Do I need a Canon 35mm f/1.4L II USM

Hello folks, I have the Canon 24-70 f.2.8 ii and i'm considering buying the new Canon 35mm f/1.4L II but I'm thinking that it might be enough to have the Canon 24-70 f.2.8 ii as it covers the 35mm but without the f1.4.

I need your advice, does it will make a huge different for me to have the 35mm 1.4 ?

Thanks

Yousef Abuaisheh wrote:

Hello folks, I have the Canon 24-70 f.2.8 ii and i'm considering buying the new Canon 35mm f/1.4L II but I'm thinking that it might be enough to have the Canon 24-70 f.2.8 ii as it covers the 35mm but without the f1.4.

I need your advice, does it will make a huge different for me to have the 35mm 1.4 ?

Thanks

Yes, try renting one. But for me f/1.4 in low light is no use if I really want to use f/8. Surely the money would be better spent on a focal length your gear doesn't already cover?  85mm f/1.8 or 70 - 200 f/4, both excellent lenses.

I went through this same decision-making process, in 2016, but with the Nikon system. I added a 35/1.4G, even though I had a 24-70/2.8G ED. I found it useful to have both lenses, because f/1.4 can be helpful in very low light. The 24-70/2.8G ED had very fast-acting AF, so remained the better choice, in most circumstances, until Hurricane Harvey drowned my 24-70, so my Nikkor 35/1.4G was “promoted.”

There is a fundamental difference, however, in that the Nikkor 35/1.4G is not very sharp until about f/4, whereas the Canon 35/1.4L II does not have that problem. Plus, the Canon seems to auto-focus at a noticeably faster speed than its Nikkor counterpart. These lenses may be counterparts, but they are not equals.

During the recent Canon USA “rebate” sale, I was wondering whether to buy the EF 24-70/2.8L II, or the EF 35/1.4L II. I decided to buy the EF 35/1.4L II. I would like to add the 24-70/2.8L II, as soon as practicable, but may prioritize a faster telephoto lens, as North America’s Spring Migration is nearing.

Yousef Abuaisheh wrote:

Hello folks, I have the Canon 24-70 f.2.8 ii and i'm considering buying the new Canon 35mm f/1.4L II but I'm thinking that it might be enough to have the Canon 24-70 f.2.8 ii as it covers the 35mm but without the f1.4.

I need your advice, does it will make a huge different for me to have the 35mm 1.4 ?

Thanks

Whether you need it or not is tough to say, but the difference between f1.4 and f2.8 is a significant one.   Using a 35mm wide open at f1.4 gives a different look that an f2.8 zoom doesn't do.  But, if you don't want or need that look, then the 24-70 f2.8 is great and extremely sharp!

How often do you actually find yourself shooting around that focal length and really needing faster than f/2.8?

When I had bought the 35/1.4 II I stopped using the 24-70/2.8 II , so I sold a year later. I noticed that I shot around 35mm with the 24-70 most of the time anyway. The bokeh and sharpness of the 35/1.4 are really special. If you shoot available light and you are shooting around 35mm with your 24-70 you can't go wrong with the 35/1.4. Like me, you may end up selling your 24-70

Yousef Abuaisheh wrote:

Hello folks, I have the Canon 24-70 f.2.8 ii and i'm considering buying the new Canon 35mm f/1.4L II but I'm thinking that it might be enough to have the Canon 24-70 f.2.8 ii as it covers the 35mm but without the f1.4.

I need your advice, does it will make a huge different for me to have the 35mm 1.4 ?

Thanks

Do you want to shoot handheld or action in extreme low light? That is the central question. I'm a photojournalist and don't feel an overriding desire for this lens with modern sensor technology, but your needs may be different. I far prefer the flexibility of the 24-70 f/2.8L II.

Me too since buying the 35ii I hardly ever use the 24-70ii.

now thinking of selling the 72isii and going completely back to primes.

Yousef Abuaisheh wrote:

Hello folks, I have the Canon 24-70 f.2.8 ii and i'm considering buying the new Canon 35mm f/1.4L II but I'm thinking that it might be enough to have the Canon 24-70 f.2.8 ii as it covers the 35mm but without the f1.4.

I need your advice, does it will make a huge different for me to have the 35mm 1.4 ?

Thanks

I have both and I will just say this- there are a few specific reason why you by a 35mm ii, and if you're just thinking of FL, then I'd recommend staying with the 24-70mm ii.

Yousef Abuaisheh wrote:

Hello folks, I have the Canon 24-70 f.2.8 ii and i'm considering buying the new Canon 35mm f/1.4L II but I'm thinking that it might be enough to have the Canon 24-70 f.2.8 ii as it covers the 35mm but without the f1.4.

I need your advice, does it will make a huge different for me to have the 35mm 1.4 ?

Thanks

I do mostly music photography and use this lens exclusively in small venues with poor lighting , I's my go to !

It really depends on your intended use. I love my 35 II, it's a amazing lens. The more I use it the better I like it. The 24-70 is a stellar lens but it's only 2.8. (I know I said only)

That sounds fast but 1.4 is a whole different world. What it allows me to do that I can't do with the 2.8. I can take indoor candid family photos without a flash, at concerts I get a whole different view at 35mm, and even for indoor basketball I've been able to get some really nice shots up close. Shooting between 1.4 and 2.0 in a dim lit gym lowers my ISO levels down from 6400 to around 2000-2500. You just cant do that with a 2.8 lens.

This lens has prompted me to maybe add the new 85 1.4 to my collection. I love the 1.4.

Casey

You need it.  Pretty much every since shooting with fast Primes (1.4), ive almost never gone back to zooms.   2.8 to 1.4 is pretty massive, especially in low light action. Also as others have said, the subject isolation is unparalleled.

Yousef Abuaisheh wrote:

Hello folks, I have the Canon 24-70 f.2.8 ii and i'm considering buying the new Canon 35mm f/1.4L II but I'm thinking that it might be enough to have the Canon 24-70 f.2.8 ii as it covers the 35mm but without the f1.4.

I need your advice, does it will make a huge different for me to have the 35mm 1.4 ?

Thanks

No one knows the answer, because no one knows what you photograph, or how.

It's like asking, "Do I need a hat?" It depends on the situation.

Yake wrote:

Yousef Abuaisheh wrote:

Hello folks, I have the Canon 24-70 f.2.8 ii and i'm considering buying the new Canon 35mm f/1.4L II but I'm thinking that it might be enough to have the Canon 24-70 f.2.8 ii as it covers the 35mm but without the f1.4.

I need your advice, does it will make a huge different for me to have the 35mm 1.4 ?

Thanks

No one knows the answer, because no one knows what you photograph, or how.

It's like asking, "Do I need a hat?" It depends on the situation.

To share the metaphor. "Everyone needs a hat". I currently own the older 35L but I use it with my 24-70mm f/2.8L II in a similar way that I use a 135mm f/2L with my 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS. Having a fast prime to use along a holy trinity zoom is very natural IMHO. You get 1-2 stops of extra light and the ability literally focus on composing your special images in a more structured and deliberate fashion.

Steve W