35/1.4 vs. 24-70/2.8

Ok guys, tax return time.

<p>

So, I am stuck between buying a canon ef 35/1.4 or a 24-70/2.8.

<p>

I have the 24-85 as my best wide-angle lens and am looking to

upgrade. When looking at my prints from my 24-85, they are just

too "consumer"(lack of 'pop', mushiness wide open) looking when

compared to my primes.

<p>

I really like primes, and that is why the prime lens is in the

equation instead of the controversial canon vs sigma vs tamron vs

tokina posts that are all too common these days. But, I also do much

work which includes photojournalism, PR coverage for companies,

weddings, and PR for my campus events

<p>

I love the 35mm POV, it is my favourite perspective.

<p>

So, I am torn between a zoom -

<br>pros-

<br>.its ability to go to 24mm if necessary, then all the way to 70mm

<br>.uses the 77mm filters of my 70-200

<br>.circular aperature blades

<br>cons-

<br>.does extend while zooming, sucking in dust

<br>.2.8 max aperature

<p>

and a prime-

<br>pros-

<br>.sealed and durable package

<br>.max 1.4 aperature

<br>.prime lens L series optics!

<br>cons-

<br>.72mm filters

<br>.no zoom ability

<p>

So, my question that I am having trouble figuring out is, whether or

not that measly list of prime lens pros can outweigh the zoom? Are

prime lens optics worth more than circular aperature blades or zoom

ability? Does extending zoom design really hinder the 24-70 that much?

<p>

For those that have both, could you please give me your opinions on

the image quality of either when compared?

<p>

Which one is the logical choice? Get the best quality lens in my

favourite perspective? Or get a 'less than best' quality lens that

just happens to include my favourite perspective, along with a few

others?

<p>

Thoughs, opinions, donations?

You might want to check this recent thread.

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007s6Y

 

If you do, be sure to look at the discussion of the 35/1.4 on dpreview.

In my opinion,if you use film,a large aperture prime may worth it,otherwise there is little advantages.

 

I like to mount zoom on my 10D and scarcely change it.For film body I prefer primes.

 

Cheers

 

Jiayao

I sold the 35/1.4 and kept my 28-70/2.8, the 35/1.4 will not give the "POP" looking that you are looking for.

I met a guy last week who was carrying a 10D and a bag of very expensive L zooms. If he'd invested the same money in a 1Ds and a small collection of non L primes he'd be getting significantly better image quality. I've seen a few second hand 1Ds bodies offered for sale recently which makes the argument even stronger, 11MP would give you a lot more "pop" than any switch between optics. Once you've got expensive L lenses on your shopping list you're approaching the point where such calculations should be considered.

 

Incidentally, I use a 24-70L and a 35 1.4L, the 24-70 needs to closed down a stop or two before it really delivers, and if I was buying again I'd save weight and money with the 35 2.0 rather than the 1.4. A friend of mine uses the 35mm f2.0 and looking at his results it's clear that it gives nothing away to the 1.4 apart from that one stop.

I too was going to recommend the 35mm f2. All you need to beat a zoom 'L' is a prime, the 35/1.4 L would be overkill unless you need available light photography and the softer out-of-focus areas at f1.4. You would save enough money for a 20/2.8 if you want to be able to go a little wider than your zoom, or a 24 or 28 if you use those more often. You have the best consumer zoom in this range and I do not think you will see the improved look that you want with just another zoom even if it is an 'L'. Good luck!

Well, for the first couple of posts, I was dead convinced to get the zoom.

 

Now, that these last two posters have posted, I am really leaning toward the prime.

 

About how much did you have to close the 35/1.4 down before getting excellent results? I gather from your posts that the 24-70 gets good from 5.6-8, correct?

 

I would be using this on a film SLR.

Daniel, it's a generalization I know but good zooms are really very, very good when they're stopped down; however good primes are very, very good almost from the get go.

 

I haven't got direct comparison shots with the 35mm 1.4L and the 24-70L at the 35mm setting, but I can illustrate the general idea with these two 100% crops.

 

Firstly the highly regarded 70-200 2.8L IS at the 135mm setting, the camera's a IDs, tripod mounted, cable release etc. There's no additional sharpening, and the aperture's f5.6,<div></div>

Now here's the 135 f2.0L at f2.8, fully two stops wider,<div></div>

Not much in it despite the two stop difference. But if we go back to the 70-200 and open up to f2.8 here's the result. Incidentally to put it in context the finest letters in these shots are comprised of a typeface that's about 180 microns thick, that's roughly twice the thickness of a human hair.<div></div>

And here's the full frame, the 100% unsharpened crop is the red section.<div></div>

However, who cares about lenses once you read that Bloxwich hammered Willenhall 67-0. Photography's fun but rugby's even better!

Excellent examples! thank you.

 

I am probably going to wait until B&H reopens after the easter holiday, I am still really between the two. I think in the end, I will just end up flipping a coin, then buying the other one later if I am unhappy.

 

Thanks, Dan

>>If he'd invested the same money in a 1Ds and a small collection of non L primes he'd be getting significantly better image quality.<<

 

how so? The 1Ds wouldn't in fact really show the shortcomings of "inferior" lenses? That would be the same as using a higher resolution film with a lower resolution lens: how would that help?

Also remember the one factor REALLY appreciated by me when I compare a fast prime lens over a slower-apertured zoom: THE FASTER LENS GIVES A BRIGHTER VIEWFINDER!!!! And that is very helpful in low light or with a polarizing filter over your lens. A faster lens also gives a more contrasty viewfinder image (think about it....) than slower lenses.

I have a comment on the 35mm F/2. It's incredibly prone to flare from any light sources in the frame when shot wide open. (At least mine does.)

 

Personally, I think it depends on your shooting style. If you like existing light photography, then you can't beat the 35mm/F1.4. I also have the 28-70 2.8 (precursor to the 24-70) and have started just packing two primes (50 and 35) instead of the big zoom. The 28-70 is great, but I do find that I've been shooting a lot more existing light and the 2.8 just don't cut it.

"how so? The 1Ds wouldn't in fact really show the shortcomings of "inferior" lenses? That would be the same as using a higher resolution film with a lower resolution lens: how would that help?"

 

I wouldn't exactly say non-L primes are inferior to L zooms.

Don't ask which lens to buy! What you have to ask yourself is what are you going to photograph with it! Keen on low-light photography? You need a fast prime: 28 1.8, 35 1.4.

 

Keen on zoom flexibility? Then you need a zoom, period.

 

Keen on both? Then buy the two. It is really simple. For me, I can live without zooms on the wide-angle side, so I have a 24 and 35 primes. Then I have a 70-200 zoom.

Like many I lust for the 35/1.4 and 24/1.4. Like many, budget constrains drove me to the hands of the 24/2.8 and 35/2. Like many, in the optical department I lack nothing. Like very few, I miss the quickness and quietness of USM.

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.

Most of the time I stack medium warming and polarizing filters(losing ~3 stops), so a fast lens really would be useful.

 

I really want the zoom because of its flexibility, but I also really want the prime because of its low-light ability, and relative 'compactness'. Which are two directly competing principles!

 

At this moment, I am leaning towards the zoom, because of its zoom ability.

 

The only pro-shop in my area doesn't have the 35/1.4 in stock, so I can't really try it out. I have tried the 24-70 and like it.