenses I can actually shoot anything I want/need. I'm a hobbyist and primarily shoot people.

I've always wanted to add 1 high quality L lens to the lineup, and just one, due to cost and wanting to avoid GAS. So the 3 I am choosing from is the 35mm, 24-70 f/2.8, or 50mm. I have used the 24-70 before so aware of it's quality, have not used the other 2 before.

IF I was only limited to carrying 1 lens, then the 35mm focal length is the one I prefer and most versatile. But if I have any kind of zoom available, I prefer a 50mm. So it's a tough choice, I could see any 1 of these 3 getting a lot of use from me.

So, if I could only have 1 of the 3, which would be the best choice?

I'd rate them this way:

1) 24-70 f/2.8L II.  Near prime performance, with the flexibility of a standard zoom range.

2) 35mm f/1.4L II. Beautiful lens, surprisingly versitile (awesome for street, portrait, landscapes, etc.), shoots in near darkness, short minimum focus distance for details.

3) 50mm f/1.2L.  Controversial lens... not sharp, but produces some of the most beautiful images I've ever seen (look at flickr or other photo sites and search for the 50 1.2). Awesome for portraits.

I would hate to do it... but if I had to get rid of all lenses but one, the 24-70 would be the one I keep.

BAK wrote:

I can't see a benefit

If you already have a 24 -105, I don't see any benefit to a 35mm lens or a big, slightly faster, f 1.2 50mm lens.

You cant see a benefit from having f4 to f1.4 or f1.2??  Three plus stops of extra light and dof control is a pretty big deal.  I can’t imagine how you can’t see that benefit...

I love my 24-70 f/2.8L II. 24mm on a full frame is nicely wide, 70 mm lets me blur backgrounds for decent separation, and f/2.8 handles most of the low-light situations I'm in. Your 24-105, though, is actually more flexible with its longer reach, but at some loss of sharpness and low-light performance. Only you can decide which works better for you (and since you're considering the 24-70, it sounds like you might not be satisfied with the 24-105?).

It would be hard to argue against the 35mm, based on what you said.

You say you like the 35mm range and mostly shoot people - how about a different option, something like the 135mm f/2.0L or the new 85mm f/1.4L IS (or similar lenses in the Tamron and Sigma families)? Unless you're only shooting groups, I would think that any of these longer lenses would be an exciting addition for your kit. (Speaking of Tamron, for the price of the Canon 35mm 1.4 ii, you could buy the Tamron 85 mm f/1.8 AND 35mm f/1.8, both with IS and weather resistance and get both a good 35mm lens as well as a good portrait lens.)

Do you take portraits? I don't see a lens that excels in portraits on you list. Such as 85mm (minimum) or 100mm (preferred).

What focal length do you shoot the most from and why?  Do you prefer landscapes, portraits, sports, wildlife, etc...?

Jura S wrote:

Or buy second hand 85/1.8 or 100/2.0. That can cure some GAS if that's the point.

I do not own these lens but every review out there claim the results are so good Canon should place an L on them.

casey1823 wrote:

If I only had one choice it would be the 24-70 II. But you already own a 24-105, so for me. I would go with the 35 L 1.4 II.

I have the 25-105 IS F4 and its a great walk around lens (daylight). I just purchased the 35 L and it’s an amazing lens. I’m finding more uses for it than I originally thought. I can’t believe how sharp it is at 1.4!

Just go for it....

casey

But what is the OP shooting at (and why) they feel the need for a better 35mm over their existing 24-104mm?

Example: I own the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS and used it to shoot portraits between the distances of 80 - 100mm, but was never satisfied with the results because the bokeh was bland. So I bought the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 simply to take better portraits.

What is the OP reason for wanting a 35mm, why is the OP disliking about the 24-104mm at 35mm?

You made no mention of what you normally shoot. I'm not a big of zoom lenses but prefer fast primes, so I own and recommend the 50L. The images below were all shot with the 50L. I've recently added a 24LII and it's been a lot of to work with. The one zoom in my bag is a 70-200/2.8 which should be a staple in any professionals kit.

I just received an email with the 35 mm L on sale for $1449 from BH. They also have a deal on the 16-35l.

MLK04 wrote:

I just received an email with the 35 mm L on sale for $1449 from BH. They also have a deal on the 16-35l.

Ah, the 16-35 f/2.8L III would be a nice addition!