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

flatpicknut wrote:

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!

Yes ... but... what is the objective, what type of images are you looking to shoot?

Landscapes - great lens.

Portraits - better choices out there (85 - 135mm focal length)

Wildlife - pick a different lens.

ikolbyi wrote:

flatpicknut wrote:

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!

Yes ... but... what is the objective, what type of images are you looking to shoot?

The OP said he loves the 35mm focal length but wants an L lens. The new 16-35 is a sweet lens and would give him the 35mm fl, too. I still think a longer fl would be a better complement to his kit, but it's up to him of course. So many options (and so much fun trying to spend somebody else's money, lol).

Landscapes - great lens.

Portraits - better choices out there (85 - 135mm focal length)

Wildlife - pick a different lens.

flatpicknut wrote:

The OP said he loves the 35mm focal length but wants an L lens. The new 16-35 is a sweet lens and would give him the 35mm fl, too. I still think a longer fl would be a better complement to his kit, but it's up to him of course. So many options (and so much fun trying to spend somebody else's money, lol).

Landscapes - great lens.

Portraits - better choices out there (85 - 135mm focal length)

Wildlife - pick a different lens.

Loving a focal lenght is one thing.  Having the correct focal length is another.

I love my Sigma 300mm prime but if I used that to shoot Landscapes I believe I would have a few choice words from most of you about that.

Can I use 300mm prime to shoot landscapes .... yes I could.  Is it the best lens for that task, probably not.

- exactly......

1Dx4me wrote:

flatpicknut wrote:

ikolbyi wrote:

flatpicknut wrote:

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!

Yes ... but... what is the objective, what type of images are you looking to shoot?

The OP said he loves the 35mm focal length but wants an L lens. The new 16-35 is a sweet lens and would give him the 35mm fl, too. I still think a longer fl would be a better complement to his kit, but it's up to him of course. So many options (and so much fun trying to spend somebody else's money, lol).

Landscapes - great lens.

Portraits - better choices out there (85 - 135mm focal length)

Wildlife - pick a different lens.

LOL...yeah...that just about covers it...people give all kind of crazy advice to novices because they know it won't be money out of their pocket one will have to be insane to look for well thought out and sound advice in this insane asylum

Ah, I don't agree with that at all. I only give advice that I think is honest and fair and I think that is a pretty consistent attitude with most other contributors. There are a lot of possible products out there and sometimes it's good for prospective buyers to think of other options before spending their hard earned money. I do enjoy helping people spend their money, but I would never want to cause somebody to waste their money.

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?

The 24-70 would be the best choice for versatility shooting people. If you like the only-one-eyeball-in-focus look, the f/1.2 would be the way to go instead.

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?

The flexibility, sharpness and resistance to flare makes the 24-70 f/2.8L II a no brainer for me. Unless you have some overriding reason to use a faster lens, this would be my choice every time.

Jura S wrote:

My sharpest lens is Sigma 50-100/1.8 which has a very annoying habit without any rational excuse to miss the focus when you really need it.

Second sharpest is 200/2.8II which is just a little bit sharper than 70-200/2.8II.

100L is way behind (wide open) and focuses much slower than all the above.

Jura - what camera body are you using?  Correct me if I am wrong but the Sigma 50-100 is an EF-S mount APSC lens only.  The OP is using a FF 6DM2 body requiring EF mount.

The Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 and f/4 version seem to be one of Canon's best lenses ever manufactured - very highly regarded.  The 100mm is an older design much like the 135mm but hold their own and loved by their owners.

I keep asking over and over, what will this lens by the OP be used for primarily?   The OP keeps talking about 35mm and I keep wondering are they taking landscapes a lot?   Using 35mm for portraits is possible but your subjects will not have those dreamy images you typically see with the 85 - 135mm lengths.   And as a "walk around lens", the 24-70mm zoom is the lord of all lenses in that category.

The answer to this question really comes down to - what will be the primary role of this lens?

A fast prime will give you a much wider range of photographic options. You will be able to shoot stunning narrow-DOF pictures. You can shoot more hours every single day - adding hours to your shooting time morning/evening. Shoot without using a flash for those baby-portaits, bar and dinner shots. You can squeeze more details out of a stills shot.

I think everyone should have a least one. Even if its the el-cheapo 50mm f/1.8. Fast primes adds so much more you can do with light - the most critical element in photography.

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?

Just my thoughts

I have the 24-70 f/2.8 mkii, but much prefer the 24-70 f/4 IS. for me having IS gets me shots i cant get with my f/2.8. I love the f/2.8, but find the f/4 much more versatile. Its also a lot cheaper. Hand held shooting at 1/5, macro and IQ almost as good as the f/2.8 (and you have to pixel peep to see the difference most of the time)

I know the call of the 24-70 f/2.8 is a strong one, but i feel a lot of people buy it because of what it is and its rep. It really doesn't get much better than this lens, as long as the features are what you need, but i say weigh up what you need it for.

I would also point out the 50mm f/1.2 might be a let down coming from the 50mm f/1.8 STM, at least in IQ. I really wanted this lens, and already have the 50mm STM. Both copies ive tired over the past year were great, and of course have a look that you cant get with the STM lens, but i wasn't blown away with the IQ over the STM. If IQ is the main reason for getting it make sure you try it first.