canon 35mm 1.4 vs 24-70mm 2.8

Hi,I have a hard time deciding between the Canon 35mm 1.4 and Canon 24-70mm

2.8.I like the the 35mm for the speed and the 24-70mm for its versatility.I

think I will buy the 35mm since its faster and I try to minimize the use of

flash as much as possible.I mainly shoot weddings and group portraits.

What do you guys think based on your experience?

Thank you.

Ciprian.

I forgot to mention I shoot with a 5D.

I worked with a photographer who mostly used primes. she used a 28, 50 and 85 for most of

her shots on a 5D. she had a 70-200 2.8 as well. Her logic was you can use your feet to

zoom from 28-50 and so on so why bother with a short zoom. She did switch lenses often.

 

If you use very little flash as she did I say go the prime route.

Zero experience with weddings, but: the 24-70 will be *much* more versatile, very useful range on 5D. Still, the 35mm f1.4 is a wonderful lens. Get both? ;)

I would go with the zoom. In the short range of primes I would got with the 28/1.8 and/or the 24/1.4L.

Dunno - but why exactly a 35 mm ? It's not that wide-angle to cover group and nor does it give you a good portrait shot? Just wondering. What else you have (primes, i.e.). I'm just thinking, in case it's the group photo (weddings) maybe a less than 28 or around 28 will be better?

My two main lenses. I need both as they are very different tools.

Thank you guys,I'm gonna go with the 35 mm for two reasons-I shoot mostly wide open and just thinking at 1.4 brings a smile to my face,besides the 1.4 will allow me isolate the subject nicely(lots of people in the frame but only the one/ones that matter get the attention)

,secondly imo the zoom at 35 will never be as good as the prime (there is a nice 3d on a prime the zoom will never equal)that's is how I see it,other people might have different views on this.

I also red a ton of reviews on the "internets" and quite a few people who used the 24-70 abandoned it for the 35.

What I will miss by not having the 24-70mm is the size-people see the size of it and they think you know what you're doing(not always the case with me)..so I guess size does matter sometimes!

I also have the 17-40mm f/4,85mm 1.2,and 70-200mm 2.8 IS

Thank you again.

Ciprian.

"I also red a ton of reviews on the "internets" and quite a few people who used the 24-70 abandoned it for the 35."

 

I would venture to suggest that there are very few professional wedding protographers that either didn't have a 24-70/2.8, or didn't have that range covered with another zoom.

 

I'd suggest posting your question in the Wedding forum.

I have a 5D and for weddings the 24-70 is my most used lens. When I really need the low light ability I slip on the 50f1.4. I agree with the previous poster who said get the 24-70 now and when you can then get the 35L. Zooms are priceless for wedding work.

It's simple really.

 

1. 24-70 2.8 if you want a zoom

2. 35 1.4 & 85 1.8 if you want primes (35 alone is not enough for portraits)

Oh, didn't see you already have the 85 1.2. In that case yes the 35 1.4 with the 85 1.2 will be good. Just make sure to use 2 bodies.

 

Still the 24-70 is way more versatile. The 35 1.4 is sharper (but this only matters to pixel peepers), and 2 stops faster. But DOF control will be tricky. You should know form the 85 1.2.

I'd second Steve Crist: the 50mm f1.4 (or even 1.8) is a *much* cheaper, fast prime with decent sharpness (the 1.8 the sharper of the two).

 

The 35mm f1.4 is a high quality fast wide prime, I agree it's going to "bring a smile", but it's pricey and just not as veratile as the 24-70.

I use the 35mm 1.4 on a 5D (and EOS3). I can testify this combinaison yields remarkable

results, even at full aperture. I do mostly candid shots, so size and weight tilted the balance

towards the 35mm vs the 24/70mm.

On the other hand:

 

I'm going to be attending a wedding in about 6 months (as father of the groom, gulp). There is already a pro photographer engaged.

 

I was thinking what to bring myself, and with my 5D was thinking of the 35mm f1.4, as an alternative to my 24-70 (though I might *need* to keep the 24-70 near at hand, say in the trunk in the parking lot).

 

Or decidedly more compact and only one stop slower: the Canon 35mm f2.0, which I already have. Haven't decided. Especially for informal candids, maybe desaturated to black and white, it might be a fun alternative to the official photography.

 

Anyway, if you have two bodies, or two shooters, the 35mm f1.4 might work well.

`I would venture to suggest that there are very few professional wedding protographers that either didn't have a 24-70/2.8, or didn't have that range covered with another zoom.` (CS)

 

I agree: and covered with another zoom at that F2.8 aperture.

 

WW

Ciprian, what other lenses do you currently have?

I got the 35mm 1.4,I'll post some of the pictures up as soon as I get it.

Thank you all.

Ciprian.

I'm not sure if any of you are going to read this but I'll go on with it anyway.I got the 35mm 1.4 after all and I gotta say -OMG!- this lens rocks !It sharp wide open (1.4) the focusing is super fast and accurate and the quality of the images it brings in is just phenomenal.

Ciprian.

The 35mm f/1.4 is not a small lens. Useful for alot of things including portraits, candids and groups.

 

However with a zoom and the high ISO qualities of Canon 5D et al... it really comes doen to one lens that does all vs switching and swapping multiple lens.

 

I own the 35 and highly endorse it, but I'm doing more multiple off camera flashes, I'm leaning for trading it for the zoom.

 

Coming from Nikon and the 17-55 and 28-70 I see no big drawback in whatever you choose. After awhile it's a tool, and franklyte 50mm f/1.4 on a second body is a nice cheap option when I want thin DOF/candid/portraits.